Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Cameron Crowe

  • Crowe's article's well written, comprehensive, has a concise lead section, proper headings, and images where appropriate. RomeoVoid 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It definitely needs a lot more sources and a lot more details. I.e. one sentence on Elizabethtown - there was a lot written at the time about the film's reception by critics, etc. Same thing for Vanilla Sky or any other film that just has one sentence or so on it. Mad Jack 18:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • You should be able to get a GA (Good Article) status, though :) Mad Jack 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object images need fair use rationales Jaranda wat's sup 21:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose images need fair use rationales, articles needs refereces, those references need to be inline, there needs to be some piece of criticism that is mentioned, and the lead really needs a NPOV overlook ("Crowe has made his mark with character-driven, personal films that have been generally hailed as refreshingly original and void of cynicism.") Staxringold talkcontribs 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Any article that reaches FA status is going to need a lot more than 8 sources. --PresN 03:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World of Warcraft

A thorough and well written article on a very popular game. I believe it fufills all the requirements of a featured article. No major problems as far as I can tell, but then again I've never nominated an article before so I may be wrong. RyGuy17 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Contains a number of one-sentence paragraphs, and has many section without inline references. Some sections are not written in an encyclopedic tone. Should be sent to Peer review, and then re-nominated. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object this articles has some issues that needs to be fixed
  1. images need fair use rationale
  2. Very little on criticism of the game
  3. Several sections, especially the Major world events part reads very uncyclopedic
  4. Needs much more refs, and several of the refs come from the World of Warcraft Community Site page, which is not an valid source
  5. Many one sentence paragraphs

Jaranda wat's sup 00:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. It is long enough and well written Deananoby2 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Please fix the following:
  1. Subjective statement in lead: "Featuring a low learning curve, easy level advancement,"
  2. Unsourced weasel words in lead: "The game is widely regarded as a success"
  3. The first paragraphy of the body does not need to include detailed contents of the collector's box (e.g. "A cloth map of Azeroth.")
  4. Cite sources for statistics like "The game sold more than 240,000 copies in its first 24 hours on the market, more than any other PC game in history" and "As of March 2006, World of Warcraft has more than 6,000,000 players worldwide."
  5. Avoid unencylopedic tone as in statements like "As is common with the launch of an MMORPG, World of Warcraft had its share of problems at first," and "And, as with any game, it has its own language or terminology." Starting a sentence with a conjunction is not ideal either.
  6. Statements like"Due to World of Warcrafts high sales it has been described as a "runaway success" with "overwhelming popularity"", even if footnoted, should tell us who is saying these things in the body of the text.

That should be enough for a little while. MarkBuckles 07:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object: Good information present, but its presentation is lacking in many ways:
  1. The tone is simply not conducive to an encyclopedic presentation throughout
  2. Critical analysis is a bit lacking (I realize that there's a daughter article specifically for that, but it's an important aspect of an article, so you should include more of it)
  3. Far too few references, especially where important sales figures are concerned
  4. Don't bold things like "Blizzard also stated that at any given time at least 500,000 subscribers are online". The objective is to provide readers information about the subject, not to suggest to them some parts are more important than others with things that the eye can't help but be drawn to. Usually only the primary term in an article requires bolding
  5. The lead-in to the Major world events section is good, but I'm not so sure that going into that much detail on every one of them is. Perhaps a daughter article could be made on the subject and then you could just provide a brief overview of them here if you felt it necessary to offer some details on them (but do it in a single paragraph, if possible). I just think this section is going a bit far beyond what an uninitiated reader would be interested in, and would, in fact, be a little daunting to them. I do applaud the way the sections above transition the reader into the terms being used (such as "professions" and "realms"), but the inclusion of all this detail is a bit sudden and probably would leave most people feeling a bit out of their element
  6. Images definitely need to be summarized better and need some fair-use rationale. For some examples of an effective way to include that, see Final Fantasy X's images
  7. Do we have any development info? Information from the creators on how they got the idea, how they went about implementing it, why they chose to do things a certain way? The closest the article comes to really offering any is in the Deviation from the MMORPG archetype and Major world events sections. As far as it goes, the latter only presents the impression — but not the declaration with reference — that fans who felt Warcraft was too static prompted Blizzard to try giving it a more dynamic angle. Development info is really valuable, so if you can get some of that, it would be great
  8. Overall, try to remember that the target audience for an article like this is the people who are entirely unfamiliar with Warcraft
I think that you should try to address all of these issues we've brought up here, then take it to Peer Review to iron out any other major-to-minor issues that might be present, and then give it another shot at FA. You've got some good information here in a lot of places, but a lot of it's not presented properly, not properly sourced or just doesn't consider the uninitiated reader as well as it should. Good luck with the future of the article. Ryu Kaze 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Póvoa de Varzim

  • self-nom. with the help of Yomangani. I am re-submitting this article for FA consideration. changes: a second peer-review. Subarticles (economy of... culture of... etc.) New people pictures. It now has sub-articles (namelly parishes and districts). Featured article in the Portuguese language wikipedia for some time. It is "complete" and already used as reference by some. I Hope you like it. --Pedro 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

  • "In the coastal plain, a Roman villa was constructed, the property of a Roman family - the Euracini who mixed with the Castro people who returned to live on the plain - Villa Euracini probably developed in this way." Unclear meaning after the first hyphen (which should be a dash anyway).
  • I question our ability to accept Image:Lota da Povoa de Varzim em 1960 3.jpg and Image:Lanchapoveira.jpg under free-use licenses. They both seem to be derivative works of illustrations made too recently to be public domain. Andrew Levine 23:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • thanks for your cleaning. As for illustrations:
  • Those are azulejos, meaning they are street decorations and are seen as a craft. It is more or less like you painting your house's exterior walls. People instead of painting preferred to lay azulejos.
  • In this case, I photographed a wall. In fact, that is the harbour's north wall. Those azulejos were placed in there by the City Council. Each square is an individual peace and most of these azulejos (there are many more in that wall) are old pictures that were "transformed" into azulejos. Some pieces are removed and painted again because they are too near the beach. As far as I know, those are not eligible to be copyrighted, like Portuguese pavement. Pictures that I took are not PD, but have a commons licence.
  • But I would prefer a real picture of the boat that the city hall has to make the article more "alive". I'll see if I can get it and other old pictures to a commons licence, not PD.--Pedro 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • When I said "made too recently to be public domain" I was referring to the illustrations, not the photographs. Portuguese pavement is not an artistic work. The wall illustrations are. It would be as if I took a faithful photo of a painting that was copyrighted (say The Persistence of Memory) and tried to release it under a commons license. Andrew Levine 08:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That's not the same thing, Andrew. See the pictures of the pt:Azulejo article to understand what this kind of art/craft really are and for what they are for. Although I'm not a lawyer, I doubt that they have copyright throw a photo as there are no grounds to make a law about that, azulejos are tiles and can not be put on the net or in emule, but only on a wall, a house (in the kitchen, bathroom or outside). those pictures came from a wall like this: Image:Palacio_Queluz_Corredor_Mangas1.JPG --Pedro 11:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Question. Pedro, why is this article a GA nominee and a FAC at the same time? --enano (Talk) 16:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    • it is for weeks at GAC. There are no legal issues regarding that also. lol. let's discuss the article instead of that.-Pedro 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, no problem with me. --enano (Talk) 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The article is now a GA. And I've changed the pictures Andrew Levine talked about to better ones. BTW, noone has an opinion?! :S -Pedro 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
      • support per nom.--Pedro 12:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connie Mack Stadium

I think that Connie Mack Stadium is a great article. --South Philly 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Is not comprehensive, is not fully sourced, and suffers from an overlong infobox. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Whoa. Waaaay too short. Not specifically sourced - just contains a bibliography. Prose is a little un-Wiki-ish in places. Not really FA material at all just now. Seb Patrick 10:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Objectditto Rlevse 21:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battery electric vehicle

This was put up for peer review on July 3rd, in hopes that it might be a Main Page FA by July 21, when Who Killed the Electric Car? opens in theatres, but getting up to FA quality and incorporating all the peer review recommendations took longer than the several editors who have since been trying to improve it to FA status expected. Anyway, it's pretty much there now, and the movie opens tomorrow, so at least there's that. LossIsNotMore 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Well written and comprehensive article. My one concern is that the puts the Horsepower of the Venturi Fetish at 300hp, but the article for that automobile states that its output is 245hp.--Thud495 14:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: 300 hp is correct.[1] AnAccount2 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Although the article appears well referenced, there are large sections with no references, and there are some prose problems (Most people do not require fast recharging because they have enough time (6 to 8 hours) during the work day or overnight to refuel. ) Can someone check the images? I suggest a second look after the article has been thoroughly copy edited by a fresh set of eyes, and completely referenced. Good start !Sandy 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: all of the images have been checked, and it has had a copyedit of every single section over the past three weeks (compare to pre-peer review version.) AnAccount2 14:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: 2a. Striking object; well done. Tony 06:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Thud495, have you read the article? Let's take a look at the opening.
A battery electric vehicle (BEV) is an electric vehicle storing chemical energy in rechargeable battery packs to power one or more electric motors.
BEVs were among the earliest automobiles, and are more energy efficient than common internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. They produce no pollution while being driven, and almost none at all if charged from most forms of renewable energy.
  • Single-sentence paragraph undesirable.
Fixed; thanks.
  • "Storing" should be "that stores".
fixed; thanks
  • "Energy efficient" should probably be hyphenated, even in AmEng (pipe it if the link requires).
fixed; thanks.
  • Isn't "common" redundant?
No, ICEs are common now but there was a time in the past when they were not and they might not be in the future.
  • "internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles" is an ungainly quadruple group, worsened by the abbreviation in the middle.
fixed; thanks.
  • Tell me, do they produce pollution when they're not being driven?
Yes, if the batteries leak or are disposed of improberly (as mentioned in the environmental impact section)
  • "at all" is redundant.
fixed; thanks.
  • "Most" - so there are some forms of renewable energy that do pollute?
Yes, biomass for example is renewable put produces large amounts of CO2. 64.175.85.206 20:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The density of problems here exemplifies the whole text. Please find someone who's unfamiliar with the text to go through it thoroughly. Way below standard. Tony 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Some of these specific criticism are incorrect. Energy efficient does not need to be hyphenated, some forms of renewable energy do pollute, I would argue that commom is not redundant (redundant with what?, nothing else mentions popularity), that fact that it is an ungainly term is why an abbreviation is introduced although "internal combustion engine vehicles (ICE vehicles)" may be clearer. Rmhermen 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
or simply internal combustion vehicles? Pedant 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right: thanks for the explanations. Tony 07:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: all of these objections have been addressed; more similar are welcome, although more substantial problems are more welcome. 64.175.85.206 20:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
"The density of problems here exemplifies the whole text." Fixing those specific examples isn't enough: the entire text needs a thorough copyedit, and thorough referencing. Sandy 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - controversy section should be all prose, claims should have cites, like this
The three major US automobile manufacturers, General Motors, Chrysler Corporation and Ford Motor Company have been accused of deliberately sabotaging their own BEV efforts through several methods: failing to market, failing to produce appropriate vehicles, failing to satisfy demand, and using lease-only programs with prohibitions against end of lease purchase. By whom?
Production annonucements and prototypes is messy, should prototypes even be there since wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Quotes should not be in italics, per MoS. There are also a couple of fair use images that don't add much, esp Image:DynastyEVSedan.jpg which causes a big white space above the table. The sentence on Replacing doesn't seem to warrant an entire section.
--Peta 04:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Working on it. I've got Inkscape but am having font troubles. Will you settle for a PNG? AnAccount2 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've copy-edited the lead and history sections. While one or two changes related to personal preference, most did not. Can you find someone to spruce up the remainder? Tony 10:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I will try. I've already printed it and gone at it with a pencil per your suggestions, but, well, it clearly didn't get me enough strategic distance. AnAccount2 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Potentially good article, needs attention.
  1. Very underreferenced. min 1 per paragraph.
    Gasp! Is this really a crierion? This would take it from 20 to about 80 refs! Todays featured article only has 39 references for 52 paragraphs.
    Citations for contentious facts are a criterion as far as I'm aware. If you start using this style of referencing:- <ref name="reference source1> reference descriptions, dates, authors, etc. </ref> then you end up with a list at the end only as long as the number of sources you have used but with a b c d e f g h i j etc. next to them - much more space efficient. --Mcginnly | Natter 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Too many red links
    Would it be better to unlink them if they can't be created? I'm pretty sure this isn't an actual criterion, either; is it? But I will try to stub them.
    If they are notable stub them, if not, remove the link.--Mcginnly | Natter 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. I think Hybrid vehicles should be mentioned in the lead to disambiguate the article.
    I completely agree and will do so right away.
    Don't over do it - the lead should set out what is in this article, not what is in another article - It just needs to make sure the reader isn't led into reading this article, thinking it's about hybrid vehicles.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. I can't claim to know much about the subject matter, but the article general reads as a eulogy to BEV's without sufficient balance or counter arguments as to why these vehicles aren't on every road. eg. in the 'cost' comparison to internal combustion engines, the running costs are compared but not the initial costs of the vehicles. I am left none the wiser as to which type of vehicle costs the most other than a vague 'depends on the cost of the batteries' statement. Perhaps some comparative examples would help. so weak object on this point. I acknowledge that there is a section at the end of the article which attempts to deal with proponent and detractor issues, but my bias criticisms exist in the body of the rest of the article.
    The detractor issues are also summarized in the intro, but the exciting fact is that recent battery technology improvements (delveloped for laptops and cellphones, mostly) have completely changed the landscape in this respect. I suppose that should be in the intro, too, as well as the Batteries section if it isn't already.
    Sorry mate, but even your response sounds POV. If there's a source saying this technology will revolutionise mass transport then great, but even that will need to be noted as conjecture (regardless of how exciting the prospect might be). --Mcginnly | Natter 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. The lead states:- Some models are still in limited production, but the most popular BEVs have been withdrawn and most of those have been destroyed by their manufacturers. I'm intrigued by this and want to know more and why. A brief look at the TOC doesn't immediately indicated where this information might be found, so I read the history, which ends in the 1960's. The next section is then about a number of models which are in production followed by a table which mentions the destruction, but not the reason. So I'm now really confused. I need these questions answering:- 1. Why was it that the most popular models were withdrawn. 2. Why were they detroyed by their manufacturers (artistic outburst? guilt? bribery by petroleum companies?). I finally find the answers in the controversy section at the bottom of the article after numerous references to the destruction of vehicles. Whilst suspense might be a good writing style for novels, I'm not sure an encylopedia is where you should be practising it.
    Well, it has been something of a mystery, and there aren't many good references, because the big automakers have been caught lying about whether the cars were actually destroyed, so the actual answers are actually more complex. I agree this should be expanded and put in up front.
  6. There's still quite a bit of prose that requires attention. The former group points, among other issues, to:-??? It does make sense after a thorough reading of the preceding paragraph (also not too hot), but I think a clearer prose style would help.
    I completely agree and will get right on that

--Mcginnly | Natter 13:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful comments. AnAccount2 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Mitigate Global warming. 2 problems here, firstly choice of the word mitigation - it has a sense which can mean "to lessen the severity" so this becomes ambiguous. secondly reading the global warming article it does caveat that the 'prevailing scientific opinion' is that xyz contributes to the warming. I'd skirt the controversy and focus on the low carbon emissions and imply the link to global warming rather than explicitly state it.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object images are either inaccurately tagged or poor candidates for fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Australian Football League premiers

This article contains the entire list of VFL/AFL premiers, with scores of Grand Finals, Venues and attendences. It also has a tally of the Premiers and thier last Grand Final apperence and Premiership to show readers when the team last reached the grand stage of the AFL Grand Final.AFL45 10:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Allen3. And why are the years and decades in blue? Please delink them, except for piped links that focus on the topic. Tony 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Wouldn't that be an object? Sandy 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The featured article candidates page is not an appropriate location for this nomination. Perhaps you wanted wikipedia:featured list candidates? Raul654 02:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ohio Wesleyan University

Self-nom. A few dedicated editors have vastly improved this article. It is better referenced than any other educational institution that I could find on Wikipedia. There have been 3 peer reviews, and it is currently a GA. WikiprojectOWU 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment OK, as an Alumn, I have a few questions:
    • "in the school's PhD creation rate" Has OWU started offering PhD's in the past 15 years or are you referring to students who go on to earn PhD's elsewhere? When I was a student, OWU didn't offer any graduate programs. If this is the later, then you need to clarify that.
    • "In the athletics world, the Battling Bishops" This is the first reference to the Battling Bishops and there is no indication that the Battling Bishop is our school Mascott. I'd love to see a picture included here.
      • Battling Bishops occurs in the infobox in the beginning of the article. Do you think it will help if the term is reintroduced after that? Will it be not be redundant?WikiprojectOWU 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Personally I would include in the intro... people may not read or notice the info box... I didn't. If it is mentioned in the article, then IMHO it should explained in the article.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I see your point but I think this one is a matter of Wikipedia convention. WikiprojectOWU 05:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • [72][73][74][75] I was advised in my peer reviews to condence multiple back to back references... I don't know if this is standard, but just throwing my two cents out there.
      • These references are provided as a result of past discussions among various users to back statements on a multifaceted criteria. The discussions appear on the Talk page of the article.WikiprojectOWU 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't know what the wikistandard is, so I'll defer to others and accept the above.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • GLCA agreement---I'd like to see GLCA spelled out the first time it is used. EDIT: Just saw that it was, but the acronym wasn't used when the term was used, thus people wouldn't associate GLCA with Great Lakes College Association.
      • Fixed. This was a great suggestion! WikiprojectOWU 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Over the past decade there has been a building boom within Ohio Wesleyan," Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the past two decades? The new Union, the renovation of Austin Manor, the conversion of the main street into a walk way, etc all started while I was a student there.
    • The Strand Theatre should have more than just a short sentence saying that it was historic.
      • It has a separate article. If we include more information here, what part about Strand do you think is worth sharing on the main article? WikiprojectOWU 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "upperclass students are placed in dormitories through a lottery system." when I was there the lottery was to live off campus, the article makes it sound as if that has now changed?
      • You are correct. Both applicants for on-campus and off-campus living go trough a lottery system. For on-campus applicants, the lottery is for dorms. WikiprojectOWU 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I haven't looked at the article, but did you clarify this in the article?Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Fixed. I clarified the policy in the article but feel free to let me know if you feel more detail is necessary. WikiprojectOWU 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Most students cite the school's policy on off-campus housing as one of the "worst things" about Wesleyan." Explain why... if it's the same reason as when I was there is was because more people wanted to live off campus, but that doesn't come across here.
    • Norman Vincent Peale the Methodist Minsiter and author of the series of books, "The Power of Positive Thinking" definately needs to be included in the list of famous alumni. He is one of the most famous alumni's and was the keynote speaker at the sequentenial (150th) graduation ceremony in 1992.
      • He definitely appears in the List of Ohio Wesleyan University people section. I tried to lump alumni into broad groups such as Politicians, Scientists, Arts and Sports and tried to keep it tight. WikiprojectOWU 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, that's a judgement call... I think he deserves to be on the main page, but I can accept your position.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The Transcript non-OWU people won't know that the Transcript is the school newspaper.
      • Where specific reference do you mean? The first reference that I saw in the article clarifies that it is the school newspaper. WikiprojectOWU 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, I must have missed the first reference when I read it.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if the election results and voting districts of Delaware are imporatant.
      • It is always a fair game question to ask whether political leanings of an organization are important to include in the article. I think in this context they provide a legitimacy check for political NPOV. For example, one might say that the Activism section leans left. In the context of the fact that the whole campus leans left actually, then the Activism section fits several NPOV criteria: undue weight, equal validity, consensus reality and good research I think referencing election results from two precints, exclusively precints for OWU students, legitimizes the fact about their political leanings. WikiprojectOWU 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'd question if the OWU students had that much sway in the two precincts. AFter all, there are only 1800 students and pricincts are usually counted in the thousands. And college students, even at OWU, are notoriously poor voters many of whom will vote absentee in their home states. But again, it's a judgment call.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
          • These are actually small precincts and created a lot of headaches for the Delaware County Election Board because of a discrepancy between voting behavior on an Ohio issue and the following presidential elections. Check the references on this issue actually. The story is somewhat thick and interesting. In fact, this made the national news and is still a pending issue. It is also well-referenced. WikiprojectOWU 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The activism section seems to be loaded with POV. It is ALL liberal and mostly current events. While I agree the school is pretty much on the liberal side, there are conservatives who are active there.
      • What part of the article do you think violates the current NPOV criteria? I provided a rationale above. WikiprojectOWU 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I think the section needs to expanded AND trimmed. There is too much on the past few years and not enough on the older stuff. For example the efforts against Apartheid in the late 80's, the boycott of McDonalds (for serving food in styrofoam containers,) Habitat for Humanity, the Haiti Trips. What about activism earlier than this? I'd trim the section down SIGNFICANTLY. I don't support getting rid of it, but as is its length and extreme position make it POV. I'd also consider getting rid of the section where Campus Crusade for Christ is attacked... as written, without knowing the full extent of the situation, it sounds as if OWU students/faculty decided to squash the free speach of a group they disagreed with.Balloonman 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Fixed. Let me know if you have any objections to the new section. It should address all of your concerns. WikiprojectOWU 21:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, when I was there, there was a mock "electoral college" event held every four years where the students 'voted' for the presidential candidate for the party out of office. This might be a place to mention that.
      • Wow, great suggestion! I think this may actually fall under Traditions. Or do you prefer to include it under Activism? WikiprojectOWU 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Traditions... because it isn't advocating a stance, the tradition is to take the party out of power (regardless of whether it is Republican or Democrat)... oh I think I messed up isn't it "mock convention" not "electoral college?"Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Fixed. I included 3 sentences to the Traditions section referencing the starting year of the tradition and its significance. WikiprojectOWU 06:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "In fact, originally the event started as a girl's atheltic fete, hel in celebration of the organization of the Monnett Athletic Club." fete? hel? I think the second word is supposed to be held, but I'm not sure about the first
      • I fixed "hel", and fête means "party". Lovelac7 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok. thanks.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "The school mascot is the Battling Bishop, and the official school colors are crimson red and black." This should be moved to the intro.
      • This sounds like a great idea but I haven't seen anything like this in the intro sections of Cornell, Duke University, MSU or University of Michigan. Are you sure your suggestion is consistent with the FAC criteria guidelines? WikiprojectOWU 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • No... it's just my opinion. I don't know what the proper form is.Balloonman 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd get rid of the slang terms section.
    • midnight breakfast should be moved to the end, where it is at it makes the other events that follow it look like new traditions as well.
    • WHAT ABOUT THE ROCK!!! I know it is still used, I saw it when I visited the campus 2 years ago!
      • You probably realize by now that including or not including something can be "you are damned if you do, damned if you don't" issue. Do you really think that the rock is worth including in the article? If so, under what heading? WikiprojectOWU 05:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I think the ROCK deserves to be there more than some of the other traditions. The rock has been in use for at least 40 years. (When I was there 20 years ago, alumni would say, "I remember that rock!") It is also a somewhat unique tradition among colleges---whereas "Presidents Ball" or a number of other listed things are no different than other campuses. Also, something to look into, back in 1988 I believe it was, there was a car wreck that killed 3 OWU students on their way home from a Model UN event. The rock was painted w/ their names and it was weeks before there was a huge cerimony before anybody would use it.Balloonman 08:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree that it is somewhat unique. Do you mind if I put it for discussion on the Talk page? I would like to include it in the Traditions Section but I need some history of how the Rock got on campus. I think it will be useful. Do you know its history? WikiprojectOWU 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Ohio Wesleyan University has 21 varsity sports teams that are known as the Battling Bishops." Does it have any that aren't known as the Battling Bishops?
    • "it in several athletics magazines' rankings in the late 1990s on weirdest college mascots." Needs a reference.
      • Fixed. Several additional references were provided. WikiprojectOWU 07:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I REALLY want to see this FAC pass, but these are some factual questions/points that only an alumn could ask.Balloonman 07:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. On the nominator's talk page I left examples from the lead of why the whole article needs serious copy-editing. I think that this nomination is premature. Here's another problem that my eyes landed on first thing scrolling down the article:
    • "On 5 August 1846, the first president Edward Thomson delivered his inaugural address in which he maintained that "the college was a product of the liberality of the people of Delaware and that it was fortunate that Ohio Wesleyan was founded in a community divided in religious and political opinions because the friction of a mixed society prevents dogmatism and develops energy and pointed that the spirit of the college is the spirit of liberty".[21]" Now, is this a direct quote in its entirety? I ask, because it has the markers for an indirect quote ("and that ...", and "pointed that", which I guess should be "pointed out that ...").
    • Fixed the ambiguity. Tony, thank you for point this out! WikiprojectOWU 05:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Only three of the past presidents are actually graduates"—spot the redundant word.
      • Fixed this one. Lovelac7 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "Accounts on the school's first president Edward Thomson focus on flowing eloquence, interest in literature and philosophy."—on? Surely "of". Do you mean "his" flowing eloquence? And does this refer to his prose/oratory, or what? "And" should appear before "interest", then another "his". What a mess.
      • Fixed. I reworded the sentence and the concerns above have been addressed. WikiprojectOWU 07:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this needs serious work. Tony 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Support. Once we fix the issued on this page, I'll wholeheartedly support the nomination. In the mean time here's my 2¢:

  • The university presidents section still needs some work. In particular, some aspects of the section refer to the role of the president's office, and other parts discuss past presidents' role in campus history. It might help if you separated the "People" section into "Administration" and "Alumni" subsections, moving at least some of the "Presidents" section there.
  • Some of the OWU traditions probably aren't all that notable. Doesn't every school have a homecoming, convocation, and commencement, etc.? I'd rather hear about the traditions that are unique to your alma mater.

The community groups listed in the "Campus" section should go into the "student life" section. That's all I can think of for now. If I find anything else, I'll let you know. Lovelac7 06:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. I cannot support this article unless something is done about the activisim section, which is POV in its extreme selectivity and uncomprehensive in its focus on the last half decade. There is really nothing there that is not typical of any American university, and my preference would be to drop the section entirely. However, this can also be fixed by summarizing the types of protest activities undertaken by students throughout the existence of the University with references. Indrian 07:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Indrian, since I am the nominator of the article and a person who have put a lot of time in improving the article recently, I would like to step in and ask you, you mentioned As a result, the article only shows what issues are improtant to the person who posted the particular events and are therefore POV, what issues are important and are not represented in the Activism section? WikiprojectOWU 21:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • First, let me say that I applaud the work you have been doing on this article and other articles related to OWU over the past several months. Your hard work has gone a long way towards making this article informative and balanced. As to the issue of activism, I wish I could be of more help. I do not claim to know what issues have been especially important to OWU students over the course of the institution's history, nor do I know the specifics about the level of activism in general. All I can do is tell you what I would like to see. If the activism section is removed, I do not think it does great harm to the article, as this is a common facet of American universities and therefore does not present a unique understanding of OWU. Now, I am not saying that such a section offends me; just that if that section cannot be made comprehensive then it can be removed to satisfy my concerns. If the section is to stay, it needs to become more general. For example (and none of the following is based on actual facts so please do not put it in the article), the section could say that "In the 1960s, OWU students, like many students across the nation, were strongly against the Vietnam War and engaged in numerous protests that mobilized as many as 500 individuals, with the largest gathering taking place on December 18, 1967." This could then be backed up by references in the Transcript or Delware Gazette that illustrate such protests were taking place and how many people they attracted. For the 2000s, one could research the Transcript and Gazette to compile a complete list of protests engaged in by students over those years, determine which issues garnered the most protests and student support, and then use this research to state what issues are particularly important to students today. I realize that this may be beyond what you are able to accomplish during the FA period, or even at anytime, but I feel that any FA article must be backed up by thorough research of the appropriate primary and secondary sources. An activism section which merely states that X students protested Y action on Z day, wash, rinse, repeat, does nothing to illuminate how activism works on the campus in general and therefore prevents the section from being comprehensive or NPOV. Something that may be more realiztic during the period of the FA would be to compile a list of activist groups on campus and give a small overview of the areas they operate in and one or two specific examples to illustrate the point. I hope that helps. Indrian 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Object. Refer to peer review. This article needs quite a bit of editing and I don't think the FAC is the appropriate place for it. In general, the effort to be comprehensive has diluted focus from that which is notable. Here are a few of my specific problems, but this is not an exhaustive list.

  • Too many references to where the school ranked in whatever ranking system is being referenced, especially in the lead.
  • The lead should contain a mention of the school's Methodist origins and its current relationship with the Methodist Church.
    • Fixed. WikiprojectOWU 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Maybe I am missing something, but I do not believe you responded to the full objection. I still see nothing about the current relationship with the Methodist Church. I suspect I know why this was left out. A while back, some users tried to add the school to the category of Methodist-affliated schools. OWU is, in fact, still officially affliated with the Methodist church, but the presence of the church is so miniscule that few people realize this is so or encounter the church in their daily lives. Adding this fact may touch off an edit war as some users (wrongly) attempt to deny the Methodist affiliation, tenuous as it may be. Not admitting it may fail to satisfy this objection. I have also removed WikiprojectOWU's strikethroughs from this objection. I am sure this was just done by her as a way to keep track of what she has changed, but it is up to the person who posted the objection to decide when concerns have been met and strikethrough his own objections. A strikethrough implies that the person who originally made the comment considers the issue to be closed. Indrian 03:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The student life section is way too big for the article. Student life in general is not terribly notable, and as such the article reads more like university PR. Condense the whole thing down about 80%.
    • I am not sure I understand your comments here. Are you saying that Traditions, Organizations and distinctive policies regarding student life, all part of this section and components that make one school different from another are not terribly interesting to read or just plain non-notable in general? After checking the other schools' FA articles, I am even more confused: they all seem to contain such sections and some are even bigger than our own here: see Cornell University, University of Michigan, Duke University and Michigan State University. Could you please explain what you mean? WikiprojectOWU 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • WikiprojectOWU, this section could use a thorough trimming. Here's how:
        • Read Wikipedia:Summary Style for guidelines on how to trim down this section.
        • Create a new article called Ohio Wesleyan University student life or something like that.
        • Copy the entire "Student Life" section into the new article and add a few lead sentences.
        • Keep all four of sections you currently have, but trim down the number of housing options, the number of organizations, the number of protests and movements, and the number of traditions. Pick the most notable of each category.
        • I think you could probably cut down each of the student life sections to half the current lengths. If people are interested, they can link to the main "Student Life" article.
      • I think that these changes would go a long way in making the article FA-worthy. Lovelac7 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • History section is rather disjointed. Some of it is out of chronological order. I don't understand the purpose of the "Univeristy expansion and university presidents" subheading. You already have an article called List of Ohio Wesleyan University presidents so simply mention notable presidents naturally within the text. Keep the section focussed on notable events in history of the school rather than seeking to include every president's tenure. Also, there may be too much emphasis on the school's recent history.
    • This concern came up in another editor's comments. User:Lovelac7 comments were in the same general spirit, so I will try to tighten the section. WikiprojectOWU 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In one section you say the school was founded to train ministers, but this isn't mentioned when you actually talk about the founding of the school.

This is not exhaustive. I suggest taking a good hard look at the article and making it quite a bit tighter.--DaveOinSF 01:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. WikiprojectOWU asked me about the "Activism" section in the MSU article. For easy reference, I have color coded the various sections, with blue for liberals, red for conservatives, and purple for moderate, bipartisan, and nonpartisan. Furthermore, historical protests and movements are highlighted in goldenrod:

Activists have played an important role in MSU history. During the height of the Vietnam War, student protests helped create co-ed residence halls, blocked the routing of Interstate 496 through campus, and led to the resignation of MSU President John A. Hannah. In the 1980s, Michigan State students convinced the University to divest the stocks of companies doing business in apartheid South Africa from its endowment portfolio, such as Coca-Cola. Today, MSU has many student groups focused on political change. The student government is the Associated Students of Michigan State University (ASMSU). It is known for its unusual nonpartisan bicameral structure, which includes the parallel Student Assembly and Academic Assembly. Graduate campus groups include the Graduate Employees Union (GEU) and the Council of Graduate Students (COGS). Michigan State also has a variety of partisan groups ranging from liberal to conservative, including the College Republicans, the College Democrats and several third party organizations. Other partisan activist groups include Young Americans for Freedom on the right and Students for Economic Justice and Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) on the left. Given MSU's proximity to the Michigan state capital of Lansing, many politically-inclined Spartans get internships for the state representatives.

Let's look more closely at the colors in this paragraph. Most of the political groups mentioned are centrist or nonpartisan. The paragraph is slighly slanted towards the left, though much of that is from our parent's generation, as you can see from the goldenrod highlighted section. Anyway, I hope this helps. Lovelac7 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - The History section seems longer than the History of Ohio Wesleyan University article. I know we are not judging linked articles, but that just seems odd to me. -Bluedog423Talk 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - After performing a brief copyedit of the lead, I am somewhat suspicious of the quality of the references used in the rest of the article. The references didn't always provide the information that I was expecting. For example, "Campus construction efforts have resulted in new science and athletic facilities in recent years" reference was Remembering Mr. Rickey. Great. Maybe I can find about the new buildings by clicking around on that site, but that's not the point of a reference. The top ten of international student % link is to a U.S. News subscription service that I cannot see. "Top ten" should also be replaced with the exact number. Also, U.S. News didn't "rank" schools. They simply relayed facts about percentages. Can just state it as fact with U.S. News as the source. I found on another site that it was at 11%, but couldn't find where that places it. Also, no reference for twelve years in a row. Please make sure your references actually provide the information preceding them, and aren't just there to make readers think they do. -Bluedog423Talk 06:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Wiggum

This article is great. It's well written and easy to read. Covers every aspect of Ralphs behaviour. Has references where needed. Very good article. Jimmmmmmmmm 11:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Object I'll have a proper look at this when I get home, but here's a couple of simple things I noticed:
  • Needs references. I can only see two, and they are just external links.
  • Images need fair use rational.
  • The 'outcast', 'pixie' and 'paste' links go to dab pages.
  • The 'Weirdo' link points to a magazine, which isn't correct in that context.
  • Spelling mistakes: 'bizzare', 'reminicent', 'inadvertantly'.
Icey 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You mean "rationale"? Spelling mistakes are easiest to fix if you fix 'em when you find 'em aren't they? Pedant
CommentOk fixed the spelling but couldn't for the life of me find 'inadvertantly' and I read it three times. If you know where it is fix it please. Fixed the two links to dab pages and unlinked weirdo and outcast. Might add links to wiktionary if you think needed. As for the picture, well I'm not to up on copyright law, especially US copyright law so to prevent me from having to read the whole history can you explain what needs doing, what could be done with the pic? Jimmmmmmmmm 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
"inadvertently" is found in the "Future" section (I found it by just doing a simple, two-second search). It is spelt correctly. --Oldak Quill 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
That's because I fixed it:I'm sorry I forgot to comment here that I found it with a simple search. The article needs a through copyedit and referencing. Sandy 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
To be fair on the referencing most of this will only be referencable from watching the show. Any episode which are singled out have the link to the Wikipedia article. Don;t really see how this can be reference alot more. There are some subject that won;t have book/internet reference adn will only be known from watching the show. Jimmmmmmmmm 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You could try the Simpsons Archive, for example, here's a page all about Ralph. Icey 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well can that just be added to th e bottom of the page rather than referencing each bit? I'm no expert on this, so if I find pages that are references to whole the page I can stick it a t the bottom rather than reference just on section. Jimmmmmmmmm 18:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Typically, you should add an in-line reference everywhere that someone is being quoted, vital information is being presented or info that is or might be disputed is present. Ideally, there should also be more than a single source for the entire article too, but you work with what you have. This is probably the most favored method of citing references, so review that page if you need some help with the subject. Ryu Kaze 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think it's actually a great article as it is at this point, better than most Simpsons character articles Pedant 01:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; no references, no inline citations (four inline external links is all, which is poor formatting anyway), poor prose quality, and little out-of-universe perspective. --Spangineeres (háblame) 12:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Unreferenced, speculative, etc. Definitely does not represent the best of Wikipedia, IMO. Ori.livneh 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

This article plainly states everything that is needed to be a featured article. Kitia 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This was created July 7th, but was never added to the list. Medvedenko 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Lack references, too many lists, poorly written and formatted. Medvedenko 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving on then...--Kitia 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong object Not referenced. Sandy 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per Med and Sandy. BTW, it's such a boring lead—full of fifth most populous, second biggest, fourth this, third that. Tony 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The first thing it says about Philadelphia, after giving its nicknames and etymology, is that it's the fifth most populous city in the United States. That shouldn't happen anywhere except articles on American Idol runners-up and the like. Also concur with Medvedenko and Sandy on the rest. --zenohockey 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is a comprehensive article. --evrik 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It may be comprehensive, but does all of this information belong? This is an encyclopedia, not an almanac. Several lists give names but no information or context. Does a list of names of adjacent counties enlighten me about Philly? If it belongs at all, it would be better converted to prose and given some context that explains why that information is important. ("Bucks County, to the northeast, is the home of many of Philadelphia's day laborers.") There are several sections in this article which are very short and not very informative. Surely there's more to say about public education than one sentence. If there isn't, why does it merit a whole section?
    • I don't agree with Tony and zenohockey that "fifth most populous" isn't important. However, I do agree that the lede should grab my attention, and "fifth best" doesn't do that. Surely, Philly is interesting and vibrant enough that you can find something better? As a general rule, the lede should summarize the article. If something is important enough to merit a section header, it should at least be mentioned in the lede. By the same token, if something isn't significant enough to put in the lede, it probably doesn't deserve its own section. I'd like to see more arresting information in the lede, fewer sections with more information, and in general less raw data and more context explaining the importance of the facts you do include. Peirigill 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object stubby, listy, multiple improperly formatted references. Rlevse 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spider

A basic topic, complete and already listed as a "Good article". --ZeroOne 13:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. I haven't read the article, but there are some points I've immediately picked up on:
  • Plenty of red links - these should all be stubs.
  • At nearly 50KB the page is too large.
  • There is a bit of a link farm at the bottom. The external links need to be trimmed.
  • Some sections have inline references, others have nothing at all. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Overall size is 49KB, prose size is 40KB. I haven't yet read the article, but I don't believe that 40KB of prose is always a problem: I look for Summary style when prose size passes 50KB. Sandy 14:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In terms of looking for things to trim, we could start with the "Spiders in symbolism and culture" section. This is far too large and not especially relevant to an article on spiders (a few lines would do tbh). Also, I don't think it's necessary to list all these different species of spider. A bit too listy for my liking. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is too long. Several sections need to be spun out into child articles. See my edit on the last section (when I'm done). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is underreferenced, and it does appear there are areas that could benefit from Summary style. If you can thoroughly reference the article, shorten it, and mimimize the link farm to the most essential external links (per WP:EL), it looks like it could be a good candidate. Sandy 22:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - As above. Additionally, there is an inappropriate heading: "Do female spiders eat their mates?" - Wikipedia is not an FAQ, and should not be phrased as such. Fieari 23:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - I think it's pretty good now. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.252.149.133 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 July 2006.
  • Object - I don't think that it's too long, but I do feel that there are nowhere near enough references. Also, in the "Taxonomy" section, there's a red link, Opisthothelae, that really needs some fixing, even if the 2 subsections of it are blue links. --PresN 03:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - not too long, but there are some issues. "For a guide to identifying spiders, see Spider finder (under construction)" - everything on Wikipedia is under construction, and this article should really be transferred to Wikibooks. Also, don't make wikilinks part of the heading, they should be incorporated into the section text. Apart from this, I think it's a very good article! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darth Vader

It is a very good article, or at least I think so. It has several images, plenty of words, and lots of information. GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 13:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are unreferenced and cleanup tags at the end of the article: aren't they supposed to be at the top? Kind of hard to support an article with tags. Sandy 14:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That is the reason I didn't see those... GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lacks references. The Wookieepedian 14:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object due to the lack of references. -- Underneath-it-All 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object due to an extensive amount of fancruft.Dan 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This comment is not particularly helpful. Raul654 06:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The entire "Talents and powers" section is wholly unencyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Ever seen an article about Darth Vader in an encyclopedia? However, I quite agree and I have moved that section to the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to lack of references and excess in-universe details that need to be compressed, trimmed, and reworded. — Deckiller 19:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. I concur with the above. Moreover, the article contains possible OR in such speculative lines as "Judging by the origin of the other Sith names, Vader may also possibly be a derivative of the word 'invader,'" and "Darth Vader also resembles an inverted King Arthur in relationship with Luke Skywalker as an inverted Mordred." I'm unsure if this is objectionable, but I also dislike the biography's structure: shouldn't the prequel and its developments precede discussion of the original triology?--Monocrat 04:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No, because it isn't a biography; it's a plot summary. Putting the prequels first moves the emphasis away from how the character developed in real life (from fearsome blackguard to conflicted villain to fallen hero) to how the character developed in a fictional universe. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the writing could be much cleaner, the references are lacking and are mostly cruftic in nature. Surely there have been numerous commentaries on Darth Vader from scholars which are independent of the Star Wars fan club and their work should be cited. The cultural figure section is not very good, focusing on a list of examples (some of which are shall we say... marginal...) rather than commentary. The talents and powers section is crufty beyond belief. No effort is made towards conciseness, especially in the plot sections (also crufty, e.g. "Vader turns on his master and throws him into a deep shaft, where he explodes in a fury of dark energies."). Pascal.Tesson 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose misplaced spoiler warning disrupts flow of article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.
      • "the Death Star is destroyed moments later," should be removed, a paragraph break and a spoiler tag should be inserted before "Vader then reveals his true identity...", all mentions of "father" should be excised from Return of the jedi, paragraph break and spoiler tag before "Unable to bear the sight of his son in pain," remove vast majority of "Prequel trilogy," as it is better explained in the Anakin Skywalker (seperate issue), except for stub describing the transition and reasons for, which requires no spoiler tags. Spoilers should only be provided for plot details that would severly detract from an individuals ability to enjoy the movie - only the father in empire and the ending of return do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It's absurd enough that there's a seperate page for Anakin Skywalker (the same person) without creating a spoiler tag tornado of "begin/end" tags here. There's a single tag at the top of the page before the table of contents already. Organization and presentation on this character have already been infringed enough without further breaking down format through the use of several "begin/end" tags and the removal of vital information. For that matter, I really don't see how this qualifies as a spoiler in the eyes of any culture anyway. Prior to the release of the prequel trilogy, "Anakin Skywalker" was synonomous with "Darth Vader" (we'd never known him as anything but that), and when the prequel trilogy came along, the filmmakers themselves casually talked about the fact that Anakin's transformation into Darth Vader would be revealed. Even one of the posters advertising The Phantom Menace showed young Anakin standing beside a wall, with his shadow being the silhouette of Darth Vader. Ryu Kaze 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Try and find a few more references :)... --Skully Collins 07:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There's far too few references, too great an in-universe presentation, unencyclopedic and flowery wording (ex: "Vader still possesses his former persona's amazing engineering skills..."), a lot of cruft mixed with fan speculation, and it's just way too bloated. Quite simiply, there's a lot of unnecessary information that isn't vital to an understanding of the character (most of which is the aforementioned cruft, in sections like "Talents" and "Cultural", though "Behind", "Cultural" and even "Expanded Universe" have some too).
Overall, it needs a complete copy-edit, with the original trilogy info being condensed a bit more (though I'm pleased to see that it's as short as it is; Return of the Jedi is the only one that's excessive in terms of quantity; Hope and Empire aren't bad at all). Additionally, an out-of-universe perspective and encyclopedic tone needs to be assumed all throughout. This means lines like "However, he controls his anger..." through "...Jedi's funeral" could be condensed into something as simple as "However, he restrains himself and refuses to kill Vader. Due to this, Palpatine decides that Luke is unsuitable as an apprentice and attacks him with Force lightning. Unable to defend himself, Luke begs Vader for help, finally prompting him to betray and kill the Emperor by throwing him into a shaft leading to the Death Star's core. However, errant bolts of Palpatine's Force lightning destroy Vader's life support system, and he orders Luke to escape from the Death Star without him. Despite Luke's protests and attempt to save his father's life, Vader soon dies from his injuries, but is able to reconcile with Luke and pass away peacefully. Luke then escapes from the battle station, taking Vader's body with him, and later burning it in the manner of a Jedi's funeral". Basically, let the facts speak for themselves. The reader doesn't need to be blatantly told that Luke refuses to kill Vader while realizing that his anger was just sending him down the same path that his father had walked. An understanding of what happened to Vader will convey that well enough on its own.
There's good stuff here, but a lot of it needs to be reworded and seperated from the unencyclopedic material. Ryu Kaze 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. "Behind the scenes" should be named something like "Character design". Ryu Kaze 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object far too many citation needed templates in use, the lead section is not a good summary of the main points of the article, "Expanded universe" needs to be rewritten (at the very least explain what an "expanded universe" means in Star Wars terms), there is a "Trivia" section (bad, bad, bad!!!) that should be merged into the main article. Very far from being ready, though I do see a lot of effort has gone into it, and I do appreciate the effort that has been undertaken to get it to FA status. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesia

I find this article extremely informative and proffesionally done. I think that it has been very well-written, and is therefore some of Wikipedia's best work.

  • Object Unreferenced Sandy 18:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Needs references. -- Underneath-it-All 20:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object unreferenced. AdamBiswanger1 04:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object only one ref, very little on culture, Jaranda wat's sup 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; yes, very proffesional, with a single reference. —Nightstallion (?) 13:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some odd prose here and there.
    • "Though Japan captured Java by March 1942, it initially could not find any national leader willing to collaborate with the Japanese government against the Dutch." What other government would they want a national leader to collaborate with, besides themselves?
    • "Most Indonesians speak at least one of the several hundreds of local languages (bahasa daerah) as their first tongue." How can you speak more than one language as your first language?
    • "The parliament chose Mrs. Megawati Sukarnoputri as the new Indonesian president from 2001 to 2004. Mrs. Megawati Sukarnoputri is the daughter of the first Indonesian President, Ir. Sukarno, and the leader of PDI-P, the winner of 1999 election." Do you really need to spell out "Mrs. Megawati Sukarnoputri" twice? Why not just "Sukarnoputri" or just "She"? I don't understand whether "the leader of PDI-P, the winner of 1999 election" refers to Sukarno or Sukarno's spouse. "Winner of the 1999 election" would read better.
    • "Indonesia's first direct presidential election was held in 2004, and won by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono." How about "Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono won Indonesia's first direct presidential election in 2004"? "It was the largest one-day election in the world." This claim begs for clarification (what other kind of election is there?) and citation.

In general, the prose seems heavy and turgid; reading goes slowly. The article would benefit from some pruning, saying the same in fewer words. Peirigill 09:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Lau

One of the best Wikipedia articles ever. Well written. Soundoflolllermania 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - no references, Cantonese names of albums need translating. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Soundoflolllermania's first edit ever was to nominate this article, and all edits so far are only related to this FAC. Looks odd to me. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - needs major copyedit, completely unsubstantial (no bio information, etc.), long lists, etc. I have to assume the nom was a joke. Matt Deres 03:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for one, no sources. "Trivia" sections are unencyclopedic, need to be inserted into article itself. Filmography could use formatting into standard style (i.e. see Lindsay Lohan) Mad Jack 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose no word about his life; too long lists; no references, it's very far from FA... NCurse work 19:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose As above + tables often don't have any english translation.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose submitter does not understand FA criteria. Rlevse 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Diderot

This man is as close as they come to being the ultimate role-model for encyclopedia editors, and the article is excellent. - Eric 11:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose, for the following reasons:
  • No references given.
  • The structure is a bit puzzling to me: the section "Other works" contains information about the end of his life and his death. The article may benefit from being splitted in one section for his life, and one separate section about his works
  • There seems to be one inconcistency about what happenend with his library. One paragraph says he saw no other alternative than to sell his library (and he sells it to Catherine II), and in the next paragraph, His heirs sold his vast library to Catherine II.Schutz 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Referencing consists of a single embedded HTML link and a statement that the "article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition". This level of referencing is inadequate for a featured article. --Allen3 talk 12:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per Allen3 and Schutz. I don't want to find slabs of text lifted from another encyclopedia, especially without quote marks and attribution. A WP FA should be better than that source in a number of ways. Tony 03:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Object: it seems to rely heavily on the 1911 Britannica and is thus out of date. There has been a lot of new research on Diderot since then. I believe some of the dates in the article are inaccurate. --Folantin 08:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. As per Allen3, Schutz, Tony and Folantin. Some amounts of contributors and sources are needed not to rely on the encyclopedia of 95 years ago. __Okc 09:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social promotion

I believe this article now meets the criteria for featured article. Please read it carefully before objecting! (I'm so bored)

  • Object -- It does not even meet half of the featured article criteria. No references, no pics, short sections, poor prose (use of slang), discusses only Canada and the United States. What about other countries? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: What kind of pictures can you put in it? A picture of a student being promoted! Social promotion is only in the US and Canada. They don't have it in other countries. There wasn't any slang. (I'm so bored)
Comment: If it isn't used in other countries, why not? How do other countries handle students who are lagging? What do educational experts say about these differences between the U.S. and other countries? John Broughton 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- ditto Rlevse 15:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Nothing has been fixied since last nomination, also the nominator should learn how to move and archive articles properly.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per the reasons I gave in the previous nomination. --Wisden17 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: Too short (8.4 K's according to popups), no refs per Cite.php, and one large intro (split that into three). Everything else fails the criteria at WP:WIAFA. Move to WP:PR to get ideas on how to improve it. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: Between June 11, 2006, when this article was first submitted as a candidate for a featured article, and now, the article has had a total of SIX relatively minor edits (four of which I did myself; none of which were done by the person submitting the nomination). Nothing basically has changed since the original submission, so I repeat my original objection: As someone who has contributed a number of edits to the article, but has given up fighting about minor points (like redundant information, poor grammar, etc.), I'd be among the last to consider this article an exemplar for wikipedia. John Broughton 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Fodor

This article has been listed as a good article for several months, has had a peer review which resulted in some major restructuring of format and a general overall improvement in readability, and it is extremely well-documented and stable. I literally do not think it is possible to do much better given the lack of offical and unoffical biographies and the nature of the material.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object, there is no fair use rationale on the image - you may as well upload a clearer fair use image too. The lead is not a good summary of the article. The biographcial info is a bit scarse, is he married etc.? There are some concepts that should be linked for clarity like triadic relation. There is some redundancy in the text and too many bracketed statements, and more commas than I want to count - a copyedit by someone who hasn't worked on the text would be a good idea to improve flow.--Peta 10:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair use again?? Oh boy!!!Here's the fair use rationale right here:

:::This work is a copyrighted publicity photograph. It is believed that the use of some such photographs to illustrate:

* the person, product, event, or subject in question * in the absence of a free alternative, * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.
Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Publicity photos.
Additionally, the copyright holder may have granted permission for use in works such as Wikipedia. However, if they have, this permission likely does not fall under a free license. As well, commercial third-party reusers of this image should consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights, if the photograph is of a person.
I don't see any brackets actually. If you're talking about parentheses, I'll see if some can be removed without altering the content. Other than that, this article has been praised by almost every philosopher I know of.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you familiarise yourself with [this].--Peta 10:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'm suprised no-one has brought up that point in all the time I've been editing Wikipedia. Anyway, just to keep folks intersted informed, I've added my rationale on the photo page. I cannot possibly get a better quality photo. It's difficult to get any photos of current philosophers. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The image is subject to deletion -- you're using a template on it that indicates that the image is from a press kit, when it is actually web content from a university. Use {{fairusein}} if you really think that this image somehow meets Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. I don't understand why we would make such a claim -- it is an image used to identify Mr. Fodor for a website, and we are using it to identify Mr. Fodor on our website -- ther's no transformative use here whatsoever. Further, the subject is still alive; why can't we go photograph him? Jkelly 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the answer to the last question is quite simple if you're referring specifically to me: I LIVE IN ITALY!! I shall delete the photo if that's what you all really want. I have found, through exprerence however, that this sort of thing obviously detracts unconsciously from the appeal of the articles on Wikipedia. Philosophy is not a very image-conducive sort of topic. But without any images at all?? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 06:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey. Jkelly 22:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
So you propose someone should click on a random user from New Jersey and ask him to track this person down and photograph him? --Shardsofmetal [ Talk | Contribs ] 04:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a.
    • Which is better: "1959-1986" or "1959–86"?
    • Is this a good paragraph: "He has two grown children and currently lives in New York City with his wife and his cat."
    • There's a very long quote in the biography section; is it possible to ration the text, perhaps by the deft use of ellision dots?
    • Can this: "Fodor presented one of the fundamental conceptual bases of his thought: the idea that ..." be reduced to: "Fodor introduced one of his fundamental concepts—that ..."

The flab needs to be trimmed throughout. Then I'll support. Tony 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. These sorts of stylstic things should not be much of a problem. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 06:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Support (dunno if this is too late): the stylistic issues seem to me to be minor, and essentially a matter of taste. The article's content is impressively clear, accurate and in-depth. There aren't enough philosophy articles of this quality on WP, and I think the exceptional nature of this one should be recognised. Cheers, --Sam Clark 12:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A clear and well-researched article. Sam, I also find the stylistic objections above rather petty. Some minor work on citations is needed. I would also like to see his influence on Zenon Pylyshyn, Murat Aydede and Steven Pinker explained. Banno 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...well, the citations are fairly easy to find.

the realation with Murat Aydede and Zenon Pylyshn can probably be explained in a few brief sentences, IMO. But the Pinker would require a whole new section!! Damnit. Excellent point too. But since this is not really an objection....Also, I take everyone's input very seriously. The troublesome photo is gone, the intro is now much closer to being a summary of the rest which can "stand alone" as an artcile, I've removed almost all of the parens, brackets and so on. These objections are supposed to be struck out if they have been addressed. The first commentator seems not to be following the matter though. (he may have legit reasons, of course). The complaint about "flab" is something I have also been working on without assistance. Well, I'll stop blabbering and try to deal with some of this stuff as best as I can.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to explain the link in the Pinker article? Either would I think be fine. Banno 08:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The German Wikipedia is being used as a source. Punctured Bicycle 09:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, for one sentence about the fact that his wife's name is Jean Fodor!! Take a look at it, for heaven's sake. The fact that he has a wife is confirmed in his own writings. I will try to find another source to "verify" that his wife really is the linguist Jean Fodor!!! Oh, for pete's sake!!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
... Punctured Bicycle 11:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Quality of writing is poor (2a). A thorough copyedit is required per WP:WEASEL, WP:PEACOCK and WP:WTA. Examples include:
    • Fodor argues that mental states, such as beliefs and desires, are relations between individuals and mental representations, that these representations can only be correctly explained in terms of a language of thought in the mind, and that this language of thought itself is an actually existing thing that is codified in the brain and not just a useful explanatory tool or hypothesis. Fodor adheres to a species of functionalism and maintains that thinking and other mental processes consist primarily, but not exclusively, of computations operating on the syntactic structure of the representations that constitute the language of thought. (whole paragraph has wording problems)
    • Fodor also maintains that significant parts of the mind, such as perceptual and linguistic processes, are structured in terms of modules, or "organs", which are defined by their causal and functional roles in the overall structure.
    • Fodor suggests that the informationally closed and independent character of these modules permits the possibility of the causal relations with external objects that, in turn, makes it possible for mental states to have contents (meaning and reference) that are about things in the world, while the central processing part takes care of the holistic inferential relations between the various contents and inputs and outputs which is characteristic of the traditional functionalist view.
    • Although Fodor originally rejected the idea that mental states must have, what are now called, "broad contents" in the sense described above involving causal relations, he has in recent years devoted much of his writing and study to the philosophy of language precisely because of this problem of the externally-influenced meaning of mental contents.
    • His most significant contributions in this area include the so-called asymmetric causal theory of reference and his many arguments against semantic holism (both discussed below).
  • Almost every sentence needs fixing. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object 2a, prose. Sandy 18:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This article has been sitting out there almost untouched for nearly 6 months. I originally wrote most of it back in February or March. You can check the history. In that time, no-one has apparently seen the need for a thorough copyedit of every sentence. I out it through peer-review and the result was the sort of nonsense that you can see for yourself. I, of course, am incapable of writing by your lights, so I shall not dare to touch the article anymore. If you can fix it yourself, please go ahead and do so!! The point here is to make actionable objections, if I understood the policy correctly. You have, by defintion, disqualified me being capable of acting on your objections. Let me make this extremely clear though: No one else who knows anything about philosophy is going to touch this article. They have all praised me on it, including Professor Dean Buckner. Umm....there are some profoundly differing opinions here, it seems to me. In any case, I suggest that you now go and take a look at the article I have just nominated for FA Hilary Putnam and offer your delicate and refined thoughts on that piece. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You understood us incorrectly. We haven't disqualified you from copyediting. Instead we have provided some excerpts that need fixing. This is an actionable concern and we want you to take action on it. If you can't, ask an experienced editor to do it. There are many of them. We haven't questioned the content, we are only questioning the quality, that anyone, even someone completely unaware of the topic can do. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Then why don't you help me out with it?? For example, I have just made a few changes to the intro.

Is this better or worse or what, from your perspective? Stay with me here please. I've never been criticed in this way and I do not feel well at the moment.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You are moving the the right direction. Your imrpovements are quite satisfactory, and you need to apply them to the whole article. Since you ask, I have already got an article featured through similar harrowing process, and in the end it was worth it. The article is a beauty now. I am currently taking another article through Peer Review, another through Featured Article Review, almost single handedly doing the improvements. You can see the history for the improvements I have made to those articles. Do you still feel that I don't contribute, and only pass by and curse. You asked about any editor who will help with the article. Why don't you go and ask at WikiProject Philosophy. I am sure someone will help. Best of luck. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No, no,no... I was not referring to YOU at all in that comment in the first place. Also, I was making two separate points, neither of which was intended to refer to you. Anyway, I appreciate your response. As to asking for help, etc,...I suspect the problem is that you have not had to deal with philosophy articles and the philosophy "project" on here. There is no such thing. Or, to the extent that there is, it is total chaos, illiteracy, madness. You just have to take my word for this. This is my only other Featured Article. The total number of philosophy FAs is about 6 or 7. I AM the philosophy of mind section and it is not even my main area of expertise!! Look at the history of the "philosophy of mind" article. I took it over, discarded everything that was there and merged it with the article mind-body problem. The peer review was completely useless. The FA was somewhat helpful in incerasing the number of refernces. Other than that, I had to do it all myself. Anyway...--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Singapore

Many editors have contributed to this article. It provides a broad overview of the subject, with a number of daughter articles available to furnish the details. It has many references and the content is stable. --Vsion 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object, the lead is full of weasel words and does not provide a very good summary of the whole article. Fair use images don't have rationales, I'm not sure about some that are claimed as PD either, as there is no verfication prodided on Wikpedia for copyright expiry for Singapore to back up the claim that they are PD. I'm also uneasy about the use of LOC country studies as reliable sources - they shouldn't be wrong - but they might be. It's not as if there aren't lots of good books to use, even the LOC has a list of sources they used.--Peta 02:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Mind you, the LOC is a neutral take on what the government pumps out in its education system every day, so IMO it's a fairly reputable source to use, given that I find nothing particularly wrong about them and it's basically a source for facts citizens have been schooled about. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
IMO for a country with a history of less than 200 years, the lead has enough information; of course if you think otherwise, please suggest on how to lengthen the lead.
  • Comment'. Sorry, how is the lead full of weasel words? A lead section is a lead section, it's supposed to have weasel words for risk of being wordy (see Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia). Why should it be longer? As I see it - this is the perfect size for a lead section, which isn't supposed to exceed 2-3 paragraphs. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I see a couple of weasel words right off the bat: "a relatively minor role" and "becoming one of the most important port cities." How about "a minor role" and "becoming a key [or 'pivotal,' or 'influential'] port city"? My rule of thumb regarding the length of the lede is that if a topic is important enough to merit a section heading, it's important enough to be in the lede. That's not the case here. Either some of the sections should be consolidated, or the lede should be expanded, or both. Peirigill 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I went through and typo-edited the entire article, not that there were many to find. I will say that it's really anoying to look for typos in this though- silly British spellings, with your U's and your S's. --PresN 03:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps the editors of the article could decide on whether they wish to use British English or American English. I've spotted a mix of both after skimming through the article. --R4ge 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Support. The article lead seems to have been extended, and I believe the weasel words have been removed. Overall it gives a very accurate and detailed history of the country. R4ge 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Sinatra

I know that this article could use some cleanup, but I think that there is a ton of useful information on here that, if formatted properly, could easily become one of Wikipedia's best articles. Soakologist 20:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, the discussion of Sinatra's place in music is brilliant. We do need to get the links with organized crime sorted out though. Gareth E Kegg 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. I do hope that this becomes a FA, but it will need work to satisfy the criterion. Let's take a look at the lead, which needs to be rewritten, I'm afraid.
    • "Francis Albert Sinatra (12 December 1915 – 14 May 1998) was an American singer who is one of the most highly acclaimed male popular song vocalists of all time." Remove "an American singer who is" as mostly redundant. By taking out "American", you strengthen the scope, which is justified, IMV. Tell us in another sentence that he was American, or slip it in here in a way that doesn't narrow the scope.
    • The second paragraph is a one-sentence stub. Either merge it (two paras would be OK, I think) or expand it.
    • Please get rid of "also"—every sentence is an also, and here, it weakens the impact.
    • The "Chairman of the Board" reference should be relocated further down, where it can be explained on the spot, or enlarged on in the lead. There's not even a reference for it.
    • "Similarly, he found considerable attention given to his alleged connections with the Mafia." Similarly to what? The previous sentence is about something quite different. "He found" is clumsy ("There was") might be better—I'm unsure. This third paragraph needs to be recast so that the fragmented morsels are set in a clear, all-embracing statement. At the moment, the lead is disorganised; in particular, the epithets describing his style are disconnected.

Although the rest of the article doesn't suffer from quite the same level of disorganisation, it could do with TLC by a good copy-editor. My eyes should not catch sentences such as "Sinatra had begun appearing in movies in the early 1940s, but usually in musicals, often undistinguished ones. ("But" needs to contrast with the previous statement; we don't need "usually" and "often"—why not "... 1940s, in many cases undistinguished musicals".) You know where to find the copy-editors? Tony 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment -- please replace all of the unfree images in the article with the freely-licensed images at commons:Frank Sinatra. Jkelly 21:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object prose problems mentioned above, some weasle words, and lack of inline citations. It appears that the citations are available (in the Further reading), but not used inline. Also, please convert your References (which should be Notes) to a more formal style (I did two – FBI and Mafia – as an example). Sandy 02:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charizard

Right, well I'm giving Charizard another shot, hopefully the chaos has blown over from those FACs, I was against them but nevermind. Please, as usual, don't bring up gripes with Pokémon notability or worthwhileness here, and judge the quality of the actual. All comments are welcomed. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 12:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Note - there is some long lying vandalism I'm unearthing, just delete it if you see some of it. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 15:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Light support. Ignoring the bad-faith nominations, tbere's quite some noteworthy content in this article that I can note. However, I do have a few things against it, such as opinions without sources, for example "Charizard is often considered one of the most influential of all Pokémon in the card game" (to which an upfront reference or numerous notable ones would do it well). Actually, I could point out that it's the second paragraph of the TCG section that needs a few improvements and better referencing (to avoid NPOV and making what seems to be opinion). The notability of some lines and their references (we're talking game strategies) confounds me a bit, though - "In particular, some players like to use a setup known as "Bellyzard" which utilizes a move called Belly Drum to greatly increase their Attack power while lowering their HP.". Is it notable enough? - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 14:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your notes, I'll work on them today. Since the article is by several editors, I can't note on all the points, but I will for one remove the POV in the card game. In relation to Bellyzard, it's quite notable. At one point every team had the combination on the internet sites (whatever it's called). Thanks again, Highway Daytrippers 14:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I've cleaned up the TCG section, and removed a bit of the random stuff not required in the video games section. Anything else, Highway Daytrippers 15:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak weak opposeSupport; this article is virtually FA quality, having certainly improved since FACs 1-3. However, there are a couple of minor qualms I have before I can support:
    • I'd prefer if the article actually explained what Charizard's ability "Blaze up" does; a little note in the infobox means nothing.
    • Having links in the style Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen seems a little misleading, as it appears that these are separate articles. I'd prefer simply Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, Blaze is just it's ability, but I'll expand on that. We used to have an article, but it got deleted, which is why it doesn't have the def. And it's Blaze, damn vandals. Second of all, new editors are encouraged to link them in that format, because the "and" isn't in the titles. It's up for discussion, but that's the way it is in Torchic and Bulbasaur. I'd ask Cel really. Will get the def though, Highway Daytrippers 15:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, I don't see the point in describing Charizard's ability, it doesn't have anything to do with anything mentioned in detail in the article. The only reason it's there is some people think it's enclyopedic. I happen to agree with them, but I don't think we should describe their abilties' function. If you had to actually put it into the articles, where would you try to fit it? (video games, obviously, but where?) Sorry, Highway Daytrippers 15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Fair enough; I suppose the basic meaning of the ability is pretty clear. I'm still iffy on the linking issue, but since its a Wikiproject issue, I'm moving to support. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Thank you, the ability is readily available if anyone desires to find out, it's just not particularly enclyopedic.Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 16:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Low quality of sources. Almost every single one of them is Pokemon promotional material or gaming industry promotional material. What's left would not support an encyclopedia article. Before we have a repeat of the last round, I reallize that due to project demographics I am in the minority in believing that we should not lower our standards of referencing for fictional characters, etc, but nonetheless I feel I need to comment. It simply makes us look bad when we put something like this out there as being of comparable quality to an article with unimpeachable sources when it's not. So even though it doesn't weaken my objection, I expect it to be a token one, hence no need to argue. - Taxman Talk 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, per Taxman. There's something wanting when all but two of the non-redundant references are to either fan websites or to the franchise's official literature. As a counterxample among fictional-character FAs, see Palpatine, which includes among its references (alongside official sources) a couple dozen mainstream news outlets, peer-reviewed journal articles, and books by notable publishing houses. Andrew Levine 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply to both - I would honestly add these if they existed but there is no such links or literature of which you describe. Charizard is different to Palpantine, any criticsm is of Pokémon in general, not individual ones. We've had these arguments before, but the last point it has to end of is that this stuff doesn't exist. Sorry, Highway Daytrippers 07:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Give it a little time, then. The character of Palpatine has existed in fiction longer than Charizard, and so there has been more time for mainstream sources to react and assess its cultural impact. I'd say that if such literature does not exist now, you should probably wait until it does, rather than rush the article through the FA process before it's ready. Andrew Levine 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Charizard has existed for a decade! It's not it isn't around yet, it's not coming ever. There's too many Pokémon for anything notable to analyse Charizard. Highway Daytrippers 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not going to be cited because it's really only notable to pokéfans. There's got to be articles that are better suited for FAC:ing than this. Even among pokearticles. /Peter Isotalo 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, this is the one that got nominated. Wouldn't it be nice if all "pokearticles" were good enough to be featured? That's not really rhetorical because I'm not sure you agree with me. I know I would get really frustrated if I toiled away on an article like this only to have deletionists sneer at the subject. Everyking 08:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Yes, many Pokémon articles could be put up for FAC, but we made a conscious decision as a WikiProject to only put the notable Pokémon up for FA, Starter Pokémon, Pikachu, Meowth, perhaps even Jigglypuff. The fact is, there are lots of articles already at GA level, Quilava, Golduck, Weedle, which we intend to leave at that point. We are aiming to have all character articles GA's, leaving a selected to go on to Featured. Charizard, Torchic and Bulbasaur are examples of this. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
                • I think the FA-list can do without another Pokémon character. You could ease the burden on all of us by putting some effort into FA:ing Pokémon instead. It's the only article in the series that actually enjoys notability among the general readership. / Peter Isotalo 22:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
                • I definitely think you should aim at having them all featured, long-term, even the least notable, the same way I think the community as a whole should aim to have everything on Wikipedia FA quality someday. But I do think nominating the most notable Pokemon is good for starters, from a tactical perspective, considering the opposition I'm sure you'd get if you nominated some really obscure one. Everyking 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have several problems with this article.
  • The name Charizard is presumably a portmanteau of char, etc etc etc. Either it is or it isn't. Without knowing anything about the development of the character I too would assume this, but unless the speculation is in some way notable, lets not have speculation, kay? And citing the defenition of charred is pretty weak.
  • Nintendo never revealed the backgrounds of the names, so other websites have made theories of it. There is some argument over charred or charcoal, but there are three links there. One link is to cite the definition of charred, one is to cite the definition of lizard, and the third cites that portmanteau form of Charizard. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a lack throughout of a out of universe perspective. Simply putting As depicted in the Pokémon metaseries at the begining of a paragraph that for the rest of the time is very in universe does not make the article out of universe. Especially with phrases like Wild Charizard are said to focus on finding worthy challengers, as they have a strong innate sense of honor, noted to rely on claws and strength to hunt or ward off lesser foes, using their flaming breath only against opponents they see as equals. Run on sentence, and bolded for the weasely bits.
  • How would you fix the Characteristics problem? I'm not sure myself. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a reason for objecting, but the whole business in the computer game sections about attacks and types and stuff made my eyes water. And I've played the game.
  • The types section is a WikiProject thing, it's above me. I removed some unsourced stuff too. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The following line, in the anime section, is uncited. Charizard's frequent returns can be attributed to the massive fanbase the dragon-esque pokemon has gathered, many fans stating he is the best thing about the series. In fact, his removal from the main team caused numerous fans to turn on the show, and rejoice at his returns. Given that this line is one of the wretchedly few nods towards real world importance (and this Pokemon is to my mind one of the few that might) the lack of any references to back this up is inexucsable.
  • I didn't add that, someone else did and I missed. I noted at the top there was vandalism of that type. It's now removed, Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Numerous wild Charizard live in the Charicific Valley, along with Charla, a female Charizard owned by the valley’s warden, Lisa, including the fore-mentioned Charla, a Pokémon Ash’s Charizard is attracted to. That flat-out isn't English.
  • The anime and manga sections is basically filled with evrey single appearnce by the species/character. No sense of flow. In fact, the frequent jumps between Charizard, the character owned by Ash, and Charizard, the species, make the whole thing difficult to follow even if you know about Pokemon.
  • More of the same really, as above. Also removed. In relation to the coverage, *I agree the anime is too extensive, other users are fighting over trivial points. The manga is actually more keypoints, the Volume 3 was the only one that sold in the Western World. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Taxman's comments of the references also striked a cord with me. May I direct your attention to failed FAC for Star Wars IV which floundered largely on its reliance on George Lucas approved documnetaries at the exclusion of just about everything else. Rather too much of the references come from the spource itself or other Pokemon fan sites. Aren't there any independent review sites that spill tons of ink over the subject?

My biggest problem with this article is the complete lack of any information on critical reaction, the almost complete absence of information on fan reaction (certainly very citation) and the complete absence of any development information, out of universe stuff. Contrast this with the excellent work done on the recent FAC for Final Fantasy VII. I am not objecting yet, I will wait to see what answers I get from the editors who have obviosly worked hard on this instead. I'm not in the business of opposing just because it is pop culture, or a game, or anything like that. As I mentioned I have played the game, in fact I am the only person on earth to have used Mankey in an attack while working in a rainforest studying monkeys!. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I've already noted this everywhere else, so I don't need to go in any particular detail. The references are valid in my opnion, others will disagree, there are users who are against using sources as much. The point is, they don't exist, so I think it's best to make the article as great as it can be, rather than focusing on something that isn't going to appear. Would you hassle a chicken to lay a dinosaur? Thank you for your points! Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, this looks good. As for the referencing, I see no reason whatsoever why the materials used would not be considered adequate. I'd be more inclined to think the double standard is the other way around: people go harder on the Pokemon articles (and similar subjects) and frankly some of the objections that come up look like grasping at straws to avoid having to give the fundamental and unactionable objection (a false interpretation of notability). Everyking 11:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You're kidding right? Almost every one of the sources is promotional material. There doesn't even exist a single source which would be considered quality by the standards other subjects are judged by. By what standards could the sources be considered of adequate quality? - Taxman Talk 13:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • He's entitled to his opnion, as are you. Don't question other people's opinions, people don't do it to you. Highway Daytrippers 15:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course he is, but discussion about whether an article meets the FA criteria is bound to have differences of opinion, and those can be discussed. That's what a discussion is. He has questioned my opinion (in the sense of stating disagreement with it) and because I don't feel there's much substantive basis behind his position I've responded. He clearly doesn't agree with my opinion. There's nothing wrong with that as long as the discussion is productive. - Taxman Talk 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Well "You're kidding, right?" isn't productive. He took your complaints seriously, you may as well take his merits seriously also. Highway Daytrippers 16:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You use the best sources that are available to you regarding a specific subject. Sometimes there are academic journals and books, sometimes (usually) there aren't, and you settle for less. As long as the sources are reasonably reliable, there should be no problem, and the sources in this article look reliable to me (and I would trust the authors to know this stuff well enough to choose the best sources available, anyway). Official "promotional material" seems perfectly fine to use, and there's tremendous precedent. Everyking 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • And then there comes a point where the sources are of such low quality that passing it off as an encyclopedia article becomes unnacceptable. This is well past that and these sources aren't reasonably reliable, they're fan material. We wouldn't accept an article as a FA on oranges that included information only from the Florida orange growers association and likewise we shouldn't include one that has only promotional material no matter what the subject is. There's a reason there's no reliable sources on the subject. It's just not important enough to be treated in any. That's not the end of the world, we don't need to cover everything; we need to cover everything with reliable sources, and there's tons of that to go work on. I don't have any problem letting anyone write about anything, it just doesn't need to be in Wikipedia because there are some things we are and some we are not. There are plenty of fan sites or things like Wikia to post fan material like this on. If we just used the standard of reliable sources, we wouldn't have nearly as many deletionism inclusionism debates and we'd have a much better encyclopedia with more even coverage. - Taxman Talk 13:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I already asked please do not argue Pokémon's worth at Wikipedia, you're just grasping for straws for an actionable objection. Highway Daytrippers 15:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm not arguing about the worth of Pokemon. There are likely enough high quality sources discussing Pokemon in general that a wonderful FA could be written about the general topic. But there aren't anywhere close for this individual topic, and that's the problem here. While you'd like to think that pointing out the extreme low quality of sources in this article is grasping at straws, it's not. It is a serious problem if something without high quality sources would be promoted as if it does have them. - Taxman Talk 15:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
              • You were saying that they didn't deserve to be at this site, that highly sounds like discussing the worth of Pokémon. If you aren't going be constructive there's no point discussing this. Highway Daytrippers 15:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
                • I don't care what the topic is. If this subject had a lot of high quality sources I would be right there arguing along with you that the subject doesn't matter and it should be featured. All topics with no high quality sources should not be featured, it doesn't matter if it's Pokemon or whatever else. - Taxman Talk 16:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Escuse me but I don't have any problem letting anyone write about anything, it just doesn't need to be in Wikipedia because there are some things we are and some we are not. There are plenty of fan sites or things like Wikia to post fan material like this on. If we just used the standard of reliable sources, we wouldn't have nearly as many deletionism inclusionism debates and we'd have a much better encyclopedia with more even coverage. is hardly justifying with "subject doesn't matter". And if Pokémon have such awful references, then why didn't you argue this in Torchic's FAC? Highway Daytrippers 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • The subject not mattering is exactly what I was saying in what you quote there. I'm not sure where you see a discrepancy. The only thing that matters is whether or not there are reliable sources available for a subject. If there are not then it satisfies what Wikipedia is not, fails WP:V, etc making what I wrote above perfectly consistent. And if you check I argued exactly this same point there, that that article did not have (m)any reliable sources either. This one's even worse in this regard and I've probably stated my case better here. The problem is not the subject, the problem is the double standard of allowing articles with terrible quality sources to be promoted as if they have high quality ones. But you're right above, we disagree and further disagreement isn't likely to help. - Taxman Talk 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • people go harder on the Pokemon articles (and similar subjects) and frankly some of the objections that come up look like grasping at straws to avoid having to give the fundamental and unactionable objection (a false interpretation of notability). Garbage. I have recently voted to promote FF VII, Padme Amidala and Palpatine. Applying the standards of those fine articles to Pokemon articles is neither double standards nor unfair. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
People often do. Objecting because a ridiculous figure doesn't exist, or objecting because they don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. They do get quite a bit of stick. Highway Daytrippers 20:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
People often do. Objecting because a ridiculous figure doesn't exist, or objecting because they don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Nobody here is objecting on the grounds that Charizard doesn't exist or isn't notable enough. Please stop setting up strawman arguments. Andrew Levine 17:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to notes, such as the argument that an article shouldn't exist because a merchandise figure hadn't been calculated by the manufacture. I wasn't referring to the character's notability at all. Highway Daytrippers 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Taxman and Andrew Levine. It's not fair to lower our standards for pop culture articles. Reliable sources are reliable sources, and many of those used for this article are not. — BrianSmithson 08:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Taxman and Andrew Levine. BlueShirts.
  • Support, why should it mather where the sources come from? As long as there reliable, It shouldn't matter. Although I still don't see why we need Bellyzard, I guess it's notable.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 15:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I say "Enough" to those who wish to lock out entire subjects from FA status simply because they don't like the references that are used. Though we would all love to have accurate and highly notable references, I think we should allow for references that are simply accurate when the subject warrants it, and this is that case. Judgesurreal777 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Have you seen how many FACs on all kinds of subjects get rejected for not having quality sources? Do you propose we lower standards for all articles or just for certain types? How does lowering referencing standards help in building a reliable reference work? How is it fair/right/better for the project to have double standards for some subjects that get to use lower quality references? - Taxman Talk 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Since they're reliable, doesn't it make them quality?--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 21:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • He means things like Wall Street journals and TIME features. It's not the quality of the information, it's how prominent it is. However, since we're using prominent sources for our field I don't the issue. Unless you mean something else? Highway Daytrippers 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I mean prominent. Many of these articles have very solid references, but we are constantly having this same discussion with some trying to bar the door to these articles. We are going to have to accept references that are reliable in the video game and yes, even Pokemon community, as there will never be Britannica type reference. Judgesurreal777 21:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I would expect this level required for Pokémon, but not for creature articles. It just isn't feasible. Highway Daytrippers 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
              First, how do you know there will never be non-fan, non-official sources which analyze Charizard? There are dozens of peer-reviewed journals on popular culture worldwide, Pokémon has been popular for a decade and may remain so for a long time, and even if it burns out after a few more years, people who as kids grew up on Pokémon are the editors and writers of tomorrow, and given the influence of nostalgia, individual Pokémon, like Palpatine and other mass-culture phenomena, might very well get a thorough examination. Probably nobody in 1956 would have imagined that baseball cards would someday be the subject of countless books, news articles, essays, etc.
              Second, I'm not talking about The Wall Street Journal or Time necessarily. As long as it examines Charizard from a perspective outside the Pokémon community, I'd settle for a medium-sized American newspaper, a book on pop-culture from a known publisher, or a peer-reviewed journal from a small university press.
              Third, accusing longtime participants in the FA process of blocking a nomination simply because they don't like the subject, even after they've explained repeatedly why that's not true at all, is assuming bad faith. Andrew Levine 22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first point, sympathize with the second but stil don't quite agree, but as to Wikipedians blocking FA's, I would direct you to the Bulbasaur nomination, and assure you that it is not at all bad faith to say this, it is a statement of fact and has occurred in recent memory on this page in vivid detail. As to whether you guys are doing this or not, I would doubt it, since I have seen both of you around and being very active, but I still dispute your point and tire of this fighting every nomination. I am more generally frustrated that this continues to occur than attempting to single you out. Judgesurreal777 23:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Checking back at the Bulbasaur nomination, I see that there were eight people who objected all the way to the end, and none of them said they were contesting the nomination because of what its subject was. Not one. Please stop making the completely unfounded assertion that the Pokémon character articles face opposition because people don't like the franchise. Andrew Levine 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. WP:RS is quite clear on the reliability of self-published sources such as fanpages (they aren't reliable). And I think even a cursory glance at my user page will show you that I have nothing against pop culture articles becoming featured on Wikipedia. If, as Andrew suggests, we need to wait a few months or years for enough information to become available on Charizard, so be it. It's not right to lower our standards for some subjects and not others. BrianSmithson 04:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not a matter of "lowering standards", it's a matter of applying different standards to different subjects so as to accurately reflect the quality and quantity of references. To apply the same standard everywhere would be absurd; we have subjects where we have vast quantities of scholarly work to draw on, subjects where there is adequate but not exceptional availability of such material, subjects where it is minimal and needs to be supplemented with lesser sources in order to attain comprehensiveness, and subjects for which there is no scholarly work to draw on at all, and lesser sources must be used for the whole thing. To apply just one of these standards everywhere would only permit good results in articles that match the category; all other articles would suffer from it. Everyking 05:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Frankly, that's an issue for WP:RS, not for FAC. If some guy who runs a Pokémon site from his basement is the only source for a particular fact, that's definitely a problem. — BrianSmithson 08:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • You say it's not a matter of lowering standards and then you go on to explain how it requires lowering standards. Lesser sources are lesser sources. Applying the standards of referencing is what it will take to bring this encyclopedia to Britannica or better standard. Maintaining referencing standards and our other content policies are what separates this as a reference work, not a fan magazine and all the other things that Wikipedia is not. Lowering standards [by extreme amounts] only for some subjects dilutes the soup and damages the project. There are other places for things that Wikipedia is not and that's fine. The problem is trying to shove things we're not into the project. - Taxman Talk 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Can I just ask people, on both sides, to try and keep conversation central to Charizard, since we're here to discuss the article's quality, and not the overall worth of Pokémon, or it's referencing, on Wikipedia. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
          • What you are saying ignores reality (and a hefty portion of what I actually said) and leaves no place for a Charizard article on Wikipedia (or hundreds of thousands of other articles that would easily survive AfD, but cannot meet your stringent referencing standards). Therefore your objection is fundamentally not actionable, is it? The article would survive AfD, therefore the question is whether this reaches a standard of excellence within what is possible given the subject. The article can only be as good as an article on Charizard can be. Everyking 03:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Well I said it better elsewhere, but we're getting repetitive. I inserted a modifier above in brackets making it more accurate. There is a level below which you can't lower the standards and still have a quality reference work. This is so far below that point the point isn't in sight anymore. And no, it's perfectly actionable, strip the article down to what reliable sources support. If that's 8 paragraphs, 4 paragraphs, or 1, that's fine. Currently the article reads terribly mostly because it's so fluffed up with in universe material. - Taxman Talk 04:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
                • See, I can't take what you're saying seriously because you didn't bring this up at Bulbasaur's or Torchic's FACs, where you don't comment at all about the "fluffy quality" of writing. You just seem to be thinking of scenarios in which you'll get your way. Highway Daytrippers 07:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • Perhaps Taxman didn't think that Bulbasaur or Torchic suffered from "fluffy prose" and that's why he didn't bring it up there? You still seem to be under the impression that people are operating with an anti-Pokémon agenda and that their complaints against Pokémon articles must be uniform. Andrew Levine 16:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
                    • Because the writing is nearly exactly the same. It's certainly in the same style. Taxman has also made similar unactionable objections in all the FACs. Highway Daytrippers 17:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
                      • Not sure why you're persisting in saying the objection is unactionable when I've already demonstrated it's perfectly actionable: you reduce the in universe material – an action, hence actionable. - Taxman Talk 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well for one thing, whether I brought this up before or not is irrelevant to this nomination. For another, I'm confused why you're making that assertion without checking. I just phrased it the other way around before saying that there was no out of universe information, hence too much in universe. And for Bulbasaur as I've already said, I thought that had more than enough objections that I didn't even need to bother writing one out. - Taxman Talk 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
                    • There is a difference between actionable and propostorous, that is ridiculous. Highway Daytrippers 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
                      • At least we can agree it is actionable, but you just don't want to do it. Trouble is I have very strong basis in policy behind my position. - Taxman Talk 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Taxman until the sourcing is better. I also must express some surprise to the claim that such sourcing does not exist. I'd be very surprised if someone hasn't written a book or two on Pokemon that are more academic. JoshuaZ 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In response to those who are calling out that objections based on source quality are unreasonable, I note that this still cites serebii.net, although not as heavily as it once did. I objected to the first nomination partly on the basis of that site's use as a reference; I have great difficulty believing that a site which, at the time of that FAC at least, had clearly not bothered to spellcheck or copyedit its articles has put too much effort into fact checking them either. Better references than that must be found. --RobthTalk 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: for those of you who are opposing due to the references, hear me out. HighwayCello has pointed out to you that things such as TIME and NYT and WSJ aren't available for charizard. He and the other editors have obviously done there best to find the best sources for this article. If there were this kind of stuff out there, don't you think the editors would've added it? Should it matter if the source of info is from TIME magazine or some dude running a website from a basement in Dorset County, as long as it's reliable? Now, I'm not going to argue my point any further.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 11:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you're overlooking the vital concern of whether the bloke running a website from his basement in Dorset is reliable. Reliability is the issue. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here with Serebii.net (it's certainly been active for a long time, and is notable among the fan community), but it's fair to bring up this concern and to request some reasoning for why the individual(s) running such a site should be taken as reliable sources. (Something of a continuation of this in my comment to be made immediately below.)
  • Comment — I'm behind the argument that we shouldn't restrict "reliable" to just sources like Time and The New York Times. Often, there are authoritative sources within the community of a subject that may, in fact, be better suited to serve as a source (such as IGN or Edge for video game articles in general).
However, I've noticed it being said in this FAC that other sources simply don't exist for some of the information in the article. I have no problem with the primary sources that are used (the issue of primary sources is really an overblown and misunderstood one: it's only an issue when the validity of the information being supported is open to question; if, for example, the subject of the article is a controversial matter where the primary source might be omitting or altering the details for some personal agenda, that's a problem; otherwise, there isn't an actual issue; on a non-controversial matter where the creators or publishers of a product or one of the fictional characters featured therein are simply seeking to promote or describe the product/character, there's not a whole lot of reason to doubt their ability to accurately report the characteristics of their own property; certainly, a secondary source would be more deserving of suspicion in such a case), nor how they are used, and the information being supported by Serebii.net is not what we'd really call "sensitive information", so I'm not too concerned about it either (in fact, the episodes themselves could have been used as the references for the anime-related plot details). That being said, though, in the interest of satisfying some editors' concerns, perhaps more research should be done. To be honest, I find it highly unlikely that there's no printed source whatsoever documenting something like Charizard's role in the anime. I find it especially unlikely that no Japanese work has been printed that would document such a role (Ash's Charizard was an important character in the early stage of the anime), as those anime and manga companies never fail to publish multiple books on their hot products. Perhaps someone should look specifically for any materials published in Japanese (even if they were a primary source, I don't think it would matter, considering the subject matter and the nature of the information being supported), maybe not for something like his role in the anime (again, the episodes themselves can be used as a reference), but for certain other things.
Again, I have no problems with the primary sources, nor really any with the Serebii.net references (they're pretty much expendable anyway), but I do find fault with things like the speculation surrounding the origin of the name "Charizard". Either it is a portmanteau or it isn't. Even though it obviously is, that's going to have to be sourced (reliably) if it's going to be stated. The Dictionary.com references don't really do anything toward that. Also, the "Lizardon" reference doesn't really confirm anything either.
Anyway, I'm not going to object or support, at least not yet. I would like to see the speculation on the names referenced, though. Ryu Kaze 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I've attempted to remove speculation/unsourced info in the name etymology area, do you have any other points? Highway Daytrippers 21:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd rather hoped for actually referencing those points instead of removing them, but, nonetheless, I think that does neutralize any concerns about original research, so I've got nothing else to add as far as that goes. Thanks for the rather speedy response. Ryu Kaze 23:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It's the common problem, language barriers are often not breached in such a way, there isn't a Japanese name etymology in English, and there probably isn't an English one in Japanese. It's a common problem. Do you have any other points? Thanks again, Highway Daytrippers 07:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Lesser sources and fan sites tend to get all of there information from the same notable sources. For Pokémon, usually a combo of Coro Coro, Nintendo, and Pokémon itself. That is why many of the reliable ones are not allowed; 8 sources could be listed, but in truth it is only one or more notable sites over and over again. Asking to allow lesser sources as references is like asking to list Nintendo's website 9 times as a reference. The Hybrid 06:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • So? Dixie (song) cites "Sacks and Sacks" 15 times and "Nathan" 15 times. It is very common to cite one source many times, the types of sources and their diversity is important. Andrew Levine 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. I was talking about listing multiple references for the same fact, which is fairly common. allowing the lesser sites to be used with the reputable source is basically asking to list the same reference for the same fact multiple times. Also, fan sites are realy nothing but a middle-man for references that we already use, reliable or not. The Hybrid 23:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying at all. If all we're looking for is a fact cited in an official source, there's no need to cite multiple sources for that fact. Andrew Levine 04:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
          • He's talking about when you have two refs together at the end a comma or sentence. Apparently, letting fan sites to be used alongside official sources in situations such as this, is just giving the same information twice? I think that's what he meant. Highway Daytrippers 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
            • If both of the refs get their info from the same source, there's no need to use both. If they both reach a separate conclusion independently, you can/should use both. This is standard citation procedure not just on Wikipedia but everywhere. Andrew Levine 16:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
              • It's not about giving the same information twice, seeing as that is the purpose of two refs. Listing a fan site and a reputable source, or two fansites, is (basically) listing the same REF twice, for the same fact. Also, if the fan sites reach a conclusion that was not officially stated, then it shouldn't be used for that fact. I hope that I was clearer this time, obviously I am having some trouble putting this into words. The Hybrid 23:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've now given this current version of the article a more thorough look, and I have to object. Enough has been said about the sources already, so I won't go on about that here. What I will point out is:
    1. There are serious issues with in-universe perspective in a number of places here.
    2. The prose remains problematic; grammatical errors are scattered throughout, and comma usage is an issue in a number of places.
  • These problems occur throughout, but the worst offender on both counts is the "characteristics" section; several of the prose issues with that section that I raised in the first FAC have still not been addressed. --RobthTalk 00:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goldfish

Samsara and I have helped to reorganize, wikify, reference, and greatly improve this article. This is the third time this article has been nominated. QuizQuick 20:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - Scarcity of inline citations and references. Wisdom89 21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - in addition to the above concern, the article is once again in need of a thorough copyedit. Why not wait for the Good Article decision first? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - entire sections without references. Morgan695 04:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • *Support. Hezzy 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC) On second thought, Object.Hezzy 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Hezzy, just so you know, FAC isn't a vote, so objecting without a reason given is meaningless. Fieari 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That said, Object, for the reasons above. Fieari 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments:
    • The first line feels weak. I expect the first line to define the subject, and to start strong. While the early domestication and popularity of goldfish makes your topic notable, it doesn't tell me what a goldfish is, and the notability is markedly weakened by the phrase "one of the...". I'd suggest starting with something like "The goldfish is a popular aquarium fish belonging to the carp family."
    • Per WP:LEAD, the lede should summarize the article, and should not include details not found later in the article. My rule of thumb is that if a topic is important enough to merit a section header, it should at least be mentioned in the lede. I see nothing about feeding, behavior, breeding, etc., in your lede.
    • Similarly, the lede should include only the most important information. The fact that the carp family includes koi and crucians, or that proto-goldfish were "gray/olive/brown," isn't central enough to your topic to merit inclusion in the lede. Both of these facts would be better mentioned in the History section. The mutation of cyprinids belongs in History or Breeding, perhaps, but not in the lede.
    • Word choices often weaken the meaning, almost becoming "weasel words." The goldfish is "one of the earliest" fish to be domesticated. It is "one of the most commonly kept" fish. Goldfish are "relatively small" as carp go. Goldfish "may grow" to 23 inches. "Most" goldfish "generally" live for six to eight years. "It is quite possible that owners will notice." "Goldfish should learn." See if you can strengthen the impact, perhaps with concrete data, like "Goldfish are highly popular aquarium fish, accounting for 55% of aquarium fish sales worldwide." You could also simply say that the goldfish is "a small member of the carp family" and that "goldfish grow to a maximum length of 23 inches" without changing the meaning. You could say "however, household goldfish have an average lifespan of six to eight years" or "household goldfish average only six to eight years."
    • Some words get unnecessarily repeated. The phrase "one of the" appears twice in the first sentence. "Domesticated" is mentioned twice in the first paragraph. The word "egg" appears twice in the passage "Goldfish, like all cyprinids, are egg-layers. They produce adhesive eggs that attach to aquatic vegetation."
    • You rely on several devices that impede flow. "Gray/olive/brown," for example, practically stops me in my tracks. Even after stopping to parse this phrase, I'm not clear whether you mean that each fish was all three colors, that each fish could be any one of these colors, or that the fishes were an indeterminate color that mixed gray, olive, and brown together. Your use of parentheses also impedes flow: "(which also includes the koi...)" and "(first domesticated in China)" both slow down reading and imply that the information is of secondary importance. If this information really is of secondary importance, it doesn't belong in the lede.
    • "Goldfish, like all cyprinids, are egg-layers." How about "Golfish, like all cyprinids, lay eggs"? Use strong verbs when available and appropriate.
    • The organization needs improvement. For example, you mention in the first paragraph that goldfish are "relatively small," but you discuss their size in detail in the second paragraph. Find a way to bring the topic and the supporting details together. The section on Mosquito control is too short to justify its own section; either expand it or merge it into another section.
    • I'm not crazy about the lists. Since you tell us more about the different varieties later in the article, why not remove the list altogether and replace it with a table of links at the bottom of the article? The section on Chinese varieties should be easy to convert to paragraph form.
    • Several sections, including Feeding, Native environment, and Breeding, have no references. The Behavior section has only one.
    • Why is "cyprinid" blue-linked in the Breeding section but not in the lede? Please fix the red link on "generalist."
    • Per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include the title of the article. You should rename the five section headers that include the word "goldfish." "Edibility and cruelty" implies that goldfish are edible and cruel, which is not what you mean.
    • Per WP:CAPTION, try to take advantage of some reviewers' preference for captions that are complete sentences. Instead of "Goldfish swimming in a goldfish bowl," use the caption to reinforce some fact about the goldfish's size, or popularity as aquarium fish, or coloration, so that the image illustrates the article rather than just decorating it.

I hope these suggestions help. Peirigill 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earth

Great article about essential topic. Luka Jačov 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Support - per nomination. Luka Jačov 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Temporary oppose This is mostly an aesthetic issue. Can you somehow integrate section 7.2.1 "Extremes" so the material is at the same header level as the other sections? It sticks out like an ugly duckling at the moment. The heading "Descriptions of Earth" did not give me much of an idea of what to expect. Presumably the whole article is a description... "Symbolism"? "Cultural significance"? I also corrected a layouting issue by placing one picture on the right rather than left. If you really want to have it on the left, let me know, I may have an idea how it can be done. Cheers. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. The article is nice but could use a few improvements:
    • The "Geography" section is waaay to listy.
    • Plate tectonics is a theory? I thought it was an established fact... (I'm no expert though)
    • "Extreme" section is listy.

That's all I can think of atm, but these should be fixed. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Theories can be true. My impression is that this change in usage happened in the evolution vs. creationism debate - now any theory with solid evidence is called a "fact". Facts, however, really are observable little fragments. Hypotheses about how things work are often not directly observable contemporaneously in their entirety and therefore couldn't be considered "facts". Talk about scientists getting emotional... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Facts, theories and hypotheses are three quite distinct things, their meanings have not changed in recent times. A fact is an objective and verifiable observation. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural phenomena. A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. Despite all the evidence we have for plate tectonics, the entire process has not been objectively and verifiably observed. --Oldak Quill 04:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for now. Right off the bat, 21 inline citations and another three non-inline refs to reference the planet upon which the subjects of most other Wikipedia articles resides is just too thin. Obvious things that need easy sourcing exist, as with the paragraph on Hitchhiker's Guide. Two page references, one for the "Harmless" entry and one for the "Mostly harmless" entry. The see also section could (and should, IMO) be converted into a template rather than an odd table of links in the article (it would connect various "Earth" topics much more nicely). Also, the development of life on Earth is rather jumpy in the summary history section, maybe the topic warrants a subsection of history (certainly needs some expanded coverage). Also, the article seems heavily scientific. The Descriptions of Earth section isn't very well written, is very thinly referenced, and doesn't include what seems like a logical section to be merged in - the "Symbol" section from Lexicography. Even that single section of non-scientific content is heavily scientific with little note of lore. Earth has played a massive role in images and stories from various societies, but figures like Gaia get half of a parenthetical in one sentence that isn't referenced? Finally, the lead could probably use some trimming. Basically, to summarize:
  1. More references, preferably inline.
  2. See also section converted to a template.
  3. Expand the development of life on Earth info one way or another.
  4. Merge "Symbol" into "Descriptions of Earth"
  5. Properly reference what text is currently in "DoE"
  6. Expand and possibly rewrite "DoE".

Sorry for the long list, but this is a pretty wide piece of subject matter. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Only 21 citations and 3 references for Earth? That's really low for something like this. There obviously have to be thousands of books you could get information from. The section needs to be beefed up. I'd like to see at least 10 books and 50 cites for a scientific article of this importance. --SeizureDog 00:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. One of the most amazing features of Earth is that it has had the correct conditions for life to evolve. There is too little information on this (primordial soup to present day biosphere) for this article to be featurable. --Oldak Quill 04:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
See the first paragraph of ==Environment and ecosystem==. If there is not enough info there, it it is due to the necessary summary style of the whole article. -- Rmrfstar 15:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Support—Mostly well written.

    • The link fairy has been hard at it, diluting the value of the important links (I've removed some at the top).
    • The third paragraph requires references.
    • "Changes in the orbit of the planet may also be responsible for the ice ages that have covered significant portions of the surface in glacial sheets."—Doesn't the changing tilt of the planet also contribute to ice ages? Insert "partly" before "responsible"?
    • You state that "The Earth does not have another natural orbiting body other than the Moon" and that the Moon is the Earth's "largest natural satellite". Tony 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support

**Geology and atmosphere sections are too short **Magnetic field should be before Earth in the solar system section **Geography is like a data list. It should be in prose. At least the first part of it

    • Earth's future section: what about the impacts of human being?

**Needs mush more references and external links. BTW: good article. NCurse work 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Without actually reading most of the text, the formatting of the article is clearly poor and lists (as opposed to prose) abound. Try to turn some of the lists into paragraphs, improve the use and spacing of images and expand or merge some of the shorter sections. —Cuiviénen 03:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Easily meets FA standards. We do not need citations for citations' sake, and the facts are well-referenced where necessary. Again, we must remember that not everything about Earth can be dealt with here in full. -- Rmrfstar 15:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not enough inline citations, there are entire sections which as far as we know are somebody's fictional ideas: 'Lexicography', 'Atmosphere', 'Earth in the solar system', 'Magnetic field', 'Plate tectonics'... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gulf War

Good Article, well written. Mercenary2k 11:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support A well reference, well written article. Good use of pictures and an informative structure of writing. While the article is a bit long (83kbs), I think that the infomation included justifies this. Thε Halo Θ 11:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose,
  1. Lead is not a decent summary of the article, see WP:LEAD
  2. Quotes should not be in italics
  3. TIME cover is not necessary or justified - we don't need a TIME cover to prove the event happened - which seems to be the only purpose the images is serving
  4. The text is flabby, there is duplication of the same information in several places, for example the coalition is described in Diplomacy/operation shield section and another section on the coaltion, isn't there a better way to present this without the duplication (mabye a table?); the health effects of DU are discussed in two separate sections.
  5. No reference for the cost section. Also it is unlcear who those costs apply to.
  6. Consequences is unreferrenced, opinions should have propper cites. Same goes for the casualties section
  7. I'm not sure the technology section is necessary, and may be better merged into some other part of the text
--Peta 13:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild Object A good article, but the lead could be improved (especially by summarising the end result of the conflict). The Time magazine image could also be moved to the media section.--Thud495 14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose This is a really good, thorough, well presented article, let down by a lack of spit and polish. As above, the lead needs work
  1. Hostilities commenced in January 1991, resulting in a decisive victory for the coalition forces, which drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait with minimal coalition deaths. Previously in the paragraph we are told that the war started on August 2 1990 with the invasion of Kuwait. The sentence above should make it more clear that allied hostilities commenced in January 1991.
  2. Minimal should be thought about as well I think. Is it minimal in comparison to the Iraq forces or just a few blokes and goats died? Too woolly.
  3. The image Image:Tanksatdocks.jpg is a broken link.
  4. Could use some more inline citation (One per paragraph min?).

--Mcginnly 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. Oppose, simply because of ambiguous/misleading title; an unambiguous title should be chosen that does not confuse this with the first Gulf War. 195.250.64.76 12:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Image:GWI DU map.gif should be svg. I can barely read the text in the current version. WP 06:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myanmar

See also: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myanmar/Archive

Self nomination After an extensive peer review of this article, tremendous changes have been made, improving the article's quality, tone, and verifiability. Therefore, I nominate this article. --Hintha 17:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support with quibble. All objections I pointed out at the last FAC were solved. The only thing is that I would rather see the lead expanded slightly to reach 3 paragraphs instead of 2, given the article length (48k). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The first reference I clicked on (currently number 41) doesn't go to the article indicated. Please doublecheck all your refs, and let me know when you're done. Sandy 17:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Not sure what you mean by "doesn't go to the article indicated". I clicked on #41 and it went right to the correct note at the bottom.--WilliamThweatt 19:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Oh, now I see -- the link itself pointed to the wrong article. I have fixed the link and checked the others. They all appear to be fine now.--WilliamThweatt 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support article has vastly improved over last FAC. It went through Peer Review answering all concerns raised there. A tremendous amount of research, fact-checking and general copyediting has went into this version of the article. Article now appears to meet all the criteria for FAC.--WilliamThweatt 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as it meets all of the Featured article criteria. Hintha 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportMild Object, the article switches between DD MMM YYYY and MMM DD YYYY. They should all be the same, preferably MMM DD YYY. Other than that, good work. Rlevse 20:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Those have been fixed. --Hintha 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment and mild object. The article shouldn't use MM DD YYYY as this is not Myanmar's standard, MM DD YYYY is only used in the US, Canada, Micronesia and Indonesia. --Oldak Quill 12:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response That seems to be user preference issue, because despite how the date is placed in the editing box, its display (MM DD YYYY > DD MM YYYY and vice versa) can be modified in the user preferences. Hintha 13:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Since anons, who make up the majority of our readership, do not have this choice, it is not an issue of preference. The date format should be determined by the subject matter. --Oldak Quill 16:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
        • That has been taken care of. --Hintha 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Although the sentences are still a little choppy, I think the article's strengths outweigh its weaknesses and deserves to be featured.

**Comment Also:

"endowed upon its peoples a rich and unique heritage"

The lead is not a brochure. Every country in the world has a rich and unique heritage. Again, see the lead in Canada
Otherwise beautiful article --User:Jaw101ie 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • worked on that. Rlevse 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Image:Daw_Aung_San_Suu_Kyi.JPEG needs fair use rationale. Andrew Levine 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Taken care of. Rlevse 00:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object there are some referencing problems, and prose problems, which call for a thorough copy edit by a fresh set of eyes. Picking a random section in the middle:
    • Myanmar is one of the poorest nations in the world, suffering from decades of stagnation, mismanagement, and isolation. Needs a reference: there are various ways of measuring wealth, and the reader isn't told what this is based on.
    • Lucrative industries of gems, oil and forestry remain heavily regulated. They have recently been exploited by foreign corporations which have partnered with the government to gain access to Myanmar's natural resources. Needs a reference.
    • Myanmar was designated a least developed country in 1987.[39] Tourism has been encouraged by the government. However, fewer than 750,000 tourists enter the country annually.[40] Prose is choppy.
    • Not comprehensive: Many nations, including the United States, Canada, and the European Union, have imposed trade sanctions on Myanmar. Why? Problems with human rights are mentioned in earlier sections, but this sentence leaves us hanging.
  • Those are examples from a few paragraphs only. Sandy 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. 1ne 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Image:National League for Democracy flag.png, Image:MyanmarAdministrativeDivisions.png and Burmese characters should be in SVG. Also, is it necessary to include so many government departments in the external links? WP 11:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is comprehensive, has undergone mostly minor edits recently, etc. --Gray Porpoise 19:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. The politics section should be about the government now - not other counties and human rights organisations views of the government. The article doesn't even mention what sort of parliamentary system the country operates under, that there are political parties or that the country has elections or the frequency of those elections. Discussion of foreign relations, sanctions, military abuses ect should all be moved to a section on foreign relations and military. At the very least the internal politics need to be distinguised from the international politics.
  2. The image Image:Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.JPEG should not be there, I don't think that fair use is justified here.
  3. There is no mention of media in the culture section, is there freedom of the press in Myanmar?
--Peta
    • Response The government does not have a parliament (it never convened) at present. The majority of political parties elected in the last election (held in 1990) have been illegalised (which are all in the History section). The government is the military. --Hintha 05:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • This section should explain that - it should not be coloured by whether we think that is a bad thing. The way it is set up does not present a NPOV.--Peta 13:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I've added information about politics, and moved foreign relations/military to a new section. I've also removed the Aung San Suu Kyi image. Hintha 00:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm a casual browser of this article, and would like to know why Peta thinks Image:Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.JPEG would not be not fair use here. She's being discussed in the Politics section, and the caption giving an overview was sourced. I won't readd the image, since it's not essential, but I thought her image illustrated an important element of Myanmar's politics, and added a visual human element to the Politics section. The next prominent face is several sections below, in Demographics. TransUtopian 04:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • The photo of Aung San Suu Kyi should be replaced. She is one of the foremost politicians/leaders/symbols and known worldwide. Her contributions and legacy are very important, as the article discusses so I believe the use of the photo is not only justified but added quality to the article.--WilliamThweatt 04:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The image of Aung San Suu Kyi is not necessary for us to understand what is going on in the text, it is not commented on in a meaningful way - so the rationale for fair use is just not there. Read WP:FU if you need more infomration on what is and isn't a fair use. The politics secion has improved - but still needs work, the last paragraph in particular should be divided between history and foreign relations. there is still no mention of media in the country and as Tony points out below, the grammar needs work.--Peta 00:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Would a public domain photo of her be okay? I'm still looking. state.gov's only Burma pic of her is credited AP/Wide World Photo. TransUtopian 02:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Sandy. It's good in many respects, so why not network to find someone else to go over it properly. For example, the lead has the following blemishes:
    • "on the north" should be "to the north" - I notice that after a sequences of ons, we do finally get a "to".
    • "overcome coups d'état" - is this a reference to the current military dictatorship? If so, it's unclear.
    • "The country's culture, heavily influenced by regional neighbours,..." - Pick the two redundant words.
    • "One-third of Myanmar's total perimeter" - Just "A third" will do; remove "total".
    • "Myanmar's diverse population" - This is vague.

Please don't just fix these examples; the whole text needs serious attention. Tony 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. A citation spot check turned up enough problematic cases to suggest a wider issue with referring to sources that relate to but don't directly support the article's claims (results here). Someone needs to go through and straighten that out; also, books cited need ISBNs. --RobthTalk 05:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Nader

Already a good article, and already has had a peer review. Its a fantastic article. All that put together makes a Featured Article. 11kowrom 18:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- Why do we think that Image:Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader.jpg is the work of a federal government employee? Jkelly 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment\Object -- The Image source is www.house.gov, which does make it public; however, this article still needs several citations, especially under the consumer advocacy section. Furthermore, while the coverage of his political ambitions is lengthy, I think that sections on his consumer advocacy and clashes with the automobile industry need to be more comphrehensive.--Thud495 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Not everything at house.gov is in the PD. Everything that is created by a federal employee in the course of their duties is. House members get webhosting from house.gov that they can publish their own photos in. They don't become PD by being uploaded to house.gov. Jkelly 21:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Not all citations are inline, tons of citation needed tags, not enough detail in some sections (mostly on early career), etc. Quotes should be in wikiquote. Mad Jack 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object I diddn't have time to read the entire article, but I noticed a few things.
  1. Way to many red links, not sure if that is a valid point, but there is a giant list of almost all red links, not very useful
  2. History of his political career is lengthy, a triming would help.
  3. Very few pictures. If no more can be found, then this can be ignored.
  4. as mentioned by Mad Jack, the quotes should be moved to wikiquote.

Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object—2a. Here are examples from the lead that suggest that the whole text needs a good massage.
    • "Issues he has promoted include consumer rights, feminism, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government. Nader has also been a strong critic of"—Why not: "He has promoted consumer rights, feminism, humanitarianism, environmentalism and democratic government. Nader has been a strong critic of ..."—Go through it and weed out the "such as", "including", "etc", tags unless you really want to indicate that you're only giving us some of the items. Redundant "also"; remove it for better flow.
    • "the creation of many governmental and non-governmental organisations, such as the EPA, OSHA, Public Citizen, PIRGs and many more"—The "such as" says it all, doesn't it? Remove the over-informal "and many more". Again, there's an overuse of listing and subset tags—remove "many"?
    • "(1996, 2000, 2004)"—Make it "(1996, 2000 and 2004)".
    • "In 1996 and 2000 he was the nominee of the Green Party; Winona LaDuke was his vice-presidential running mate" These two ideas are so close that you might consider replacing the semicolon: "In 1996 and 2000 he was the nominee of the Green Party, and Winona LaDuke was his vice-presidential running mate."
    • People will hate the extent of your reliance on bulleted lists. See if you can recast some into running prose, and trim or eliminate others. This will sink the nomination otherwise. Tony 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, citations need to be cleaned up. Inline web links are mixed with ref tags. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York Yankees

This is the second time I am nominating this article. The first time around it was really a mess, so me and a lot of other people have done a lot of work on it. I realize it is still 75 KB long, but this is the Yankees we are talking about here. There is just too much to write to keep it as short as some of the other FA's are. It has a lot of good content and I think it is organized very well, so I give it my support. Sportskido8 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Plenty still to do before this reaches featured status, including unresolved issues from the last FAC.
    • Poorly referenced.
    • Still too long. If need be, split the history to History of the New York Yankees, and use summary style.
    • The information in "quick facts" should be written as prose in relevant sections rather than as a loosely linked list of trivia. Oldelpaso 20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Reasons for objection have been already stated by the above poster. If you want to see how an American-centric sports team article should look then, I recommend you to view the New England Patriots article which is well referenced in terms of contents and images. The Patriots' history section has been spun-off to cut down the file size. The images on the New York Yankees article are also lacking proper copyright information. Are you sure the Image:WhiteyF.jpg, Image:GeorgeS.jpg, and various photos in the article are licensed GFDL? --Who What Where Nguyen Why 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. In addition to the above: Jeronimo 20:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • To much lists/tables without prose. Some of these do belong in the article, but need some additional text. Others should be spun-off, such as the season-by-season overview.
    • The "Quick facts" section is just horrible and unencyclopedic. Some of it can be grouped into new sections, moved to existing ones, while some facts aren't for this article.
    • Current roster is unnecessary and to much focussed on present-day, and should be spun of to a separate article.
    • We don't learn anything at all about the team's popularity, spectators numbers, tv viewers, etc.
  • Monster Object. There are far too many Red Sox fans out there who vandalize this article. Heck, it's almost as vandalized as Bush. Should this be a featured article, it will receive a barrage of attackers and protesters. --How dare you? 17:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And there are as many other editors ready to revert back and attempt to get S-Protect. Oh yeah, and my vote is object. See above comments, especially those about the images, by other editors. Try a peer review first. -- Win777 21:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well still it would be an offense to Red Sox fans - with this said featured articles should never be of well-renowned sports teams. --How dare you? 01:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how vandalism should get a say in what does or doesn't merit being a Featured Article. If editors put in the dedication and work to get it to Featured Article quality, then it should be a Featured Article. If some fans of an opposing team are too immature to accept it, they can be IP banned after they begin vandalizing, or they can do the constructive thing and get the opposing team's article to FA status. I strongly oppose any suggestion that vandalism should have a say in what does or doesn't get to become a Featured Article. That's just begging for vandals to play their hand. Ryu Kaze 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok then. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Bush for more information on this matter though. --How dare you? 14:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object — Per reasons below (except when identified as a suggestion rather than a point of objection):
    • The "Quick facts" section needs to be turned into prose and distributed elsewhere as appropriate. At the moment, it's just a trivia section under another name. If you can't find applicable sections to include all the information, you may have to lose some of it, I'm sorry to say. Sometimes you have to make painful cuts in situations such as this
    • Way too limited use of references. The most you have references for at the moment is the current roster. I don't know how much info that book you mention at the bottom has, but if it has a lot of the information being presented in the article, there should be more frequent indications of exactly where this information applies and from where in the book. Also, ideally, there should be more than one such reference in the creation of an article. If it's the best you've got, then it's the best you've got, but at least provide a better indication of which info's coming from the book. References shouldn't go all the way at the end of an article, by the way. They're supposed to fall between "See also" and "External links"
    • (Note: striking, as editor has made attempt at supplying explanation behind source; verification for source still pending) Image licensing issues mentioned above. We can't just accept that a random editor on the encyclopedia was given a GFDL for these things without some kind of verifiability. There's not even a source on the images
    • (Clarification based on nominator's response below: this one was meant more as a recommendation for straightening the article up a bit, rather than actual grounds for objection; I certainly understand that length has no bearing on quality and — as the nominator strongly believes this section remaining intact to be vital to the integrity of the article — I withdraw it as even a suggestion) The article's of an unnecessary length because of the history section. That needs to become an article to itself, with a summarized form used here
    • (Note: meant as a suggestion for style improvement) "Team captains" should probably be placed in a spot it would mesh better. Perhaps before the "Current roster" section
    • (Note: meant more as a suggestion than grounds for objection) While on the subject of the current roster, lose the section sub-headers for it in the Table of Contents. They don't contribute to navigation. Also, maybe try to get some more info on the current roster. As it stands, it's just a list. Maybe mention some of the decision-making that went into selecting them
    • (Note: again, more of a suggestion to improve overall quality; not a point of ojbection) As with the current roster's section, maybe add some additional info on a few of these guys in the Hall of Famers section in prose form
The article has a long way to go, but with some dedication — and taking into account the issues raised here — I can see it getting there. Good luck. Ryu Kaze 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to critics. Ok, you're right about the references. I didn't see that it only had one reference, and that's pretty bad. I didn't write a lot of the article and I have absolutely no way of tracing back to where it came from. But I disagree that it is too long. For some reason there is this notion that great articles can't be longer than 35 KB. But that's why tables of contents were invented. If you people were book publishers you would've told Tolstoy to make War and Peace 300 pages long. The "history" of the Yankees just seems too important to spin off as a separate article. I don't see how this can be done.
Quick facts...that can probably be done away with, but most sports teams articles have it and I figured it was standard. That can be done away with though. The images all have proper permission too, I was lazy and didn't write it down. Please leave them there.
As for the 4th poster...you really make no sense at all. Nobody is stopping the Red Sox fans from trying to make THEIR article featured. In fact they already got the Patriots featured. Sports teams should never be featured huh? If that's so then you can make a case for any other article in the world. And how the hell can you object to an article because it would be "an offense to Red Sox fans". Sorry pal, but you sound like one there. There is definitely a group who objects to every single featured article every day of the week. Don't give me this "we stick up for Red Sox fans" crap. If they don't like it then too bad. I would like to thank the first 3 editors (and the last one) for their constructive criticism. The 4th one, How Dare You, was simply unhelpful.


P.S. It is a matter of perspective about what constitutes a "featured article", and after looking at the New England Patriots one, I am not impressed, nor do I feel that the Yankees page should be modeled after it. It is WAY too short, contains too much text, and is not that informative. The fact that the team's history was split up does not do it any good. If you ask 100 different random, people on the street (who don't like either team) if the Yankees article is better than the Patriots one, I bet that 80 out of the 100 would say yes. But yeah, Wikipedia has all these guidelines, so it's tough. Quick Facts was fixed by the way.Sportskido8 12:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You're welcome for the input, but please try not to respond quite so defensively. I realize you've put in some work here and probably gained an attachment, but it's best to try remaining cool and explaining your position.
I do agree that the history of the team is very important, and I certainly wouldn't object on the basis of the length of that section. I mentioned that mainly as a further recommendation to help in straightening the article out a bit, not as an actual flaw. I'll remove that from my list of objection material, as that was more of a recommendation than a point of objection. I'm certainly not someone who thinks that articles should be under 40kb. You only need take a look at several articles I've gotten to FA status or have worked on that are currently in FAC (such as Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy VIII, Chrono Trigger or Shadow of the Colossus) to see that I'm certainly not one who confuses quality with length. I apologize if I offended you in this regard, and apologize for not having been clear.
As for the images, I'm not about to try to remove them. I just felt that they should meet proper criteria, and you certainly should be given the opportunity to supply it. I see that you cite Dave Fleming as the source of the images. I'm not doubting you on that. I'm just curious as to whether or not you have a means of verifying it for other editors. As things stand, only you know it with absolute certainty. What if you never worked on the article again? Other editors wouldn't know or have any means of defending that position. We need to create articles with this concern in mind.
You said you fixed the Quick facts section, but both it and a Trivia section are there now. There's good information, but the style of presentation is highly discouraged.
I've struck out several things, by the way, or clarified some other points. Basically, my objection is mainly in effect at this point on the basis of references and the trivia materials' presentation. Some more info on the current roster or some of the Hall of Famers would be nice, but the references and trivia stuff are the most important thing. If you can get that, I'd be pretty much satisfied and would strike the objection itself, though I also think the article could benefit from some coverage of the team's popularity if you can get it. Like I said, I can see this making it to FA, but it's going to need a bit of elbow grease. Ryu Kaze 23:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object - This page is a disaster. It is too long, poorly organized, constantly vandalized, and confusing to the reader. I would start it over from scratch. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Vandalism doesn't actually play into the stability stipulation of Wikipedia:What is a featured article? Stability implies that the article's content doesn't change significantly on a day-to-day basis (prior to the beginning of FAC; changes during FAC are expected) and that the article isn't currently the subject of ongoing edit wars or disputes concerning content. Ryu Kaze 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't exactly call it a disaster, or confusing. But thanks.Sportskido8 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Good thurough article that has been peer reviewed. Thirds times a charm! --The_stuart 03:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First nomination Second nomination

  • Object unreferenced. Sandy 03:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this is the third time this article has been a FAC, then links to the two previous nominations ought to be provided so people can see what action has been (or havn't been) taken to improve the article. WegianWarrior 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Compression artefacts on Image:Roger Rabbit.jpg; there are still {{fact}} tags WP 09:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, just about no inline citations. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Thermopylae

Very informative, well written, neutral, cites its sources and provides many references and outside links, goes indepth about the battle itself, the aftermath, why it was notable, and its impact on modern culture. --DA Roc 23:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong object:

  • Lead is too short.
  • The level of inline citation is utterly inadequate for an article of this length. Such citation as is present is a confusing mix of footnotes and parenthetical references. Many of the footnotes are ambiguous or simply meaningless. ("VII, 202"? How is the reader supposed to know what this means?)
  • All the sections from "Oracle at Delphi" onward aren't real prose—much less "brilliant" prose—as they are composed primarily of extended quotes and lists of trivia.

This needs a lot more work before it can be featured. Kirill Lokshin 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Besides all of the above, please put refs after punctuation. Prose also needs a lot of work. Here is a random section:
    • It must be noted the 110,000 Greek troops of Plataea did not include forces from Thebes, Thessaly and the northern Greek kingdoms, which, from a belief of inevitable Greek defeat and desire to save their land from destruction or hope for a change in the political status in Greece that would put them on top, defected to the Persian side after the Persian army advanced to their region.
  • It's hard to even wind my way throught that: by the time I got to the end I really wasn't sure what I had read. Sandy 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article lacks appropriate detail in places and inline citations to identify its sources. For example:
    • Monuments at Site:
      • "There is an epitaph on a monument at site of the battle with Simonides' epigram, which can be found in Herodotus' work The Histories (7.228), to the Spartans:" When was this monument erected and by whom? Does the monument have a name?
      • The eight translations of the epitaph need inline citations to identify their sources.
      • "A note on translation: This should not be read in the imperative mood," Which of the eight translations does this statement refer to? The paragraph reads as though it may be a quote from a text?
      • “Visitor, please confirm to the Spartans that we indeed remained faithful to them until the very end …just in case someone else tells them otherwise.” This quote is presented without an explanation of its context and lacks a citation.
      • "Ruskin said of this epitaph that it was the noblest group of words ever uttered by man." A citation is needed to support this statement.
      • "Additionally, there is a modern monument at the site, called the "Leonidas Monument" in honor of the Spartan king." When was this monument erected and by whom?
      • Good luck with developing the article. Jazriel 10:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Object I am responsible for the references (bofore my edits it had none) and I must say that I did not do a good job then since this was among my first works. I have been working on other aricles and I must say that I did not manage to get back to improving it. I intended to put up a paragraph on why Western historians believe it was 200,000 troops only, and then set it for peer review, not FA status. In it current status it is prematureIkokki 23:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surrealism

I nominate this article as I consider it highly informative, well written and structured, and one of the prime articles on forms of art contained on Wikipedia. tyx

  • Strong oppose, no inline citations for the dozens of statements in the article that need them, including howlers like "Trey Parker and Matt Stone's animated television series South Park often seeks to make points by employing satire that is surreal in nature" snd "Some Surrealist theorists have stated that Surrealism has somehow 'gone beyond' or 'superseded' philosophy, or that philosophy has been 'outclassed' by Surrealism." None of the quotes are sourced either. Andrew Levine 08:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object no inline citations. Please reference the entire article, and remove vague language as pointed above. A very thorough copy edit is needed as well. Here's a sample: The Marxist dialectic and other theories, such as Freudian theory, also played a significant role in some of the development of surrealist theory and, as in the work of such theorists as Walter Benjamin and Herbert Marcuse, surrealism contributed to the development of Marxian theory itself. This text can be made more user-friendly. Just seeing the word theory five times in one sentence makes me lose track of who's on first. Sandy 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. In addition to the above, the paragraphs are too short and choppy, and there is an infobox right in the middle... RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Jump Day

Tomorrow is World Jump Day, so why shouldn't we have this article on the Main Page? --Emx 14:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but please read the criteria for featured articles; the article does not meet most of those requirements. First, it is extrememly short and not comprehensive, providing only basic information. In addition, the article is not sourced, leaving the impression that the latter part may be original research. Finally, the article is not stable: as the event has not occured yet, the article is bound to change after the event. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've read that and I agree with you, the article is really short (much shorter than most of other featured articles). Maybe it could be featured article for Friday, after it occurs? --Emx 16:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Umm, no. Read the description of a perfect article and tell us how many of those criteria this article fulfills. Phoenix2 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above --Mcginnly 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose meets none of the crtiera for an FA, just barely over a stub Jaranda wat's sup 18:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose speedy removal needed from FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose it hasn't been peer reviewed - it hasn't been a Good Article - if there is any FA criteria it doesn't totally fail to meet, I'd be suprised. It should never have been proposed as an FAC - speedy removal please. SteveBaker 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose No adequate referencing, not an encyclopedic tone, the list goes on! —this is messedrocker (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above, and it also contributes with the hoax. Irelevant. --Yago Stecher 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with everyone else and feel like this nomination should be withdrawn. -ScotchMB 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Bears

This is the article about the American Pro Football Team. It is a well-written article covering all the basics about the franchise and its illustrious history in the National Football League. In my opinion, I believe that it is a more indepth article than the New England Patriots article, which has gained featured status. I have worked hard on this article and so have other Wikipedia members. This is the fourth nomination attempt, and I believe that the article meets all reasonable feature status requirements. The article's images all have been tagged properly as I have personally checked every image. --Happyman22 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous Nominations
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive1
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/Archive2
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicago Bears/archive3

  • Support as per nomination --Happyman22 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A took a quick glance and noticed some easy things to fix. Some images are too big, and the infobox is really wide. Change your screen resolution to 800x600 and see what you think. At low resolutions, "The 1946 NFL Championship team photo" and the infobox are really close to each other, and the picture underneath "1976-2000" takes up a significant portion of the screen. Drop that one to 250px or so. Regarding references: you know you can use the same reference more than once without retyping it? Do the following: <ref name="source">Blah Blah Blah</ref>, and then the next time you need that source, just type <ref name="source" />. Simple as that. It'll reduce the amount of text in your edit window, and will shorten the footnotes section. For example, all of the "The Honey Bears and Chicago Bears Mascots" refs will show up once. Once that's done, add more citations to the "Statistics and records" section; there's only one there and there are more numbers and details to cite. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice, and looks technically ready. If I may nitpick, though, could you move the current logo above the Logo word, then make it more prominent than the previous logo? --Kitch 21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Corrections: As per request, the "1946 team photo" was moved down so it wouldn't interfer with the infobox. The Payton picture was dropped to 250px, the references were redone as per the helpful tip given by Spangineer, more citations were added to the "stats" section, and the current logo was moved above the older logo and the older logo was decreased in size per the request of Kitch. Thank you both for your help and support. --Happyman22 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry for trying to spoil (could be easily corrected) your 4th and could successful attempt on getting this article being featured. I was browsing through your photos. It is probably going to be hard to have a "free" alternative (public domain, GFDL, Creative Commons, etc.,) versions of football action, but you need to cite the authors correctly. The Walter Payton picture isn't made by the Sporting News. In fact, they credited on their website as an Associated Press photo. Anyways, good luck. --4.253.39.183 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Another comment I also wanted to add that although I don't think it is required for to be a featured article. The images probably should have "Rationale of fair use for..." on the copyright images. For example, Image:Vforvendettamov.jpg. --4.253.39.183 01:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, provided the fair use rationale issue is resolved. Much improved since the previous nominations. One picky comment - the Statistics and records section could do with a quick copyedit (I would do it myself, but I'm unfamiliar with American football terminology). Oldelpaso 18:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added rationale to the Walter Payton picture and fixed the source as the AP and not Sporting News.
  • Bear Down, Support! - I know how long everyone involved has work on this one, and it SHOWS! Excellent work! (And by the way, I have a copy of the Chicago Symphony Chorus performing the fight song. If I rip it to .ogg, can you use an excerpt? If interested, let me know on my talk page!) --JohnDBuell 03:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) User_talk:JohnDBuell
  • Oppose, fair use images need source information and fair use rationales.--Peta 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I hate to say it but she's right. More fair use rationales are needed, particularly on the logo images. --JohnDBuell 04:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Corrections The images have more fair use rationales added to them especially the logo images. I believe that enough rationale to each image. --Happyman22 14:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Continued Support: I Supported thsi article the last time around and all of my concerns were adressed last time around. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support da bears, though the fair use images should get a bit of attention as noted above, I don't think they'll pose much of a problem. However, Stephen Colbert might tell you otherwise. ♠ SG →Talk 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a solid article.--Riurik 05:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support while I would get rid of the duplicate logo in the logos section, the objection from me, which led to pile-on the last FAC has been resolved. Jaranda wat's sup 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Captions to photos and illustrations need to be regularized. Should all be lower-cased without random capitalization. Moncrief 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charizard

Right, well I'm giving Charizard another shot, hopefully the chaos has blown over from those FACs, I was against them but nevermind. Please, as usual, don't bring up gripes with Pokémon notability or worthwhileness here, and judge the quality of the actual. All comments are welcomed. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 12:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Note - there is some long lying vandalism I'm unearthing, just delete it if you see some of it. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 15:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Light support. Ignoring the bad-faith nominations, tbere's quite some noteworthy content in this article that I can note. However, I do have a few things against it, such as opinions without sources, for example "Charizard is often considered one of the most influential of all Pokémon in the card game" (to which an upfront reference or numerous notable ones would do it well). Actually, I could point out that it's the second paragraph of the TCG section that needs a few improvements and better referencing (to avoid NPOV and making what seems to be opinion). The notability of some lines and their references (we're talking game strategies) confounds me a bit, though - "In particular, some players like to use a setup known as "Bellyzard" which utilizes a move called Belly Drum to greatly increase their Attack power while lowering their HP.". Is it notable enough? - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 14:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your notes, I'll work on them today. Since the article is by several editors, I can't note on all the points, but I will for one remove the POV in the card game. In relation to Bellyzard, it's quite notable. At one point every team had the combination on the internet sites (whatever it's called). Thanks again, Highway Daytrippers 14:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I've cleaned up the TCG section, and removed a bit of the random stuff not required in the video games section. Anything else, Highway Daytrippers 15:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak weak opposeSupport; this article is virtually FA quality, having certainly improved since FACs 1-3. However, there are a couple of minor qualms I have before I can support:
    • I'd prefer if the article actually explained what Charizard's ability "Blaze up" does; a little note in the infobox means nothing.
    • Having links in the style Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen seems a little misleading, as it appears that these are separate articles. I'd prefer simply Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, Blaze is just it's ability, but I'll expand on that. We used to have an article, but it got deleted, which is why it doesn't have the def. And it's Blaze, damn vandals. Second of all, new editors are encouraged to link them in that format, because the "and" isn't in the titles. It's up for discussion, but that's the way it is in Torchic and Bulbasaur. I'd ask Cel really. Will get the def though, Highway Daytrippers 15:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, I don't see the point in describing Charizard's ability, it doesn't have anything to do with anything mentioned in detail in the article. The only reason it's there is some people think it's enclyopedic. I happen to agree with them, but I don't think we should describe their abilties' function. If you had to actually put it into the articles, where would you try to fit it? (video games, obviously, but where?) Sorry, Highway Daytrippers 15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Fair enough; I suppose the basic meaning of the ability is pretty clear. I'm still iffy on the linking issue, but since its a Wikiproject issue, I'm moving to support. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Thank you, the ability is readily available if anyone desires to find out, it's just not particularly enclyopedic.Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 16:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Low quality of sources. Almost every single one of them is Pokemon promotional material or gaming industry promotional material. What's left would not support an encyclopedia article. Before we have a repeat of the last round, I reallize that due to project demographics I am in the minority in believing that we should not lower our standards of referencing for fictional characters, etc, but nonetheless I feel I need to comment. It simply makes us look bad when we put something like this out there as being of comparable quality to an article with unimpeachable sources when it's not. So even though it doesn't weaken my objection, I expect it to be a token one, hence no need to argue. - Taxman Talk 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, per Taxman. There's something wanting when all but two of the non-redundant references are to either fan websites or to the franchise's official literature. As a counterxample among fictional-character FAs, see Palpatine, which includes among its references (alongside official sources) a couple dozen mainstream news outlets, peer-reviewed journal articles, and books by notable publishing houses. Andrew Levine 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply to both - I would honestly add these if they existed but there is no such links or literature of which you describe. Charizard is different to Palpantine, any criticsm is of Pokémon in general, not individual ones. We've had these arguments before, but the last point it has to end of is that this stuff doesn't exist. Sorry, Highway Daytrippers 07:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Give it a little time, then. The character of Palpatine has existed in fiction longer than Charizard, and so there has been more time for mainstream sources to react and assess its cultural impact. I'd say that if such literature does not exist now, you should probably wait until it does, rather than rush the article through the FA process before it's ready. Andrew Levine 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Charizard has existed for a decade! It's not it isn't around yet, it's not coming ever. There's too many Pokémon for anything notable to analyse Charizard. Highway Daytrippers 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not going to be cited because it's really only notable to pokéfans. There's got to be articles that are better suited for FAC:ing than this. Even among pokearticles. /Peter Isotalo 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, this is the one that got nominated. Wouldn't it be nice if all "pokearticles" were good enough to be featured? That's not really rhetorical because I'm not sure you agree with me. I know I would get really frustrated if I toiled away on an article like this only to have deletionists sneer at the subject. Everyking 08:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Yes, many Pokémon articles could be put up for FAC, but we made a conscious decision as a WikiProject to only put the notable Pokémon up for FA, Starter Pokémon, Pikachu, Meowth, perhaps even Jigglypuff. The fact is, there are lots of articles already at GA level, Quilava, Golduck, Weedle, which we intend to leave at that point. We are aiming to have all character articles GA's, leaving a selected to go on to Featured. Charizard, Torchic and Bulbasaur are examples of this. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
                • I think the FA-list can do without another Pokémon character. You could ease the burden on all of us by putting some effort into FA:ing Pokémon instead. It's the only article in the series that actually enjoys notability among the general readership. / Peter Isotalo 22:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
                • I definitely think you should aim at having them all featured, long-term, even the least notable, the same way I think the community as a whole should aim to have everything on Wikipedia FA quality someday. But I do think nominating the most notable Pokemon is good for starters, from a tactical perspective, considering the opposition I'm sure you'd get if you nominated some really obscure one. Everyking 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have several problems with this article.
  • The name Charizard is presumably a portmanteau of char, etc etc etc. Either it is or it isn't. Without knowing anything about the development of the character I too would assume this, but unless the speculation is in some way notable, lets not have speculation, kay? And citing the defenition of charred is pretty weak.
  • Nintendo never revealed the backgrounds of the names, so other websites have made theories of it. There is some argument over charred or charcoal, but there are three links there. One link is to cite the definition of charred, one is to cite the definition of lizard, and the third cites that portmanteau form of Charizard. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a lack throughout of a out of universe perspective. Simply putting As depicted in the Pokémon metaseries at the begining of a paragraph that for the rest of the time is very in universe does not make the article out of universe. Especially with phrases like Wild Charizard are said to focus on finding worthy challengers, as they have a strong innate sense of honor, noted to rely on claws and strength to hunt or ward off lesser foes, using their flaming breath only against opponents they see as equals. Run on sentence, and bolded for the weasely bits.
  • How would you fix the Characteristics problem? I'm not sure myself. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a reason for objecting, but the whole business in the computer game sections about attacks and types and stuff made my eyes water. And I've played the game.
  • The types section is a WikiProject thing, it's above me. I removed some unsourced stuff too. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The following line, in the anime section, is uncited. Charizard's frequent returns can be attributed to the massive fanbase the dragon-esque pokemon has gathered, many fans stating he is the best thing about the series. In fact, his removal from the main team caused numerous fans to turn on the show, and rejoice at his returns. Given that this line is one of the wretchedly few nods towards real world importance (and this Pokemon is to my mind one of the few that might) the lack of any references to back this up is inexucsable.
  • I didn't add that, someone else did and I missed. I noted at the top there was vandalism of that type. It's now removed, Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Numerous wild Charizard live in the Charicific Valley, along with Charla, a female Charizard owned by the valley’s warden, Lisa, including the fore-mentioned Charla, a Pokémon Ash’s Charizard is attracted to. That flat-out isn't English.
  • The anime and manga sections is basically filled with evrey single appearnce by the species/character. No sense of flow. In fact, the frequent jumps between Charizard, the character owned by Ash, and Charizard, the species, make the whole thing difficult to follow even if you know about Pokemon.
  • More of the same really, as above. Also removed. In relation to the coverage, *I agree the anime is too extensive, other users are fighting over trivial points. The manga is actually more keypoints, the Volume 3 was the only one that sold in the Western World. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Taxman's comments of the references also striked a cord with me. May I direct your attention to failed FAC for Star Wars IV which floundered largely on its reliance on George Lucas approved documnetaries at the exclusion of just about everything else. Rather too much of the references come from the spource itself or other Pokemon fan sites. Aren't there any independent review sites that spill tons of ink over the subject?

My biggest problem with this article is the complete lack of any information on critical reaction, the almost complete absence of information on fan reaction (certainly very citation) and the complete absence of any development information, out of universe stuff. Contrast this with the excellent work done on the recent FAC for Final Fantasy VII. I am not objecting yet, I will wait to see what answers I get from the editors who have obviosly worked hard on this instead. I'm not in the business of opposing just because it is pop culture, or a game, or anything like that. As I mentioned I have played the game, in fact I am the only person on earth to have used Mankey in an attack while working in a rainforest studying monkeys!. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I've already noted this everywhere else, so I don't need to go in any particular detail. The references are valid in my opnion, others will disagree, there are users who are against using sources as much. The point is, they don't exist, so I think it's best to make the article as great as it can be, rather than focusing on something that isn't going to appear. Would you hassle a chicken to lay a dinosaur? Thank you for your points! Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, this looks good. As for the referencing, I see no reason whatsoever why the materials used would not be considered adequate. I'd be more inclined to think the double standard is the other way around: people go harder on the Pokemon articles (and similar subjects) and frankly some of the objections that come up look like grasping at straws to avoid having to give the fundamental and unactionable objection (a false interpretation of notability). Everyking 11:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You're kidding right? Almost every one of the sources is promotional material. There doesn't even exist a single source which would be considered quality by the standards other subjects are judged by. By what standards could the sources be considered of adequate quality? - Taxman Talk 13:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • He's entitled to his opnion, as are you. Don't question other people's opinions, people don't do it to you. Highway Daytrippers 15:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course he is, but discussion about whether an article meets the FA criteria is bound to have differences of opinion, and those can be discussed. That's what a discussion is. He has questioned my opinion (in the sense of stating disagreement with it) and because I don't feel there's much substantive basis behind his position I've responded. He clearly doesn't agree with my opinion. There's nothing wrong with that as long as the discussion is productive. - Taxman Talk 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Well "You're kidding, right?" isn't productive. He took your complaints seriously, you may as well take his merits seriously also. Highway Daytrippers 16:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You use the best sources that are available to you regarding a specific subject. Sometimes there are academic journals and books, sometimes (usually) there aren't, and you settle for less. As long as the sources are reasonably reliable, there should be no problem, and the sources in this article look reliable to me (and I would trust the authors to know this stuff well enough to choose the best sources available, anyway). Official "promotional material" seems perfectly fine to use, and there's tremendous precedent. Everyking 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • And then there comes a point where the sources are of such low quality that passing it off as an encyclopedia article becomes unnacceptable. This is well past that and these sources aren't reasonably reliable, they're fan material. We wouldn't accept an article as a FA on oranges that included information only from the Florida orange growers association and likewise we shouldn't include one that has only promotional material no matter what the subject is. There's a reason there's no reliable sources on the subject. It's just not important enough to be treated in any. That's not the end of the world, we don't need to cover everything; we need to cover everything with reliable sources, and there's tons of that to go work on. I don't have any problem letting anyone write about anything, it just doesn't need to be in Wikipedia because there are some things we are and some we are not. There are plenty of fan sites or things like Wikia to post fan material like this on. If we just used the standard of reliable sources, we wouldn't have nearly as many deletionism inclusionism debates and we'd have a much better encyclopedia with more even coverage. - Taxman Talk 13:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I already asked please do not argue Pokémon's worth at Wikipedia, you're just grasping for straws for an actionable objection. Highway Daytrippers 15:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm not arguing about the worth of Pokemon. There are likely enough high quality sources discussing Pokemon in general that a wonderful FA could be written about the general topic. But there aren't anywhere close for this individual topic, and that's the problem here. While you'd like to think that pointing out the extreme low quality of sources in this article is grasping at straws, it's not. It is a serious problem if something without high quality sources would be promoted as if it does have them. - Taxman Talk 15:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
              • You were saying that they didn't deserve to be at this site, that highly sounds like discussing the worth of Pokémon. If you aren't going be constructive there's no point discussing this. Highway Daytrippers 15:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
                • I don't care what the topic is. If this subject had a lot of high quality sources I would be right there arguing along with you that the subject doesn't matter and it should be featured. All topics with no high quality sources should not be featured, it doesn't matter if it's Pokemon or whatever else. - Taxman Talk 16:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Escuse me but I don't have any problem letting anyone write about anything, it just doesn't need to be in Wikipedia because there are some things we are and some we are not. There are plenty of fan sites or things like Wikia to post fan material like this on. If we just used the standard of reliable sources, we wouldn't have nearly as many deletionism inclusionism debates and we'd have a much better encyclopedia with more even coverage. is hardly justifying with "subject doesn't matter". And if Pokémon have such awful references, then why didn't you argue this in Torchic's FAC? Highway Daytrippers 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • The subject not mattering is exactly what I was saying in what you quote there. I'm not sure where you see a discrepancy. The only thing that matters is whether or not there are reliable sources available for a subject. If there are not then it satisfies what Wikipedia is not, fails WP:V, etc making what I wrote above perfectly consistent. And if you check I argued exactly this same point there, that that article did not have (m)any reliable sources either. This one's even worse in this regard and I've probably stated my case better here. The problem is not the subject, the problem is the double standard of allowing articles with terrible quality sources to be promoted as if they have high quality ones. But you're right above, we disagree and further disagreement isn't likely to help. - Taxman Talk 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • people go harder on the Pokemon articles (and similar subjects) and frankly some of the objections that come up look like grasping at straws to avoid having to give the fundamental and unactionable objection (a false interpretation of notability). Garbage. I have recently voted to promote FF VII, Padme Amidala and Palpatine. Applying the standards of those fine articles to Pokemon articles is neither double standards nor unfair. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
People often do. Objecting because a ridiculous figure doesn't exist, or objecting because they don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. They do get quite a bit of stick. Highway Daytrippers 20:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
People often do. Objecting because a ridiculous figure doesn't exist, or objecting because they don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Nobody here is objecting on the grounds that Charizard doesn't exist or isn't notable enough. Please stop setting up strawman arguments. Andrew Levine 17:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to notes, such as the argument that an article shouldn't exist because a merchandise figure hadn't been calculated by the manufacture. I wasn't referring to the character's notability at all. Highway Daytrippers 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Taxman and Andrew Levine. It's not fair to lower our standards for pop culture articles. Reliable sources are reliable sources, and many of those used for this article are not. — BrianSmithson 08:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Taxman and Andrew Levine. BlueShirts.
  • Support, why should it mather where the sources come from? As long as there reliable, It shouldn't matter. Although I still don't see why we need Bellyzard, I guess it's notable.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 15:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I say "Enough" to those who wish to lock out entire subjects from FA status simply because they don't like the references that are used. Though we would all love to have accurate and highly notable references, I think we should allow for references that are simply accurate when the subject warrants it, and this is that case. Judgesurreal777 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Have you seen how many FACs on all kinds of subjects get rejected for not having quality sources? Do you propose we lower standards for all articles or just for certain types? How does lowering referencing standards help in building a reliable reference work? How is it fair/right/better for the project to have double standards for some subjects that get to use lower quality references? - Taxman Talk 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Since they're reliable, doesn't it make them quality?--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 21:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • He means things like Wall Street journals and TIME features. It's not the quality of the information, it's how prominent it is. However, since we're using prominent sources for our field I don't the issue. Unless you mean something else? Highway Daytrippers 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I mean prominent. Many of these articles have very solid references, but we are constantly having this same discussion with some trying to bar the door to these articles. We are going to have to accept references that are reliable in the video game and yes, even Pokemon community, as there will never be Britannica type reference. Judgesurreal777 21:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I would expect this level required for Pokémon, but not for creature articles. It just isn't feasible. Highway Daytrippers 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
              First, how do you know there will never be non-fan, non-official sources which analyze Charizard? There are dozens of peer-reviewed journals on popular culture worldwide, Pokémon has been popular for a decade and may remain so for a long time, and even if it burns out after a few more years, people who as kids grew up on Pokémon are the editors and writers of tomorrow, and given the influence of nostalgia, individual Pokémon, like Palpatine and other mass-culture phenomena, might very well get a thorough examination. Probably nobody in 1956 would have imagined that baseball cards would someday be the subject of countless books, news articles, essays, etc.
              Second, I'm not talking about The Wall Street Journal or Time necessarily. As long as it examines Charizard from a perspective outside the Pokémon community, I'd settle for a medium-sized American newspaper, a book on pop-culture from a known publisher, or a peer-reviewed journal from a small university press.
              Third, accusing longtime participants in the FA process of blocking a nomination simply because they don't like the subject, even after they've explained repeatedly why that's not true at all, is assuming bad faith. Andrew Levine 22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first point, sympathize with the second but stil don't quite agree, but as to Wikipedians blocking FA's, I would direct you to the Bulbasaur nomination, and assure you that it is not at all bad faith to say this, it is a statement of fact and has occurred in recent memory on this page in vivid detail. As to whether you guys are doing this or not, I would doubt it, since I have seen both of you around and being very active, but I still dispute your point and tire of this fighting every nomination. I am more generally frustrated that this continues to occur than attempting to single you out. Judgesurreal777 23:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Checking back at the Bulbasaur nomination, I see that there were eight people who objected all the way to the end, and none of them said they were contesting the nomination because of what its subject was. Not one. Please stop making the completely unfounded assertion that the Pokémon character articles face opposition because people don't like the franchise. Andrew Levine 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. WP:RS is quite clear on the reliability of self-published sources such as fanpages (they aren't reliable). And I think even a cursory glance at my user page will show you that I have nothing against pop culture articles becoming featured on Wikipedia. If, as Andrew suggests, we need to wait a few months or years for enough information to become available on Charizard, so be it. It's not right to lower our standards for some subjects and not others. BrianSmithson 04:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not a matter of "lowering standards", it's a matter of applying different standards to different subjects so as to accurately reflect the quality and quantity of references. To apply the same standard everywhere would be absurd; we have subjects where we have vast quantities of scholarly work to draw on, subjects where there is adequate but not exceptional availability of such material, subjects where it is minimal and needs to be supplemented with lesser sources in order to attain comprehensiveness, and subjects for which there is no scholarly work to draw on at all, and lesser sources must be used for the whole thing. To apply just one of these standards everywhere would only permit good results in articles that match the category; all other articles would suffer from it. Everyking 05:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Frankly, that's an issue for WP:RS, not for FAC. If some guy who runs a Pokémon site from his basement is the only source for a particular fact, that's definitely a problem. — BrianSmithson 08:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • You say it's not a matter of lowering standards and then you go on to explain how it requires lowering standards. Lesser sources are lesser sources. Applying the standards of referencing is what it will take to bring this encyclopedia to Britannica or better standard. Maintaining referencing standards and our other content policies are what separates this as a reference work, not a fan magazine and all the other things that Wikipedia is not. Lowering standards [by extreme amounts] only for some subjects dilutes the soup and damages the project. There are other places for things that Wikipedia is not and that's fine. The problem is trying to shove things we're not into the project. - Taxman Talk 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Can I just ask people, on both sides, to try and keep conversation central to Charizard, since we're here to discuss the article's quality, and not the overall worth of Pokémon, or it's referencing, on Wikipedia. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
          • What you are saying ignores reality (and a hefty portion of what I actually said) and leaves no place for a Charizard article on Wikipedia (or hundreds of thousands of other articles that would easily survive AfD, but cannot meet your stringent referencing standards). Therefore your objection is fundamentally not actionable, is it? The article would survive AfD, therefore the question is whether this reaches a standard of excellence within what is possible given the subject. The article can only be as good as an article on Charizard can be. Everyking 03:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Well I said it better elsewhere, but we're getting repetitive. I inserted a modifier above in brackets making it more accurate. There is a level below which you can't lower the standards and still have a quality reference work. This is so far below that point the point isn't in sight anymore. And no, it's perfectly actionable, strip the article down to what reliable sources support. If that's 8 paragraphs, 4 paragraphs, or 1, that's fine. Currently the article reads terribly mostly because it's so fluffed up with in universe material. - Taxman Talk 04:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
                • See, I can't take what you're saying seriously because you didn't bring this up at Bulbasaur's or Torchic's FACs, where you don't comment at all about the "fluffy quality" of writing. You just seem to be thinking of scenarios in which you'll get your way. Highway Daytrippers 07:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • Perhaps Taxman didn't think that Bulbasaur or Torchic suffered from "fluffy prose" and that's why he didn't bring it up there? You still seem to be under the impression that people are operating with an anti-Pokémon agenda and that their complaints against Pokémon articles must be uniform. Andrew Levine 16:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
                    • Because the writing is nearly exactly the same. It's certainly in the same style. Taxman has also made similar unactionable objections in all the FACs. Highway Daytrippers 17:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
                      • Not sure why you're persisting in saying the objection is unactionable when I've already demonstrated it's perfectly actionable: you reduce the in universe material – an action, hence actionable. - Taxman Talk 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well for one thing, whether I brought this up before or not is irrelevant to this nomination. For another, I'm confused why you're making that assertion without checking. I just phrased it the other way around before saying that there was no out of universe information, hence too much in universe. And for Bulbasaur as I've already said, I thought that had more than enough objections that I didn't even need to bother writing one out. - Taxman Talk 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
                    • There is a difference between actionable and propostorous, that is ridiculous. Highway Daytrippers 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
                      • At least we can agree it is actionable, but you just don't want to do it. Trouble is I have very strong basis in policy behind my position. - Taxman Talk 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Taxman until the sourcing is better. I also must express some surprise to the claim that such sourcing does not exist. I'd be very surprised if someone hasn't written a book or two on Pokemon that are more academic. JoshuaZ 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In response to those who are calling out that objections based on source quality are unreasonable, I note that this still cites serebii.net, although not as heavily as it once did. I objected to the first nomination partly on the basis of that site's use as a reference; I have great difficulty believing that a site which, at the time of that FAC at least, had clearly not bothered to spellcheck or copyedit its articles has put too much effort into fact checking them either. Better references than that must be found. --RobthTalk 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: for those of you who are opposing due to the references, hear me out. HighwayCello has pointed out to you that things such as TIME and NYT and WSJ aren't available for charizard. He and the other editors have obviously done there best to find the best sources for this article. If there were this kind of stuff out there, don't you think the editors would've added it? Should it matter if the source of info is from TIME magazine or some dude running a website from a basement in Dorset County, as long as it's reliable? Now, I'm not going to argue my point any further.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 11:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you're overlooking the vital concern of whether the bloke running a website from his basement in Dorset is reliable. Reliability is the issue. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here with Serebii.net (it's certainly been active for a long time, and is notable among the fan community), but it's fair to bring up this concern and to request some reasoning for why the individual(s) running such a site should be taken as reliable sources. (Something of a continuation of this in my comment to be made immediately below.)
  • Comment — I'm behind the argument that we shouldn't restrict "reliable" to just sources like Time and The New York Times. Often, there are authoritative sources within the community of a subject that may, in fact, be better suited to serve as a source (such as IGN or Edge for video game articles in general).
However, I've noticed it being said in this FAC that other sources simply don't exist for some of the information in the article. I have no problem with the primary sources that are used (the issue of primary sources is really an overblown and misunderstood one: it's only an issue when the validity of the information being supported is open to question; if, for example, the subject of the article is a controversial matter where the primary source might be omitting or altering the details for some personal agenda, that's a problem; otherwise, there isn't an actual issue; on a non-controversial matter where the creators or publishers of a product or one of the fictional characters featured therein are simply seeking to promote or describe the product/character, there's not a whole lot of reason to doubt their ability to accurately report the characteristics of their own property; certainly, a secondary source would be more deserving of suspicion in such a case), nor how they are used, and the information being supported by Serebii.net is not what we'd really call "sensitive information", so I'm not too concerned about it either (in fact, the episodes themselves could have been used as the references for the anime-related plot details). That being said, though, in the interest of satisfying some editors' concerns, perhaps more research should be done. To be honest, I find it highly unlikely that there's no printed source whatsoever documenting something like Charizard's role in the anime. I find it especially unlikely that no Japanese work has been printed that would document such a role (Ash's Charizard was an important character in the early stage of the anime), as those anime and manga companies never fail to publish multiple books on their hot products. Perhaps someone should look specifically for any materials published in Japanese (even if they were a primary source, I don't think it would matter, considering the subject matter and the nature of the information being supported), maybe not for something like his role in the anime (again, the episodes themselves can be used as a reference), but for certain other things.
Again, I have no problems with the primary sources, nor really any with the Serebii.net references (they're pretty much expendable anyway), but I do find fault with things like the speculation surrounding the origin of the name "Charizard". Either it is a portmanteau or it isn't. Even though it obviously is, that's going to have to be sourced (reliably) if it's going to be stated. The Dictionary.com references don't really do anything toward that. Also, the "Lizardon" reference doesn't really confirm anything either.
Anyway, I'm not going to object or support, at least not yet. I would like to see the speculation on the names referenced, though. Ryu Kaze 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I've attempted to remove speculation/unsourced info in the name etymology area, do you have any other points? Highway Daytrippers 21:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd rather hoped for actually referencing those points instead of removing them, but, nonetheless, I think that does neutralize any concerns about original research, so I've got nothing else to add as far as that goes. Thanks for the rather speedy response. Ryu Kaze 23:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It's the common problem, language barriers are often not breached in such a way, there isn't a Japanese name etymology in English, and there probably isn't an English one in Japanese. It's a common problem. Do you have any other points? Thanks again, Highway Daytrippers 07:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Lesser sources and fan sites tend to get all of there information from the same notable sources. For Pokémon, usually a combo of Coro Coro, Nintendo, and Pokémon itself. That is why many of the reliable ones are not allowed; 8 sources could be listed, but in truth it is only one or more notable sites over and over again. Asking to allow lesser sources as references is like asking to list Nintendo's website 9 times as a reference. The Hybrid 06:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • So? Dixie (song) cites "Sacks and Sacks" 15 times and "Nathan" 15 times. It is very common to cite one source many times, the types of sources and their diversity is important. Andrew Levine 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. I was talking about listing multiple references for the same fact, which is fairly common. allowing the lesser sites to be used with the reputable source is basically asking to list the same reference for the same fact multiple times. Also, fan sites are realy nothing but a middle-man for references that we already use, reliable or not. The Hybrid 23:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying at all. If all we're looking for is a fact cited in an official source, there's no need to cite multiple sources for that fact. Andrew Levine 04:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
          • He's talking about when you have two refs together at the end a comma or sentence. Apparently, letting fan sites to be used alongside official sources in situations such as this, is just giving the same information twice? I think that's what he meant. Highway Daytrippers 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
            • If both of the refs get their info from the same source, there's no need to use both. If they both reach a separate conclusion independently, you can/should use both. This is standard citation procedure not just on Wikipedia but everywhere. Andrew Levine 16:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
              • It's not about giving the same information twice, seeing as that is the purpose of two refs. Listing a fan site and a reputable source, or two fansites, is (basically) listing the same REF twice, for the same fact. Also, if the fan sites reach a conclusion that was not officially stated, then it shouldn't be used for that fact. I hope that I was clearer this time, obviously I am having some trouble putting this into words. The Hybrid 23:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I've now given this current version of the article a more thorough look, and I have to object. Enough has been said about the sources already, so I won't go on about that here. What I will point out is:
    1. There are serious issues with in-universe perspective in a number of places here.
    2. The prose remains problematic; grammatical errors are scattered throughout, and comma usage is an issue in a number of places.
  • These problems occur throughout, but the worst offender on both counts is the "characteristics" section; several of the prose issues with that section that I raised in the first FAC have still not been addressed. --RobthTalk 00:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York City

Re-nominating this Aritlce. Great Article for a great city. Mercenary2k 01:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Old Nomination Comments [2]

  • Support- Wow! Amazing article, lots of links, great job. Long, but necessary for a city of that importance. The only thing I saw was there were no references for:
  • History section (actually there was one, but only for the last paragraph, unless that one reference covered the entire section
  • Culture (The first paragraph)
  • Sports section
Other than those errors, I thought that it was very well created, and very informative. Each section was well written with enough information to understand the city well, and it was referenced quite well, except for the above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hairchrm (talk • contribs) .
  • Object Per WP:WIAFA 1a. Prose is not compelling, even brilliant. Examples: "...The social change was an earthquake." - Unnecessary. "...Lacking the bureaucratic civic structure of today, the city's infrastructure built as it was an a volunteer network of similar minded individuals collapsed." - Copyedit needed. "The battles in and around New York caused significant damage, which was worsened by a suspicious fire that leveled nearly half of the city" - what is a suspiscous fire?

Per WP:WIAFA 1c. Citations are conspicuously absent from important sections like "History".

Per WP:WIAFA 1d. Neutrality cannot be ascertained unless there is a good number of citations backing the text. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Object History section really needs some citations. Also, needs a thorough copy-edit. Some random examples:
    • The region was inhabited by the Lenape Native Americans at the time of its European discovery by Italian Giovanni da Verrazzano. What region are we talking about here?
    • This transformation was among the first changes in New York which later spread to other cities and henceforward society in general looked to the city has the cutting edge of change. Huh?
    • New York's colonial heritage was arguably unique in British North America at the time of the Revolution, since New York was the one metropolitan city of note which started as a non-British colony of Dutch heritage. Weaselly
    • Although by the time of the Revolution, with nearly 80% of it's population of English origin, New York City was virtually uniform as a typical British community, it's Dutch commercial inheritance was crucial in making New York the most important city in North America in the 19th Century once the Erie Canal was built. Quite a confusing sentence. Note also "it's".
    • Due to the effects of war and the continual occupation of the city by the British for most of the war, it's population was nearly halved. Another "it's".
    • When General George Washington finally rode in triumph into New York, the city was almost deserted with most of it's upper classes Gzkn 07:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Honestly, I looked at this article yesterday and said, "Wow, for an FAC, this is kind of... dirty." That's pretty much the best way I can put it. Also, it obviously needs to cite a bunch of statements. -- Kicking222 15:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, where's the sources for history? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The History section in particular needs work, for example:
    • "The region was inhabited by the Lenape Native Americans at the time of its European discovery by Italian Giovanni da Verrazzano." It would be useful to include the date of this event.
    • "Under British rule the City of New York continued to develop, and while there was growing sentiment in the city for greater political independence, the area was decidedly split in its loyalties during the New York Campaign, a series of major early battles during the American Revolutionary War." It would help to include the date of the New York Campaign.
    • "In later years, known as the Gilded Age, the city became the first metropolitan American city to transform [...]" It would help to specify the dates of the Gilded Age, in place of the vague 'in later years.'
    • "Although by the time of the Revolution, with nearly 80% of it's population of English origin, New York City was virtually uniform as a typical British community, it's Dutch commercial inheritance was crucial in making New York the most important city in North America in the 19th Century once the Erie Canal was built." Is there a reference to support the italicised statement?
    • "Furthermore, once Great Britain recognized the United States and abandoned the city, thousands of Loyalists and the thousands more of troops and their families also left." The prose is awkward in this sentence, particularly the italicised part.
    • "When General George Washington finally rode in triumph into New York, the city was almost deserted with most of it's upper classes, including its merchants, traders, bankers, and builders gone when they left with the vast British fleet." It would help to include the date for this event. Also, as mentioned above, "it's upper classes" is incorrect - the whole article needs to be checked for incorrect "it's", there are numerous instances.
    • "From 1800-1840 the city grew in wealth and power and never again would the city have such a substantial stable society of American born citizens." I wouldn't include 'never again' in an encyclopedic article - who knows what will happen in the future.
    • "In it's place was born the modern city of professional police, fire, and other utility services, traffic control, neighborhood development, factories, foundries, and the whole panoply of what came to be known as Gotham." What exactly came to be known as Gotham and when? Also, what was the origin of the term Gotham, and why was it applied here?
    • "Additionally, while immigration spiked and fell between 1842 and 1892, a new wage of immigration began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries which once again transformed the city's demographics." - "wage" -> "wave"
    • "New York overtook London as the most populous city in the world in 1925, ending that city's century-old claim to the title." Is there a reference to support this statement? What was the population of New York in 1925?
    • "New York City's ever accelerating changes and rising crime and poverty rates ended when World War One disrupted trade routes, the Immigration Restriction Acts limited additional immigration after the war [...]" Acts or Act? What was the date(s) of the Act(s)? It would help to include links to the relevant wikipedia articles, e.g. Immigration Act of 1924.
    • Picture Caption: "Lower Manhattan's skyline with the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center" - it would help to include the year of the photograph in the caption. (I've added the year to the caption - Jazriel 11:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
    • Good luck with the article. Jazriel 13:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support New York City should obviously be a featured article. It covers just about everything essential on one of if not the biggest, most diverse, and most important cities in the world. Besides, it already has FA status in both German and French. Being linguistic in the latter, I don't see how the English version is in any way below that version, in fact it is even better, and therefore it seems illogical that it should not be an FA too. Everyone objecting this article is SO PICKY! I don't get how you can complain so much about an article as informative as this. If you look at the site's featured articles, most of them are extremely subpar to this one. Bottem line: NYC is an article of very high caliber. It more than deserves a bronze star. 2Pac 00:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose, so you're saying that because it's featured in other languages it should be featured here as well? Did you read even a portion of the article? Not to worry, I'm a 2pac fan don't think I'm "hatin' on ya". Phoenix2 04:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Importance of subject is not a criterion for Featured Article status. Sockatume 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for the comments. I will fix up the history section and will get proper citations. Been busy with University stuff so havent had much time to fix this up. Mercenary2k 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Extra-strong support Needs more government info, but other than that, is pretty good, does every little detail, and really should have been chosen first time around, but as they say, first time you mess up, try again! -User:District Attorney

Oppose until citations are added and copyedit made. Feel free to strike this once you're done. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Object: Nice article, but needs citations. Heimstern Läufer 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pickup truck

This has grown via collaboration to become an excellent example of a Wikipedia article. It discusses both the social and technological implications of the subject, and embraces the international veiwpoint. --DroopSnoot 22:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The article is largely unreferenced. List formatting appears in the midst of several sections, sometimes with only one entry. Jkelly 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object/Comment The one note isn't near enough for this article. Also, some of the brands chosen in the see also section seem like arbitrary choices. This article would greatly benefit from a drive through Peer Review. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object no references gets a speedy object from me. Sandy 00:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Not very comprehensive. For example, towing (which every truck commercial mentions here in the U.S.) is mentioned only once in passing. Rmhermen 02:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 United States Grand Prix

I have nominated this as a GA candidate but I also think this meets the FA criteria because it has some good information and sources. Kingjamie 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Object. For starters, the citations need to be done correctly using one of the preferred formats (see WP:FOOT). Also, why would you use the British spelling of tire (tyre) for an article about an event that took place in American? Although that is a minor issue.--NMajdan•talk 21:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: English vs US spelling - it's not a hard rule, but the bulk of the F1 articles use UK English because the sport is largely European and most of the teams (Even 'French' ones like Renault F1 or 'Austrian' ones like Red Bull Racing) are based in the UK. For example Bernie Ecclestone and Martin Brundle, whose conversation is quoted at (excessive?) length are both English, as is Max Mosley, the head of the sport's governing body. (Sorry - that was me, earlier today! 4u1e 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
  • Object citations need to be fixed and the Martin Brundle's grid interview with Bernie Ecclestone is likely copyrighted, if not it should be in wikisource, not there. Jaranda wat's sup 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object - I want to support this, as it's by and large a comprehensive and well-written article on one of the most significant events ever to hit one of the world's most popular sports, but a few things need sorting. Obviously the citations need sorting out, and that Brundle section trimming (I don't think there's a "copyright" problem as such, since it's a televised interview, but I do think it's too long and the length of the header makes the contents table ugly). In addition, there's no real explanation early in the article about what turn 13 is - mention should be made of its unique (in F1) status as a banked corner being the apparent cause of the problem. I think it needs a thorough copyedit too, as I've seen a few sloppy examples of parentheses and punctuation use. I'm also not sure what the rules are about being nominated for Good and Featured status at the same time, so I'd suggest withdrawing it from one or the other (although I would like to see it become an FA at some point). Seb Patrick 08:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I also agree that "tyre" is the correct version of the word to use - it's always been the standard in F1-related media, the majority of which are European. The fact that this particular race happened to be in the US is irrelevant, not least because - despite the venue - there was barely any American-related involvement in the event itself (teams, drivers etc.)! Seb Patrick 09:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Jeronimo 10:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Apart from the inline citations (already mentioned above), the article needs more citing. A lot of the content is only from second-hand information ("according to Stoddart"), and we need to know which statement comes from who or which publication. It is also unclear if these accounts (mostly from Stoddart) are supported by other sources or not.
    • Some of the text needs to be rewritten, they currently appear to be added and written when the event was still ongoing (especially "The FIA's reaction"). Using a somewhat more summarizing style would be more readable here.
    • The interview should be removed - primary sources do not belong in an article. Furthermore, it doesn't add very much that isn't already discussed.
    • The "Refusal of coverage" section should be expanded or merged in other sections. I do not see any reason to pick out TSN's reaction in particular.
    • The contents of the "Notes" section should be moved into the article.
    • I miss any references to the 2006 edition, while there was talk about "The future of F1 in America?"
    • The quote by Sam Posey seems unnecessary in this article, and it is unclear why his reaction (as an EX-racer and EX-commentator) is relevant at all.
    • Not all persons are properly introduced, most notably Paul Stoddart - a wikilink is not enough, give his function/role/job.

[edit] Stanley Kubrick

Well-written and accurate, so let's see how it does for a nomination. --emc! ╬ (t a l k) 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Underreferenced (He was a poor student with a meager grade average of 67), very large trivia section, too many large, direct blockquotes, images with copyright problems, lead too short, failure to meet 2a) brilliant, compelling prose. Some brief examples of prose problems:
    • Jacques, whose parents had been Jewish immigrants of Austro-Romanian and Polish origin, was a successful doctor. Did his parents stop being Jewish immigrants?
    • Kubrick was taught to play chess at the age of twenty by his father, and the game would remain a lifelong obsession. When he was 20, Kubrick's father taught him to play chess ...
    • Later in life, Kubrick would speak of his education and of education in general with disdain, and maintained that nothing in school interested him. Change in tense.
    • By the time of his graduation Kubrick had already sold a series of pictures to New York's Look. Tell the reader Look is a magazine, it adds one word, and not all readers are familiar with USA publications.
  • That's a few examples only: the prose needs to be improved overall, and the text needs to be referenced. Please put categories in alphabetical order. Sandy 23:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object lack of Refereces and inline citations. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 09:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - insufficient references/sources listed especially given the large number (too many) of quotations, which should all be sourced. Images do not contain fair use rationales and the copyright info is scant. Trivia sections should be avoided. If it can't be said in the body of the article, chances are it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Rossrs 14:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, no inline citations and copyright status of main image is not particularly good. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atmospheric reentry

  • Support: Per my own nomination. I have not contributed to this article, but upon reading it, I was struck with how informative it was, without being too technichal for non-scientists to appreciate. Plenty of graphics. Its everything the Featured Article checklist says it should be. Give Peace A Chance 01:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: On my first pass, picking a random paragraph, I saw prose problems (Over the decades since the 1950s, a rich technical jargon has grown around the engineering of vehicles designed to enter planetary atmospheres), and the article is mostly unreferenced. Sandy 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object. The informational depth of this article is impressive, but it suffers from a few small problems. Long stretches of the article have no illustrations, whereas others have a glut of images, that makes the text difficult to read. Also, there is too much bolded text through the main body of the article, bold text is usually only used for the opener, I believe. Other than that, an excellent article. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on changes suggested by RyanGerbil -- more illustrations, in particular, as there should be plenty that are GFDL (just look in the Apollo articles, etc.) and the format regularizing. I don't see the prose problems as particularly troubling. Crowbait 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: there are long paragraphs without illustrations, more references needed. NCurse work 20:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Many sections and paragraphs have no inline citations, lead is too short, WP:MOS needs to be consulted on excessive use of bolding, italic and lists. And what is 'Important text books relevant to atmospheric entry'? Further reading?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thierry Henry

Well written article. Details abou the man and the player. Not to listy either. Every detail needed about him is there. Jimmmmmmmmm 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Jimmmmmmmmm 15:44 14th July 2006

Comment—I'm glad to see that the text of the article is better than that of the nomination above (one typo, one grammatical error, one awkward phrase). However, the punctuation in the article could do with an audit, and in other respects the prose isn't brilliant. For example, commas would be nice in the sentence below after "first" and "however", and perhaps the comma after "games" should be a semicolon. "Since" appears twice in the final clause, making the construction circular.

"At first some doubted whether he was cut out for the English Premiership, failing to score in his first ten games, however since first finding the net he has flourished ever since."

What does "one" refer to here?

"In the seven seasons he has been at Arsenal, Henry has been the club's top goalscorer for every single one.

Comma before "instead" or "because", or both.

Thierry was put on the left wing by Wenger instead of playing his natural role of striker because the striker position was already occupied by ..."

"2005–06" is used, so why not abbreviate the other year ranges, such as "1992–1993"?

A few redundant uses of "also". Tony 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I've done some copyediting to address the first two points. On the fourth, all descriptions of seasons in the article are abbreviated like "2005-06", but all other refences to time periods are written out fully, so the article is not inconsistent in that regard. --David Mestel(Talk) 16:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this subtle distinction between seasons and year ranges is not worth making. Please go for simple consistency: avoid repeating the century digits and use an en dash. Tony 02:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Jeronimo 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This article has barely any references (inline or not).
    • Organisation is poor. Trivia should be incorporated in text or left out, there's a "honours" and an "awards" section, and the "Family" section can barely be called a section at all.
    • Trivia entries are usually not very suitable for FAs, but the final one here is particularly silly, considering Henry played only in two World Cups, and that France did not score in 2002.
    • Statistics are inconsistent. Just as an example, the sidetable at the top says Henry played 20 matches for Juventus, while the text says 12. The extended table below says 20 as well, but composes this of 16 + 1 + 1.
    • The accolades at the bottom seem rather random. Why is there one for Arsenal's current team, but not for last season's? Why two for Henry's World Cups, but not for his two European Championships?
    • Not NPOV: e.g. "spectacular play".
  • Note Right firstly. The trivia part of your objection is wrong Henry has played in the last three World Cups. Secondly why sould there be a section for last season Arsenal squad? I undertstand about the European and World cup and they need adding but only the current squad needs including or would you have the last 7 since he joined?Jimmmmmmmmm 19:12 14th July 2006
I still think it's rather random to have the 2006/2007 season team (which hasn't played a match yet) listed, but not any of the other teams he played in. Jeronimo 05:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Another point the text says he started 12 games for Juventus. He played 20 in total but only started 12. You obviouosly didn't really read it properly. Jimmmmmmmmm 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did read it, and "started" could be considered ambiguous. Anyway, noticed you fixed up the other counts though. Jeronimo 05:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Too many lists and short paragraphs. Text is choppy. Though not a requirement, could do with more pictures. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment -- Biography doesn't contain any personal info (who are his parents, how many siblings etc), which is surely an important thing.
This kind of thing isn't always known about famous people. It's known about the name of his wife and daughter but whats to say Thierry wants the worls to know his parent names and the number of siblings he has. An just because he doesn't want this why is that reason to say the article is bad. Jimmmmmmmmm 20:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Too small not very well referenced bitty, no chuncks of info, FA requires alot more work than this. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object Fails 2a, too litte referencing, not enough about his early career (he had a career outside of Arsenal, though you wouldn't know it from the article), I also think that there is not enough about his contributions to France's 1998 success, of which he was a major part, untill the final. Try Good Article first, and get a peer review done. Thε Halo Θ 10:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nevis

I had no hand in writing this article, but I think Pia did a *wonderful* job with this, and that it's more than suitable for FA status. —Nightstallion (?) 12:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object pretty good, but footnotes belong at the end of a sentence per wiki style - not in the middle of a sentence, a few images need fair use rationales, and the geograhy section should be after or inside the history section, not after politics. Rlevse 14:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • My bad on history, I meant geography seems out of place. Also, there is little or nothing on pre-Columbian history, the culture section only has one paragraph and is music-oriented, and the recent history section should be a little longer to summarize the main article. Rlevse 22:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support, per Rlevse. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Very nice, but I have some small issues. The names in the "Famous Nevisians" section shouldn't be in bold (making more paragraphs here might do the trick), and the "Parsishes" section could use some accompanying / explanatory text. The caption for Cicely Tyson seems incorrect, too. Jeronimo 17:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Having read this, I've sorted the fair use issues (I think), and fixed the footnotes. I've also also acted on Jeronimo's suggestions vis a vis the famous Nevisians. The caption is mea culpa, as I changed the image to one which fell under fair use, but forgot to change the caption. The images need a bit of neatening up following my replacements, which I'm not quite sure how to do. I actually disagree with the three editors above in that I feel that since the history section is largely concerned with the political history of the island, it is more logical to follow it with the politics and parishes sections, and then the geography section. I strongly agree that the parishes section needs some explanation, as nowhere is it made clear what their significance is. --David Mestel(Talk) 18:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The placement and format of the sections were done in accordance with the standard template used for all the Caribbean islands on Wikipedia (maybe for other articles about countries or places as well? I haven't worked on any other geography related issue yet, so I'm not too familiar with the issue of what is standard and what isn't.) However, a map showing the division of the island into parishes would perhaps be a better choice (as well as self-explanatory)? A map would enable us to simply remove the "Parish" section altogether, since it seems to create confusion. I don't want to step on any toes in that regard though, since all the other articles are in compliance with the standard. I admit, I really wrestled with urge to change the order between the sections, with the same ideas as those expressed by Rlevse, but in the end I decided to just follow the template out of respect for the people who have put in the time, energy and effort to create these things. I'd be happy to help change the order though, if that makes more sense to a general reader. Pia 00:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I see problems with 2b (Comprehensive) and 2c (Factually accurate). For example, one paragraph on Culture ? And seemingly trivial entries which are unreferenced, such as, Leonard Harris, a cricket player from Nevis, held the Leeward Islands' batting record in 1968. In spite of a good number of inline citations, there are a lot of unreferenced statements. Sandy 23:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Sandy, please refer more specifically to what is factually inaccurate or 2c cannot be corrected or dealt with. Would an expansion of the culture section take care of 2b? Cricket players are not trivial in the Caribbean, but if removing Harris from the list of famous Nevisians would make the article less trivial, I will certainly do that. The list of footnotes is becoming very, very long, but I will add references for all statements that seem controversial, or remove them, if you prefer. Please help by pointing them out, if you don't mind. Thanks, Pia 00:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
2c (Factual) has to do with referencing. I don't believe you can have too many references: the cricket player should be referenced. There are too many articles about towns, cities, counties, states, countries which claim notable residents, without giving us any means of knowing the person is actually a resident, and I've encountered many such inaccurate claims on Wiki. (Same applies to notable alumni on schools.) I'm not suggesting cricket is trivial :-) or that you should remove content, rather do what you suggest (add references), but add references to any statement which the reader might need to further investigate. For example, I saw the statement about the only 5-star hotel in the Caribbean. That screams for a reference (how many stars do the Ritz in Cayman, the Hyatts in Cayman and Aruba, have? Does that include countries that consider themselves Caribbean, like Venezuela, or is that only islands? I shouldn't have to go check.) Even items that seem to be straightforward still need a reference, not just those that may be controversial.
2b (Comprehensive) Culture was only the first I noticed, and it struck me that Culture warranted more than one paragraph. I've gone back and seen other areas: Recent history (1882 on) has very little content? There are Secession movement and constitutional issues that don't seem to be fully explored: as a reader who knows little about Nevis, I'm left unclear about where those issues stand today. Is the Economy discussion truly comprehensive? What are the advantages and drawbacks of an economy so dependent on tourism? I guess what I'm saying in general is, try to read the article from the point of view of someone who knows nothing about Nevis, and consider what we might not know. I have limited internet access because of a lightening strike, and am losing track of what I'm keeping up with, so please leave me a talk message if I need to respond further. Hope this helps, Sandy 18:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Sandy, thank you. I'll work on those sections and on adding more references.
  • Temporary object—oh dear, I see a false contrast in the lead:
"The most famous beach is the 4-mile long Pinneys Beach on the west coast. In the lush interior, rivers and ponds fill up seasonally, but the gently sloping coastal plain (0.6 miles/1 km wide) also has natural fresh water springs, especially along the west coast."

Does "but" lead to a countering of the previous statement? Can someone go through the whole article to check for false contrasts (and other problems in the prose)?

    • Why not spell out numbers less than 10? (e.g., "The two islands are separated by a 2-mile wide channel.") Sometimes metric equivalents are provided, sometimes not. Sometimes "St" has a dot, sometimes it doesn't.
    • "Nevis is conical in shape, with a volcanic peak at the centre. It is fringed by long strands of golden sand beaches ..."—What, the volcano is fringed by beaches? Try: "Nevis is conical in shape, with a volcanic peak at its centre. The island is fringed by long strands of golden sand beaches ..."
    • "Of the approximately 12,000 inhabitants of Nevis, the majority is of African descent." Ungrammatical and awkward. Try: "The majority of the approximately 12,000 inhabitants of Nevis are of African descent."

Now that's just the lead. Tony 03:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all of your concerns, except for spelling out numbers. Personally, I find that having numbers written in figures allows me to see at a glance where the statistics are in a piece of text. Does anyone else agree? --David Mestel(Talk) 06:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the whole point of the examples is to demonstrate that the entire text needs copy-editing, not just the lead. Let us know when it's ready to inspect again. Tony 09:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Tony, you are right about the awkwardness of that particular sentence. More copy editing might indeed be useful and needed. I will go back to the text now and shorten some of the sentences in order to make the text easier to read and I will let you know when I am finished so that you can check it again. About the examples you pointed out: 1. Not to be picky, but "the majority" is singular and the majority in Nevis is of African descent, not "are". Sorry, Tony's sentence is better, and he's right. 2. The reason St sometimes has a dot is that American texts and book titles use St., but there is no dot in St in the Caribbean and British texts and book titles. Inserting or removing dots would violate the rules when it comes to leaving quotes intact and unchanged. To avoid other dot problems, the word Saint is spelled out in the text (but in book titles or quotes, the original is honored, naturally). 3. The island is a dormant volcano rising from the sea. Most of the land mass that connected the three-island chain during the ice age is now under water. I still like your changed version better. 4. The false contrast created by "but" was not meant to be false, but an actual contrast. The lush interior has only seasonal rivers and ponds, but the dry coastal plain has springs supplying fresh water all year around. The name Oualie, "land of beautiful waters", may seem illogical at first glance since the island has no lakes and only occasional, muddy streams, rivers and ponds during heavy rains. It is the hidden source of fresh water that make up the "beautiful waters", namely the natural springs. Pia 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 19:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • But if you have to explain the contrast, it's not working in the text. Why not replace "but" with "and"? Tony 01:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe that dot thing can be explained somewhere in a footnote: who knew St had no dot in Caribbean and British texts? :-) Anything that you had to explain above to Tony has to be explained to all potential readers. Tony's examples were only from the lead: remember to thoroughly peruse the entire text for issues of copyediting, comprehensiveness, and references. Sandy 19:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Sandy, I went back to check. I think we only have two references with "St./St" left now: the St. Kitts Nevis Observer. The publisher uses a dot in the publication's name (he's US educated). The official site of the Prime Minister of Saint Kitts also uses a dot, most of the time. Sometimes the press releases from his office do not. The British definitely prefer to leave the dot out, see for example the BBC. However, I don't think we have any quotes or titles from British sources with St in the article right now. Pia 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I notice the BBC report says: By 2003, Nevis was home to around 17,000 offshore businesses operating under strict secrecy laws, making the islands a target for drugs traffickers and money launderers. Laws have been introduced to crack down on the problem. This goes to the question I was asking about whether the article is comprehensive. You've got to watch out that the article isn't just a tourism promo: the problems have to be mentioned as well. Oh, be sure to put your categories and interwikis in alphabetical order. Sandy 00:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sentences like Antigua-based Admiral Nelson and his friend Prince William Henry, Duke of Clarence and future King William IV of the United Kingdom, partied here. do not belong in the article. --Hintha 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Des Moines, Iowa

This page shows why Des Moines is a regional leader in education, agriculture, insurance, and culture. I think it's high time that the city breaks free from its rural stereotype and shows its true metropolitan mettle.

Fezzador 07:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. The lead isn't a great start, as it contains one out and out blatant inaccuracy. "Des Moines" does not mean "City of the Monks" - you could possibly say it means "of the monks" and derives from the former phrase, but even then, the article itself later goes on to state that the origins of the name are uncertain. The lead, therefore, is confusing, as within the first sentence the implication is made that the name definitely is taken from the French for "City of the Monks". That needs removing. The lead also has a misused "it's" in it, which would suggest to me that the article may be in need of a full copyedit. There are also no inline citations, and they're desperately needed in places, particularly when discussing the possible and disputed origins of the name. There's also a citation needed tag, which is never a good thing, and a fair few redlinks. And the article degenerates into little more than a series of lists in its second half - surely a good chunk of the "Culture" section could be prosified? Seb Patrick 08:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Per above, also featured articles must be referenced, and that includes Notable Natives. It's not usually hard to find a local press reference on them. Sandy 11:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Some unsourced statements. Also nominator seems to want to demonstrate a specific point more than showcase the city. -- Миборовский 21:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above. I'll agree that it could use some improvement. --Iowahwyman 19:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above as well. Also, there are several unreferenced statements within this article. "Des Moines has grown considerably in recent years, and can now be compared to cities such as, Boise, Madison, Tacoma, and Hartford to name a few." seems very biased towards the city. Also, several section within this article needs to be expanded. Ajwebb 00:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulp Fiction

This article explains and diagrams the movie, very in-depth. Plenty of visual representation. --emc! ╬ (t a l k) 19:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment it has a {{unreferenced}} at the top of it. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support it is very in-depth and covers many viewpoints. ReverendG 21:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with Grafikm. This can't be featured as long as it has cleanup tags. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No inline citation. -- Миборовский 21:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as one of the most important American movies of the 1990s, certainly one we should have an FA on... but alas, this is full of rampant speculation and conjecture such as in the "Plot devices" section, as evidenced by the lack of sources, the tags requesting them (which have been up for a while). Not our best work. --W.marsh 23:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object no references gets a speedy object from me. Sandy 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object No references. Big ugly tag at the top of the article. Too much of the article consists of "trivia", quotes and lists of cultural influences.
  • 'Object - which is a real shame because as has been said this is one of the greats and should be featured. THe thing is theres loads of good content but the lack of references (those tags all over the place just arn't good) and the general conjecture throughout spoils it. Oh and it could be alot shorter too. -- Errant  talk(formerly tmorton166) 19:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per everyone else. No refs, Trivia section still in exsistence, and a shoddy cast section to boot. See Revenge of the Sith, Richard III (1955 film), or Casablanca (film) for ideas as how to improve. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuzzy logic

I've nominated this article as it immediately strikes me as extremely well written. The tone of the prose is excellent, explaining a concept that could otherwise descend into reams of mathematical symbols in plain english, without losing any relavence. It is well discussed in the main body, with a variety of different sections with their own layout and style but that are totally consistent within themselves and with the other text. The article also answers newcomers questions fully, while providing relavent links to further topics and further mathematical study. In my view, an excellent candidate for a featured article. AdamSebWolf 09:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. I can't really speak for the article's comprehensiveness, not being a mathematician, but the following stand out to me:
  1. It's alright to have a general bibliography, but the article needs some form of inline citation pointing readers to where facts given in the article were found.
  2. Image:Warm fuzzy logic member function.gif could do with being converted to an SVG file, and possibly moved up to the lead if no better images can be found.
  3. The "See also" section should be pared down a bit, either by linking within the article text or removing items that aren't particularly relevant.
  4. The "Examples" section needs to be converted to prose.
  5. The "Formal fuzzy logic" needs to be expanded into prose.
  6. I don't personally like the portal link, particularly in the lead, as it smacks of WP:NSR, but I suppose it's not vital that it be removed.
  7. Another personal issue is the number of redlinks in the Formal section. While the article can still be featured with these, it wouldn't take that much effort to create short stubs and convert them to blue links. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Informal language in lead in which the author seems to be talking directly to the reader, as opposed to simply stating facts. Also, I'm uncomforatble with the way the "Misconceptions" section is laid out; it reads like a FAQ, less like an acedemic article. Fieari 17:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think my main concern is that this article doesn't properly cover defuzzification. I also felt the article was a bit light on explaining fuzzy logic from an axiomatic point of view — though this is forgivable since the article is an introduction to fuzzy logic. However it is disappointing that all of the links in the "Formal fuzzy logic" section are red suggesting there is no explanation of a formal fuzzy logic system on Wikipedia. Cedars 11:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Still seems like a rough draft. The prose is not excellent, and the examples meander somewhat. One particularly bad prose example: as gender is often considered as a binary information. So, it is not so complex like being tall. On top of this, the "how fuzzy logic is applied" section needs a lot of rework. It needs reorganization, expansion, and just general cleaning up (it seems somewhat repetitive). I'm not picking on the section because I think it's worse than the others, I'm picking on it because it seems like the most important section. 65.241.152.139 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randall Flagg

Self-Nomination Was rejected before due to improper image licensings, missing citations and some speculative information. That has now been fixed. The article is a lengthy analysis on Randall Flagg, his roles in all the books he has appeared in, the miniseries appearence, and the poem on which he was based.--CyberGhostface 02:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:
  • After a section on "Names, appearance and role" you have the following sentence in "Origins": Flagg had many aliases, almost all of which have the initials "R.F."–Outriggr § 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Fixed.--CyberGhostface 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent tense in Flagg plans to attack and destroy the other emerging civilization in Boulder, Colorado, leaving his civilization as the only survivors. His plans were foiled when the hand of God is turned upon him causing a nuclear bomb to detonate in front of his assembled followers.–Outriggr § 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Fixed.--CyberGhostface 17:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe there is still some speculative unreferenced material, such as Prior to The Dark Tower, some fans suggested that the original edition of The Stand and the expanded edition are actually parallel dimension variations of the same story. –Outriggr § 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll remove the speculative bit.--CyberGhostface 17:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object: Again, some issues with the Fair Use images. I still believe that the article uses too many; each should be used to illustrate a specific facet of the subject, but at the moment a few seem to be just decorative. The lead image is good, and Jamey Sheridan definitely belongs, but what does Image:Walterodimrevisedgunslinger.jpg show that the others dont? Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg doesn't show the character very clearly (though it might still be worth keeping), and I've still no idea which of the two characters in Image:EyesoftheDragonFlagg.jpg is supposed to be Flagg and which is King Peter. Aside from the images, the "Aliases" section in its present form seems more of an extended piece of trivia than anything, especially with most of his important pseudonyms already mentioned within the text of the article. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Image:Walterodimrevisedgunslinger.jpg represents Walter o'Dim, Flagg's only other significant alias (as it says in the beginning, Walter is Flagg's 'real' name and how he considers himself), as he appears in the Dark Tower series. Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg shows his death scene. And I'll try to make Image:EyesoftheDragonFlagg.jpg more clearer.--CyberGhostface 22:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Still not sure about the images (thanks for clearing up the Flagg/Peter ambiguity), but not enough so to oppose on those grounds. Could you give some justification for the Aliases list though? I really don't see what it adds to the article beyond a trivia point, which are generally discouraged in FACs. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The aliases are now gone.--CyberGhostface 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've always liked this article.
It seems to me that if the concerns over image licensing are resolved then it would make a good candidate for featured article status. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on this entry seems to have kind of died off, with no supports or objects. Anyone at all have an opinion on the article? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Any admins we can ask for opinions?--CyberGhostface 20:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure which users are currently paying attention to FAC, though generally if an entry doesn't receive enough feedback or no decision has been reached, Raul654 will repost it to garner some more responses. Patience is the key thing :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The article is listed as having invalid ISBNs. Also may be this and this are worth of mention as a kind of cultural influence? --Brand спойт 10:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Which ISBNs are innaccurate? I would disagree with the cultural influences bit: I usually prefer not to add trivia bits like that as it comes off irrevelant to the character and the article as a whole.--CyberGhostface 17:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—Not happy with the writing (1a). Let's take the lead, which suggests that the whole article needs a serious copy-edit.
Randall Flagg is a fictional character created by Stephen King. He is considered by many to be King's "supervillain", a recurring archetype of personified evil who appears in a number of King's writings. Flagg made his first appearance in the 1978 novel The Stand as the central antagonist. This was followed by central roles in The Eyes of the Dragon and The Dark Tower.
Randall Flagg is generally described as having an everyday appearance, dressed in casual American-style clothing. His goals typically center around spreading destruction and causing conflict, and he often prefers to work behind the scenes. He goes by many names, from the "Dark Man" to the "Walkin' Dude." He is also a magician, is said to come from the "outside", and has lived for at least 15 centuries, but cannot remember every life he has had.
    • "He is considered"—Coming straight after Stephen King, we momentarily wonder whether that is the referent for "He". Not kind to the reader.
    • "Writings"—why not say "books and plays", if that's the case (no idea, but precision here would be easy).
    • "Central" twice in seven words. "Roles" makes them sound like films.
    • Described by whom? Reword to avoid the need for references.
    • Is it the appearance that is dressed? The grammar of that sentence is not satisfactory.

Tony 14:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the problems that you mentioned. If you find anymore, tell me, and I'll rewrite them as well.--CyberGhostface 17:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. I've provided examples of why the whole article needs serious attention, not just the fixing of a few specified glitches. Here are more, taken at random.

    • "Still, even in this case it is possible that"—Not really encyclopedic language.
    • "hints are made to this when a connection between"—hints to?
    • "The two characters are even further connected by"—awkward/unidiomatic/unclear.
    • Winding snake that needs chopping up: "Because Flagg here acts and looks slightly different from how he did in The Stand, (most likely because The Eyes of the Dragon features a medieval setting while The Stand took place in modern times) some have argued that the two are different versions of him from two different dimensions, given the presence of parallel dimensions in the Dark Tower series." And here's another rambler, soon after: "Due to the fact that the story takes place in the same world as The Dark Tower, it could be assumed that, if he did in fact die, then he had reincarnated once again in this same world, much like in the case of the extended version of The Stand."
    • Huge, two-paragraph quote starting ""He had, in fact, come to Delain ...". I think this is a problem.

Really, I think that this is not FA prose. Tony 12:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think its fair that you are listing your complaints without saying what needs to be improved, especially when the majority of it is just minor grammatical errors. The others here managed to list their doubts with the article, which I later fixed appropiately.--CyberGhostface 18:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it. The problem is that the article is full of "minor" glitches. If they were just the ones I've listed here, I wouldn't have bothered. Do you expect me to list every single little error in the whole article? No way. It's your job to find someone else to fix it throughout, if you can't do that yourself. If the deficiencies in the prose fell neatly into one or two categories of deficiency, I'd tell. But they don't; they're more random than that, and require a good copy-editor to fix. Tony 13:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Again...I get what you are trying to say. I just don't agree with your complaints. For example, that whole thing with "He is considered" and people might be confused if thats referring to Flagg or SK, or asking if its the appearence thats being dressed, all of which are minor errors that most people probably don't even catch up on.--CyberGhostface 14:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
A "professional" standard of writing, as explicitly required, does not have lots of minor errors. People may not consciously "catch up on" these errors, as you put it; no, it just affects the readability and overall authority of the text. So, in your statement here, some apostrophes are used, but three are missing. That's the kind of thing I mean. FA-standards of writing are achieved by careful, thorough copy-editing, and writers who really do care about micro-errors. I'm tired of arguing about it; I shouldn't have to. Tony 08:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Tony. Too many Fair Use images, prose is not compelling or brilliant. Sandy (Talk) 15:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There is no citation given for the fans' reaction to Flagg's death. Also, there are just not enough sources beyond King's own works. MLilburne 09:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment What sources are needed if not the works of the writer who wrote all his appearences??? And regarding the citation for Flagg's death...forums, blogs, etc aren't suitable 'sources' but that doesn't change the fact that the fan response for Flagg's death was overwhelmingly negative. You aren't going to find a Boston Globe article talking about it.--CyberGhostface 16:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • As this is an article on literature, you may want to look at other Featured Articles on literary subjects in order to get an idea of the sort of sources that are appropriate to use. Make Way for Ducklings, which was recently promoted, has more references to reviews and literary criticism than this article does, and Make Way for Ducklings is a children's book. As for sources for fan reaction, I understand the difficulty in finding acceptable ones, but it is problematic to have that section completely unsourced. Are you sure there's nothing out there? There's plenty on fan reactions to, say, the cancellation of Firefly, or to the latest Harry Potter book, and so on. Have you looked at book reviews in major newspapers? MLilburne 16:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
        • This site touches upon it briefly, but does not mention Flagg by name as he is trying to avoid spoilers. This site mentions it. Here is another one. And here's one more. Granted, big name sources aren't going to mention really spoilerific material, and I don't know if these are adequate enough.--CyberGhostface 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EastEnders

It failed it's former FAC nomination, but all the reasons it failed have been fixed now, and it's been much improved. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It could do with a general copyedit and reordering : I shall try to do that myself at some point. However, apart from this, the content seems far too myopic and focused on events of the 2000s : the 1990s are barely mentioned at all. Morwen - Talk 22:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
In Popular Culture could use changes. You have only referenced Eastenders references on other various television programs, though Eastenders is throughout all British culture. It also seems a little silly that nearly every single program you mention just happens to be a BBC production, as Eastenders is, and so gives little indication of "Eastenders in popular culture". Some references and more depth is required there. However, the paragraph about Derek Martin being on Little Britain goes into far too much depth and feels gratuitous.—Abraham Lure 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Certain parts still need inline citations. Also, there's a 'Trivia section' - either put the info elsewhere in the article or rid. LuciferMorgan 01:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Poorly referenced, doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT, has a Trivia section. Sandy (Talk) 15:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments/Questions: How can you say it's poorly referenced?! And maybe you'd like to say how it doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT? (And I've removed the trivia section - which was an aim of our project, and now I've found a sitable place to put the information...) Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federal Bureau of Investigation

Self-nomination - This artilce has gone through two major Peer Reviews (fixed link) and has passed Good Article Status. Alot of work was put into this article to make it complete, but not "to large" that would make it a marraton to read. As a major contributer to the article, I am proud to nominate it to the FA board. (If it gets selected, may I suggest July 26? Marking the 98th year from BOI.)

This is not a voting process =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Supporting

  1. Support - per nominator --Shane (T - C - E) 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support It has references, good pictures, and is very informative without being too long. No article is perfect, but this one deserves to be a FA. --WillMak050389 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support I found this article to be completly extraordinary. I saw it when it was unreadable garbage but now it has improved so much. This really should be a part of the FA. -ScotchMB


Objections

  • Some other things:
    • Can you please complete your references. If the link to a news article is gone in a month, I should be able to track the article down via another source. For example, your LA times link needs date (March 8, 2006) and author (Allan M. Jalon). Some of your references could use a better bibliographic style.
    • Can you describe each of your external links briefly (the FBI ones are obvious, the others aren't described). For example, why should I have to click on "The FBI ...Past, Present & Future" to know what it is. Is it a news article, a book, what?
    • Ditto for further reading: provide complete bibliographic elements. Also, alphabeticize them.
    • alphabetical interwikis
    • "See also" needs a template for navigation
    • Lead is a bit short, and doesn't seem to summarize the article
    • I went into the article for a random prose check, and found the FBI's official top priority is counterterrorism. "Official"? Is that a redundancy, or is there something we don't know about extra-official top priorities?
  • I'll be glad to come back for another look, good start. Sandy 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Object. Sorry, but the article needs much better referencing, in terms of what references are used (for balance), inline citations, and thorough bibliographic entries. The FA nomination does seem premature, and what passes peer review or GA might not meet FA criteria. Sandy 01:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Too short. Stub-sections (Crime statistics, Media portrayal). Organization is basically a list of directors and a little about personel. Are there no organizational diagrams and such? Does FBI personel has any ranks? Very large see also should be merged with main body. Need more inline references - for example in the 'criticism' section there are entire unreferenced paras. And a few more pics would not hurt. The 'media' section, when expanded, should probably mention something about FBI in ficiton, including the two most famous fictional FBI agents ever (do I need to say who? :)).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I think this nomination is premature. My main objection relates to the selection of references. Still, a vast majority of references are to the FBI's own website. As such, I'm not confident that the history section represents WP:NPOV. Also, all are online sources. This article would benefit from dead tree sources found at a library. The organization section can also use improvement, such as explain more about Quantico, Clarksburg, the field offices, and legal attachés. I'll continue helping out with this article and try and address my own objections, as well as those above. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Sorry, but not enough inline sourcing. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

*Object Introduction is too short and the sentence structures vary too much. Also, 23 inlines aren't too many. 63.23.7.233 05:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Many issues I raised in the peer review (admittedly late in that game) have yet to be resolved, apart from the good Hoover picture. (You might also want to double check your link to the peer review!)--Monocrat 03:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed them last night - a bit late yes. I will work on this, but it has yet to be corrected by anyone else. --Shane (T - C - E) 06:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reorganizing the history: it looks better. But, there are still a number of issues:
  • Stubby sections in "Organization." "Publications" and "Crime statistics" are stubby and could probably be combined;
  • Crime statistics is just a header of both the UCR and the NIBRS. Combining them would be very messy. That's like talking about one thing then going on about something else. That's why they are seperated. The main header of Publications (the text under this) I will expand, but your "Stubby" definision is unclear. --Shane (T - C - E) 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Lack of serious discussion of major divisions;
  • I think you missed this. It's right under Organization. --Shane (T - C - E) 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The copy needs a lot of work. Consider these sentences from "History:"
"This was just the start of modern violent crime as the FBI was again tasked to handle major violent crimes that happen within United States borders." "In the 1970s, the RICO act took effect and the FBI started investigating the former Prohibition organized groups, which had by now become fronts for crime in major cities and even small towns." "The 1980s was dubbed "the year of the spy" because of the large amount of spy-related cases bringing investigated and prosecuted."--Monocrat 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. Here are examples from the top.
    • "The FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list has been used since 1949 to notify the public of wanted fugitives. Its most basic function is to defend the United States Constitution." Does "its" refer to the list or the organisation? Many readers will regard the second sentence as POV, no matter where your references are sourced.
    • "When it first started it was responsible for ..."—Surely there's a more elegant wording.
    • "The latest agent to be killed was Leonard W. Hatton who died of a result of the ..."—More commas required, as here after "Hatton". "Of a result"?
    • "To this date only 33 agents have been killed"—spot the three redundant words.

And lots more. Tony 03:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I just killed all those things because I could not think of other ways to fix it. I don't understand this... why can't you guys work ont he article yourself if there are some miss cues. I am all for corlaboration. --Shane (T - C - E) 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Comments

  • Some things:
    • Needs a better/slightly longer and more comprehensive lead (see WP:LEAD)
    • the "see also" section is a bit bloated. Along with the "other facts" section (a euphamism for "trivia"?) some of this should be integrated into prose, or just removed if it's too minute.
    • The "History" section seems very thin in places, particularly about the role of Hoover in dominating the agency for so long, it doesn't even properly introduce him and his role, the first mention of him in the article reads "After J. Edgar Hoover's death"... Also, doesn't really go into COINTELPRO in enough depth, this event was (as I understand it) a major turning point in the history of the FBI. The articles on Hoover and COINTELPRO seem to do a decent job of covering this, but I don't think summarizing it in the FBI article would hurt either. At any rate it needs to cover it a bit better than it does right now. --W.marsh 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved the trivia to Richard M. Nixon, where it fits better amongst all the other trivia there. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just so it's out of the way. To answer some questions. A few things... there is no rank. There are Agents and Supavisors, but there is no "rank". I think --Aude has already fixed the See Also section, while I was taking a nap. The directors are now in another article. "provide complete bibliographic elements"? I can alphabeticize, I don't think I can expand them. I don't have these books and I would have to do some majjor looking. Thanks for the comments. I thought there was enough inline sources. :o --Shane (T - C - E) 00:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I worked on some of these "ojbects". I am going to finsh them up tonight. Keep me posted in what you think is completed. --Shane (T - C - E) 02:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeping the article below the recommend "size" has been hard. usually once I been adding information, it gets to long and then it goes totally against the WP:FA critiera. I guess it's ok to go over it a little bit? --Shane (T - C - E) 06:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to note, images are not required for FA's. There are not alot of "FBI" related images to be used. Trust me... I have looked. --Shane (T - C - E) 08:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (And more notes from me..) This website: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/ seems to have a lot of information. After this article is at the FA standered this page can serve as a guide to help expand the articles that come off the FBI Main page and the {{FBI}} template. --Shane (T - C - E) 08:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • When I looked for more history on the FBI to source it most of the sites were bascily the same thing, using the FBI website as their source. I think we have to overlook that this is where a majority of the information does come from. --Shane (T - C - E) 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • lets make a note, I am not an English major. I have always been bad at English. --Shane (T - C - E) 04:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, you need collaborators who are good at English, if you're going to nominate FACs. Reviewers in this room are under no obligation to edit articles. For some of us, our work is cut out just reviewing.

I note that this person has just plastered the following comment on my talkpage:

"I would like suggestions not misguided comments please".

Tony 04:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Refering to "And lots more." (Above) --Shane (T - C - E) 05:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- needs to go through a spellcheck responsiable, couninting first. Having section 3.2.1 is considered bad style. Left aligned images causes some headings to be switched to the right. Title 28 of the United States Code (U.S. Code) ... to investigate specific crimes. -- Too specific to be in the lead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Removed that section. spellcheck has been completed. Title 28 etc. has been moved it another location out of the lead. --Shane (T - C - E) 17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I still think the text needs to go through a complete copyedit. 1. eg: Now the FBI actively attacks potential threats before the can take place. --> ...FBI precludes (or forestalls) potential threats? 2. The mission of ... terrorist and foreign threats,... "foreign threats"? that's vague: I checked the source: It says "protect against foreign intelligence threats". 3. =Overall mission= --> =Mission= 4. The FBI's chief tool --> "tool"? needs more encyclopedic wording. I've stopped here and not reviewed from the second section onwards. =Nichalp «Talk»= 21:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Will get to it later. Been up all night working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject FBI :) -- Shane (talk/contrib) 11:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kernel (computer science)

This is the second try (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kernel (computer science)/Archive 1), and I've addressed the concerns, which were mainly about citations missing. Candamir 02:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have a small wishlist for this article.

  • Make it conform to WP:FN (footnotes go after the punctuation)., thanks to User:Icey! :) Candamir 18:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Spellcheck the whole thing, esp. references section., addressed by User:Danaman5 (thanks!) and me. Candamir 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Summarise image contents in the caption (this is a common problem across Wikipedia, let's change it!), I hope it's better now, and you're right, many WP pages present this problem... Candamir 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to cross them out as they're being addressed, and don't shoot me if I come up with further comments later on. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Object. This article needs to have more history of kernel development. Right now, it doesn't contain a single mention of Microsoft Windows, the most prevalent modern operating system. Does Windows not use a kernel? I have copyedited the article, and fixed some wording issues. --Danaman5 16:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote changed to Support, concerns addressed. --Danaman5 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to objections. Thank you, User:Danaman5 for copyediting and spell-checking. I also added one more section to the history part, containing a description of the modern situation, mentioning Win, Mac and Unixoids as well as the osdev community. Please express any further concerns you might have. Candamir 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my concerns. I have changed my above vote to support.--Danaman5 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • One more comment on the Windows issue. The article says:
The modern, NT-based line of Windows is generally considered a hybrid kernel. However, it is closed source and distributed under the terms of the Microsoft EULA, a proprietary license.
The last sentence leaves us in doubt as to what the license has to do with the kernel architecture. I assume the sentence is meant to hint that we don't know any details about the NT kernel. If, for instance, the architecture of the kernel considered a trade secret by Microsoft, this might be worth mentioning. Thanks again. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object "Modern Kernels" issues
  1. As of 2006, Microsoft Windows dominates the end-user market for operating systems with little space left for alternatives like Mac OS and various Unix-variants, such as Linux or *BSD.
    "with little space left"? This is awfully sensationalist and a mostly pointless aside at best, and at worst it is a biased take on how Microsoft is somehow forcing others out of the market. A suggestion would be shortening it to something like "The NT kernel, the current dominating kernel" with better english .
  2. The modern, NT-based line of Windows is generally considered a hybrid kernel. However, it is closed source and distributed under the terms of the Microsoft EULA, a proprietary license.
    "However"? What does this have to do with the previous sentence? Also, it assumes that kernels must be open source, which is a heavy POV!

Also, as a request it would be nice for it to elaborate a bit more rather then just labeling each kernel "hybrid", "monolithic" etc. as that doesn't seem that informative :). RN 08:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Response to objections: I completely rewrote the Windows part of that section and slightly modified the other parts, hoping to achieve NPOV... Do you think I should further explain the architectures of those kernels instead of just declaring them as hybrid? Candamir 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • If at all possible - it would really add to it. IIRC MS originally claimed NT was a microkernel - maybe if possible try to sum up the relations in a sentence or two (difficult job but at least an overview of what major traits it takes from each structure would help). Anyway, thank you very much for clearing those things up! RN 21:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Response to objections: Now I added a phrase describing a little bit of the NT kernel and also mentioned how XNU was originally created. Hope it meets your expectations. Candamir 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks! You are doing a great job! I read through the article a couple more times, I think I am starting to see a problem though - and that is that DOS, Early Windows, and Classic Mac arn't mentioned at all. For example, it delves deeply into Unix, but one is left with the question on whether DOS or [classic] Mac had a kernel at all or what kind, yet the article mostly assumes having a kernel is the norm (I'm deliberately being ignorant here :)). I don't know if each of the two needs three paragraphs on it, but I think people are going to have those questions and they are probably essential to the article. If it were me (and this is in no way a requirement - please use your own judgement :)) I would make a seperate section for early mac/windows there and just touch on it. Thank you :). RN 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Response to objections:Added paragraphs on Mac OS and Windows... Candamir 17:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Not as deep as I thought but it is great as an overview! Thanks again :). RN 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I ran the auto peer review script and pasted the results on the talk page. Can you fix and or verfiy those and strike through when done? Also I know it's probably imposible to have a generic kernel structure picture but if one could be created for the upper right it would really help out. -Ravedave help name my baby 02:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and this may help make a slightly dry subject more intersting [3] -Ravedave (help name my baby) 03:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked the link you provided, but IMHO it contains more information on how to make jokes in texts, and while I truly approve most of what he says in there, I don't think if it fits for an encyclopedia... Candamir 21:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The history section could use more dates. Also working in apple's OS where it belong could help as it has been one of the most used OSes for quite a while. Also maybe the page should be re-arranged. The history section is very interesting and might do better at the top. Overall a good article though, I will definitly change to a support once some of these things have been addressed. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 03:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Response to objections: The problem is that the history section is based on the knowledge of the kernel design approaches section (readers won't know what a microkernel is if history comes first). Thus, I ask you to reconsider your position about this issue, but of course I'll change it if you convincingly argumentate against my point. Candamir 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Point takn. The Image adds alot, thanks for making that, overall its better. Everything seems to be addressed execpt for the lack of dates in the history section. There are 4 dates in 10 paragraphs. At the very minimum the beginning should talk about *when* the concept of a kernel started. Did it start in the 40's with the ENIAC? The paragraphs go in chronological order so just throw a "in the 19xxs...blah blah blah" -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. this article is not aware of the academic status of the subject. For instance it assumes the modernity of an architecture based on hierarchical privilege levels (as Supervisor mode), while academic research on computer architecture replaced this outdated technology many years ago (see for instance the bibliography of capability-based security), showing that it provides both poor protection and poor performance.--BMF81 00:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I made some changes so the article no longer suggests that all kernels use virtual addressing or pre-emptive (as opposed to co-operative) multitasking. I would like those to stay. Otherwise the article is a concise introduction to the subject. If it doesn't make featured status, I will happily promote it to good article status (just message me). Cedars 11:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've added a pending tasks list in the talk page.--BMF81 13:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object again. I've just had a look at the todo list on the talk page, and it is clear that this article has a lot of potential that isn't currently realised. If any of the points have already been addressed, maybe this can be indicated? I think it would be a shame to have this article go up on the front page before it's reached that potential. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • MY GOODNESS that is a great todo list... Acedemically it isn't as deep as it could be and in referencing as well. However, it is reasonably comprehensive and sets out what it is trying to achieve in an article on kernels for a general audience. Taking those things into account one could very well be looking at a seperate article entirely - one more focused on being a reference work. While it is a very enticing proposition, the current article presents a readable overview on an otherwise difficult topic. RN 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • This is very technical subject, one of the core topics of CS; don't you think that we would give a poor image of wikipedia if we present as its best work something that is not academically relevant?--BMF81 03:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I commented last time on the large-scale and irritating use of "in order to". Just why you think it's necessary write three words when one will do is a mystery. Tony 13:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that this is sometimes done where the use of "to" – which can take various meanings as a preposition as well as preceding infinitives – is ambiguous. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object unfortunately. The referencing is still inadiquite in places (I put some fact tags a couple days ago...) and I agree with BMF81. If there was ever a case for good article, this would be a decent one :). It is such an important article which I encourage the editors to keep working on, because they are doing a really good job on a tough subject :). RN 05:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bus Uncle

This article has been peer-reviewed and FA standards are met. Cheung1303 08:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object underreferenced, for example, this direct quote with no inline citation: Clement So York-kee, Director of the School of Journalism at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, warned that methods to uncover Bus Uncle news "did not seem to...[involve the] traditional practice of news reporting". If you can reference the article, I will be happy to have another look. Sandy 11:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. An Internet phenomenon needs more inline citation... -- Миборовский 00:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object It's excessively underreferenced, and doesn't provide evidence of its claims at all. If this has become a cultural sensation in Hong Kong and inspired discussion about life, then could the main editor please back this up with examples? It should be remembered that Wikipedia isn't a place for original research.

Also it states that the person in the clip has said "this" and "that" in subsequent interviews, so these "quotes" should be cited also. Doesn't meet FA standards in my opinion, in fact, articles more comprehensive than this have been stripped of FA status. Still decently written though, but needs to cite its claims. LuciferMorgan 22:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoi polloi

This is a second nomination. After the first nomination, the article has been substantially improved and all issues from the first nomination have been addressed. As a consequence, the article has been selected as a good article.
The article explains the origins, use (as well as misuse) of this phrase, with examples from both film and literature. Several misconceptions, such as who introduced the phrase into English, are debunked along the way. The article is well sourced and conforms to all style guidelines. As the primary author, I leave the determination of whether it is well written to other readers. Johntex\talk 00:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good catches, thanks! I converted the image to PNG and replaced the old JPG. I also moved the Wiktionary box to the References section at the bottom of the page. Johntex\talk 06:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've created an SVG version and included it in the Appearances in Literature section. Icey 11:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Better, but a few problems:
  • The flow of the lead isn't that great. The second paragraph doesn't read well, I don't understand "used to meet", and is it really necessary to list 19 synonyms? I mean, maybe 3-4 to get the various shades of meaning, but "huddled masses", "masses", and "the masses"? Unnecessary.
  • The first big quote: "it was invariably preceded by the". Can we mark "the" somehow, like with italics or quotes or something?
  • Any examples of usage where it means "upper class"? Very short subsection.
  • Can "Appearances in film, radio, and the internet" be split into a couple subsections?
  • That usenet post is still in the references—why? If I write on some listserv that Hoi Polloi means "I like chicken", does my definition get included here?
  • Ref 23 doesn't work (google cache).
  • Any external links?
  • Some overall prose problems... things like "The term has continued to be used in writing up to modern times", "This conversation associating polo with the hoi polloi is surprising", "New media and new inventions have also been described as being by or for the hoi polloi". Nothing too egregious, but not "brilliant" either.
  • Organization... I'm not sure I like it. Rather than dividing this by media type (which is really rather irrelevant), why not do it by time period? Shouldn't be too many changes, but that might help readers get a better idea of how the phrase has been used through the years. And it would help take care of my third point above. Better prose connections between different usage examples would be helpful too. --Spangineeres (háblame) 14:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you - I will work on these over the coming weekend.
To answer the question about the Listserve reference, I decided to leave it in because it seemed that the poster was a frequent contributor and that he had the respect of other posters on the list. Therefore, I thought he was as knowledgable a source as any conventional journalist or the like that could be cited. If that is not a good explanation or if others disagree, we can certainly remove that reference. Johntex\talk 14:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yiddish language

This article has lots of sources and is an important topic. Leoberacai 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object for now. The external jumps (like this [4]) need to convereted into footnotes and the sections near the end with "main" tags need to have summary paragraphs. Overall, a nice start though. Rlevse 19:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object. Too short a lead (see WP:LEAD), too few inline citations, and a lot of sections without any text. --Maitch 20:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. an all-round good article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Very short lead, numerous sections with no content at all, and needs to be referenced. I didn't check the prose, since the basics aren't even in place. Sandy 01:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Summary Style means that you still provide a summary of articles you link to. You can't just link them and not describe them at all... Fieari 03:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The sections at the end need summary paragraphs (per fieari and maitch). Also needs more inline sourcing (per maitch again). In the section "Status of Yiddish as a dialect of German" I do not like the words "It has often been suggested"..."the consensus among linguists" - tell me, if it is the conssnsus among lingist then who has been suggesting it (often no less), and if they are not lingist then why do I care - in other words these idea should be quoted by an individual or group of people. Jon513 05:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now. Expect a lot more citations for a broad and general article like this. -- Миборовский 21:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Plenty of work left before FA maturity:
    • Needs to abide at least somewhat closely to the language template.
    • Lacks sections on dialects, phonology, grammar, vocabulary, writing system and geographic distribution, all of which are essential to any language article.
    • The sections "Yiddish media", "Heradi Orthodox Jews", "Yiddish and other languages" need to be removed or merged with more appropriately named sections. See above, for example.
    • "Status of Yiddish as a dialect of German" borders the trivial. Yiddish is well-established as a separate language and I don't see a trace of references to any substantial claims of Yiddish being a German dialect.
    • The infobox is cluttered with speaker statistics that belongs in article text.
    • The sections "Books" and "Periodicals" seem to be just lists of recommended reading. Please mark them as such or remove them.
    • There are no audio samples whatsoever or even external links to any language samples.
Peter Isotalo 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey

Support.--Absar 12:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)

Renomination: Barely failed last time and I feel that the concerns brought up then have been addressed. --SeizureDog 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Any statement in quotation marks need to be properly sourced. LuciferMorgan 22:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The prose doesn't seem brilliant to me - it's too conversational. Try to adopt a more scholarly tone. I found a spelling error at a quick glance ("sentimentallity") so there may be more. At least one quotation isn't cited. Some of the sources are questionable at first glance. For example, Moby Games didn't look like a quality source to me but it has a Wikipedia article so I'd suggest wikilinking it's name in the reference (same goes for any other sources which have Wikipedia articles; those that don't and whose pedigree is not obvious to the casual reader ought to have a note saying why this source can be considered authoratative - see e.g. Fuck the Millennium and in particular footnote #31). You do have a good range of sources, and the makings of a good layout but the "Endnotes" section looks messy and needs cleaning. --kingboyk 08:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Putting Mobygames in the references would be like putting imdb into movie references, which we generally don't do. What's the uncited quote? As far as your dislike for the endnotes is concerned, I'm do understand exactly what you want. --SeizureDog 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you people are misunderstanding my use of Scare quotes. --SeizureDog 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Worst game ever, worst nomination ever :P Try adding more informations. Was it released only in America? What year was released in Europe? ( if was released ), etc... KYMYK 11:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I know it was never released outside of the US. What other informations do you want?--SeizureDog 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • To KYMYK: Are you sure of your assertions: Worst game ever, worst nomination ever. Based on your claim I presume that you are not new to wikipedia and must surely have read Wikipedia:Civility. --Bhadani 12:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reading the lead, I noted no less than 3 weasel words:
"It is widely considered..."
"is seen by many as..."
"is widely regarded as..."
  • If they were sourced, then they wouldn't be so bad. Additionally, the quotes in "Endnotes" fail to cite from where they are derived, making their usefulness as references questionable at best. The gameplay section is almost entirely uncited (I know this is a pain, but it is becoming standard procedure), on top of being somewhat bloated. Finally, the "In popular culture" section is written in trivia section style. I recommend finding more people interested in the subject matter to help out with the article—collaboration on a strange and somewhat obscure subject such as this can go a long way. JimmyBlackwing 11:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • They are sourced, but in the "Critical response" section (btw, those are actually WP:Peacock words). The entire gameplay section is referenced by the instruction manual. There's no point in adding the same cite to the end of every sentence. And what are you talking about? The quotes very directly state what they are quoting from. The popular culture comment seems like a mere stylistic concern. --SeizureDog 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I apologize. I missed the sourcing on the quotes. However, the things I listed are indeed weasel words (compare the examples in "WP:AWW" to those of "WP:PCK"), even if the article has a peacock term problem, as well. Bulleted lists are normally frowned upon - I've seen objections based on "listiness" alone. JimmyBlackwing 04:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor Support the article looks good to me. igordebraga ≠ 12:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, based on the poor grammar, prose and general writing quality. — Wackymacs 18:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per Wackymacs and Jimmy. Tony 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: To lick the text problem, try printing out a hard copy and manually editing it. You might also just paste it into Word. It helps put things in perspective, and the fat just melts away. --Zeality 01:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mars

A fair bit of work has been done cleaning up this article and implementing previous suggestions, its a great page and im hoping it may finally become FA - Nbound 03:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The article is very good. I would like to see all the references use one format so they are cleaned up some. Perhaps look at the reference templates and go through the article and use the appropriate template for clean-up. I might also suggest a little rewording of the intro as it seems a little choppy.--MONGO 12:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
(Ive fixed the intro as per criticisms below, seems to flow much better now -- Nbound)
  • Comment: Only some quick thoughts.
  1. The "Life" section seems pretty short, considering it's a very popular topic in the media. (a added an extra sentence or so - its hard to add much more without copying integral parts of the main article -- Nbound)
  2. "Past missions" is merely two sentences. Are they really that uninteresting? (bulked up section - Nbound)
  3. (rather an observation than actual criticism) overall the article falls short vs. the German FA. -- EnemyOfTheState (I will try and transcribe some of the information presented there, [i only know basic german] -- Nbound)
  • Object. Lacks one citation (Future plans section). Also I'd rather add Category:Surface features of Mars to the See also section, not to the list of the main articles under the Areography. A picture of the dust storm would be nice. --Brand спойт 18:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
(Removed unsourced statement, to be added again when/if source is found, I'm unable to add that category to the see also (it wont show up in preview :S), image conataining a duststorm is already in the article. -- Nbound 06:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment - The intro is not well written. Compare the intro to Mars with other Featured planet articles such as Venus. Here are a few specific criticisms:
  1. In Indian languages like Hindi and Telugu, Tuesday is called Mangalvaar, named after Mangala, Mars, and Bahram in Persian, related to Persian mythology.
    • This sentence has so many commas and clauses it is virtually unintelligible. For example, is "Bahram" Persian for Mars or Tuesday? No matter how you parse the sentence, it still doesn't make sense. Personally, I think trivia such as this has no place in the introductory paragraph anyway. How many people are really interested in the fact that Tuesday is named after Mars in Telugu?
  2. These may be captured asteroids similar to 5261 Eureka.
    • What is 5261 Eureka? No context is given. Either "similar to 5261 Eureka" should be dropped, or some explanation should be given as to what 5261 Eureka is.
  3. Mars can be seen from Earth by the naked eye with an apparent magnitude of up to -2.9, a maximum surpassed only by Venus, the Moon and the Sun.
    • This should be split into two sentences to avoid the dueling prepositional phrases: "Mars can be seen from Earth by the naked eye. It's apparent magnitude reaches -2.9, a brightness surpassed only by Venus, the Moon, and the Sun."
  • Kaldari 00:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
(Ive fixed the lead as per your comments. -- Nbound)
Oppose: I think this article still has a ways to go before it is a FA. The Geology of Mars is very poorly discussed in this article. Geology of Mars is a daughter article, but that doesn't have much more than what is in the main article. The diversity of surface features is only lightly touched on in the Areography (Geography of Mars) section. Some consolidation of sections can be useful (such as combining the Historical Observations and Exploration sections). However, I am afraid that this article, and its daughter articles, do not sufficiently cover the topic. Perhaps look at the Enceladus article for guidance on how to structure this article. --Volcanopele 19:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Also look at the Portugese version of the Mars article. I don't read Portugese, but there are enough cognates there to see that they apparently do a very good job covering this subject. --Volcanopele 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
(Will do, thanks -- Nbound)

Oppose. This is a difficult topic to get right and I'd very much like to see it an FA, so kudos on your effort Nb. Thoughts:

  • Many issues with the structure of "Physical characteristics":
    • The life section does not belong in "Physical characteristics" and should also be expanded somewhat. Consider a short para on how habitability parameters apply to the planet (see planetary habitability).
    • The "Moons" section does not belong here either.
    • "Polar ice caps" should be merged somewhere.
    • "Orbital characteristics" should take the title "Orbit and rotation" (at least that's what I notice elsewhere) and be given its own section.
  • A patch of stub-sections from "Viewing Mars" on.
  • Past missions is definitely underweight. Re Viking: "Both landers successfully touched down in 1976 and remained operational for many years." This is a throwaway sentence. (fixed -- Nbound)
  • Sources: 4 of 48 are research papers. The % ought to rise. (cant really fix this one, ive been more maintaining this page, or doing interwiki info transfers -- Nbound)
  • No refs in "Historical observations" (this was an interwiki transfer... it wasnt cited (like the rest of the article) -- Nbound)

So, getting there but not quite. These are structural level considerations. I'll try to look at the prose if this remains up for a while. Marskell 09:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thx for quick reply. I edited the addition on habitability and that concern seems addressed. Also, the sectioning is more rational now, which is good.
Disagree with removal of "Orbital characteristics". This is a fundamental level two for a planet and belongs in the article (see how they do at Mercury and Venus) even if there is repetition with the info box.
On the sourcing concern, can you maybe try to enlist someone else? Marskell 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(Thanks for the edit, i like your version better =P , yeah ill have a look at Mercury and Venus and see what stuff i should put in for Mars, as for the sourcing ill see what i can do... -- Nbound) (Readded and expanded on orbital and rotation, added reference thing to article todo list, hopefully someone is feeling like a bit of work =P)

Comment — Overall it's a pretty decent page and is getting close to FA quality. Some notes:
  • I agree with the comment above about the German article serving as a model for the FA-quality of the English-language version.
  • Although it's a daughter article, I'm a little surprised that the Geology of Mars page is in need of considerable development. It's difficult to judge what may be needed on the Mars page geology section before that happens. (-- added to todo list - hopefully someone will have a go -- Nbound)
  • I'd like to see the last two paragraphs of the "Fictional Works" section removed: both are obscure comments at best, and can be covered by the daughter article. I'd rather see more development of the geology section than the fictional references. (para's removed -- Nbound)
Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Now some proses issues:

  • "It has the highest mountain in the solar system, Olympus Mons, the largest canyon in the solar system, Valles Marineris, and polar ice caps." Polar ice caps is tacked onto the sentence awkwardly. Consider two sentences.
  • "It might be interesting to note..." I just went and removed this myself. Never tell the reader what may or may not be interesting.
  • "They started off by establishing once and for all that most of Mars' surface features were permanent..." First, it's wordy: "They established that..." knocks out seven words. I'm unsure of "permanent". No surface feature can be called permanent, given impacts and possible geological activity. The ice caps wax and wane, for instance.
    • A question while on this: is Mars geologically dead? I've heard "yes" and "not quite" and am curious. The geology section needs to address this.
  • In life section "...and had some positive results, later disputed by many scientists, resulting in a continuing fight." Weasely adjectives (some, many)—what, briefly, were the positive results? "Fight" is poor word choice to characterize a scientific dispute.
  • "...that some researchers half-jokingly speak of an Earth-Mars "Bermuda Triangle", or a Mars Curse, or even a reference made to a "Great Galactic Ghoul" that feeds on Martian spacecraft." Eek, the phrases are mangled.
  • "To a naked-eye observer, Mars usually shows a distinct yellow, orange or reddish color, and varies in brightness more than any other planet, as seen from Earth, over the course of its orbit. When farthest away from the Earth, it is more than seven times as far from the latter as when it is closest (when least favourably positioned, it can be lost in the Sun's glare for months at a time)." Maybe two sentences for the first, and move the descriptive phrase ("over the course of..."). Why is "latter" introduced in the second sentence?

That's a half-dozen, so I'll stop there. This needs a thorough copy-edit to meet the standards.

I'm not sure that this should be closed successfully on this FAC attempt. But if the work keeps up the page will be stronger and better positioned for another try soon. Marskell 13:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Question? Interesting work, but why is this page not listed at WP:FAC ??? I came across it while looking for Marskell to comment on the Transit of Venus FAR :-) Sandy 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 FIFA World Cup

Support Article is very clear, as superb grpahics and is extremely concise as well as having a very impressive NPOV for a football related article. --Jboyle4eva 01:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Previous FAC nom here Raul654 06:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Object no prose, no analysis and no pictures. Its a result chart-sheet, dat's all. This Fire Burns.....Always 06:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object. Needs some critical analysis. I have been active in updating this, but it's just a scoresheet, not worthy of FA. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Strong object per WP:SNOW. --Maitch 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - In addition to the above, the subject of the article has just ceased to be a current news item, which may mean the article is not yet stable. In addition, there is not one picture of the entire event itself. Jeronimo 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - per Jeronimo's point. Tdslappy
  • Object per Jeronimo and rbil. It's solid data, but still, not FA-worthy. —Nightstallion (?) 08:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above, it needs more development. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 12:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A quick glance over shows some pretty glaring tense issues about things which "will" happen during the Cup... Shimgray | talk | 01:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The tense issue has now been addressed. -- Alias Flood 17:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object too listy --Robdurbar 19:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think we should have 2006 FIFA World Cup as a featured article -- Patricknoddy 8:36am, July 15, 2006 (EDT)
  • Weak Object. I think it is worthy of being an FA, but the World Cup happened less than a week ago, so I think you should give it some time to settle in. Turbokoala 17:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I think it has not enough prose to be an FA, and I agree with the argument of the WC being too recent as well. --Madcynic 17:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virus

I am nominating the Virus article, of which I contributed to, as a candidate for a Featured Article status. It has undergone significant changes, is stable on a day-to-day basis and has been peer reviewed. I think it provides a good starting point for both lay-men and scientists alike to get a handle on the broad topic of what a virus is, what they can do and what implications they have on philosophy and life -- Serephine ♠ talk - 11:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - on comprehensivness. Referencing is incomplete; who developed the origins hypotheses?; Jared Diamonds hypothesis is quite irrelevant; there is a long section on etymology but no information on the discovery and initial characterisation of viruses; article does not mention how viruses cause disease; current research is a difficult section to keep encyclopedic.--Peta 11:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
OK took most of those to heart: wrote out the discovery of viruses, placed reference to the hypotheses, renamed/shrunk "current research". As for how viruses cause disease, I gave a VERY general overview but there are simply too many ways in which differnt viruses cause disease. It's like asking how bacteria cause disease in organisms... it seems to make more sense if the mechanisms are kept within species/virus specific articles. As for references, please point out what you think needs to be referenced. I did a huge rewrite of the article using Prescott's Microbiology - so much information in there is from that book that it is silly to footnote every third sentence with it, hence why it was just in the general references. Cheers for suggestings, -- Serephine ♠ talk - 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I maintain my objection, the encarta covers more detials at the basic level.
  1. The origins section still lacks information on who developed each hypothesis and what evidence there is to support these ideas- this should be provided, one text book does not cut it - where possible the original researchs hould be referred to.
    Smells like a new article to me, Virus is over the 35kb limit as it is :p I'll work on it -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. How they cause disease is not that difficuit to explain, and certainly could be enhanced by providing examples. For the number of times the word immune appears in the article- there is no mention of the interaction of viruses and the immune system.
    The section never even passed my mind. I'll add it to my list of things to do for the article, where were you during the peer review, you're fantastic! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. I know they vary - but most viruses have similar sets of genes ie. some kind of replicase and some structural (coat proteins) - this isn't mentioned in any detail.
    To me, I didn't include this as replicase isn't a single molecule - many variations exist in viruses - and the coat proteins vary substatially. I mentioned that they encode capsid proteins, but do you think it would be better to mention in the "Genome" heading about general types of structural/functional proteins encoded? Worth mentioning that in the Replication section some more information on the types of proteins expressed are given. -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. No mention of how viruses undergo genetic change, and why this might be a bad thing
    Good point. I'll work on putting that in under "Genome" -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. No menion of viruses that need different hosts to complete their life cycle
    Hmmm, under Replication it states, As soon as the cell is destroyed the viruses will have to find new host. Not enough? -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. See alsos that are in the article don't need to be in a list at the end.
    Cool, easy to fix -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Comelete references ie author, date, title, publication need to be provided for URL notes.
    Ok as I asked below, there seems to be a referencing system here I'm missing out on. Much appreciated for a link! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
--Peta 00:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for your help, sorry about messing your numbering up~ -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Prose problems (first random sentence I encounter in a section in the middle of the article: The majority of viruses which have been studied have a capsid diameter between 10 and 300 nanometres in size.) Almost no references, and only two of them are PMID sources. Sandy 12:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Ouch, that's a sentence of mine... makes sense to me, how does it strike you as problematic? As for references, I wrote most of this from Prescott's Microbiology and hence it would be impracticle to use footnoting for so many sentences. As above, if there is anything that jumps out as particularly in need of referencing, please list it. PMID... what is that? Thanks for comments, -- Serephine ♠ talk - 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the ouch, it was unintended. FA review can be tough. Most viruses studied have a capsid diameter between 10 and 300 nanometres. Remove redundant words. Check your entire article, before Tony gets to it :-) If you are writing a medical article, you must know what PMID is: see cystic fibrosis. Sandy 17:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok no worries, I see that the size is redundant ☺ I take it that PMID is PubMed ID? Are there a list of conventions for primary referencing which I could refer to? Cheers, -- Serephine ♠ talk - 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Temporary object—I chose a portion of text towards the bottom. This has all of the hallmarks of science-speak. It's written by scientists who are very knowledgeable in this field, and in many ways is a laudable piece; but a good copy-editor could make it so much nicer to read, and more accessible to our readers.
"Viral populations do not grow through cell division as they are acellular, they instead utilize the machinery and metabolism of a host cell to produce multiple copies of themselves. They may have a lytic cycle or a lysogenic cycle. Some viruses are capable of carrying out both. A virus can still cause degenerative effects within a cell without causing its death, these are collectively termed cytopathic effects. Released virions can be passed from host to host ..."
    • "Viral populations do not grow through cell division as they are acellular, they instead utilize ..." Try this: "Viral populations do not grow through cell division, because they are acellular; instead, they use ..." (Eradicate "utilise" from your vocabularly, please. "Because" is usually preferred to "since" and "as", especially for non-native readers. The semicolon makes for easier reading, and moreover, makes it grammatical.)
    • "They may have a lytic cycle or a lysogenic cycle. Some viruses are capable of carrying out both." Stubby sentences; there's a need to improve the flow from one sentence to the next, throughout the article. More semicolons might be one way of improving the smoothness. And why not "a lytic or a lysogenic cycle", achieved through piping the first link.
    • "A virus can still cause degenerative effects within a cell without causing its death, these are collectively termed cytopathic effects.: Ungrammatical. Again, more care needs to be taken in the relationship between successive clauses.
    • "Released virions can be passed from host to host"—Why not "between hosts"?

Tony 16:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou Tony, apologies for this sort of text on my behalf. The sentence was completely written by me and I have trouble telling what non-speakers of science find confusing. To me it is just natural, and for my style of writing and speaking it flows the best. I understand if this isn't the case for others and have accordingly adjusted the paragraph. Thanks again for the suggestions -- Serephine ♠ talk - 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object
    • What about pandemics?
    • Detection, purification and diagnosis and Prevention and treatment sections should be much more longer
    • Should have more external links, references... NCurse work 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother (TV series)

I nominate this article because in my opinion the writing is of high quality, it is informative and every aspect of an, in someways complicated show, is explained fully ellisjm 10:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support (see my reasons above) ellisjm 10:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, Wikipedia:Verifiability - no references at all, and the list of "facts" is really just a list of unencyclopedic trivia. Thanks/wangi 14:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object does not seem to meet any of the FA criteria. No references, inadequate lead, check out this one sentence for prose problems: Originally shown in the Netherlands in September 1999, and subsequently cloned across the world, the "housemates" are confined inside a specially designed house where every single point in the house is within view of a video camera, and not permitted any contact with the outside world (although some versions, like the ones from Philippines, Australia, Thailand, Mexico, Germany or Spain have introduced in some seasons precise changes, allowing the contact with the outside in certain situations): no TV, radio, telephone, Internet or other media are available to the housemates, not even writing materials. Sandy 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
PS: I should indicate my bias against this show due to its exploitation of Tourette syndrome, by including Pete Bennett as a participant. Others should decide if my analysis of the prose problems is unbiased. Sandy 15:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Sandy. Tony 16:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object per Sandy. Rlevse 23:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Lead is far too short, no references, prose style isn't hugely encyclopaedic throughout, far too few sections, and a good half of the article consists of lists and/or tables. The lack of images, meanwhile, while not strictly an FA criteria, certainly don't help the impenetrable blocks of text. I've no doubt that the genesis of a good article is in there somewhere, but it desperately needs an overhaul - most notably, the structure needs drastically sorting. Seb Patrick 08:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In this case, the lack of images is a point in its favor, since any images would almost certainly be so-called "fair use" images, of which featured articles should have a bare minimum. User:Angr 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - for the reasons stated by the nominating party.

[edit] Khan Wali Khan

Resubmitting: Self nomination Pashtun nationalist, political prisoner and leader of the opposition in Pakistan. I've redone this article with the help of Tombs and Ryan. Opinions and constructive criticism will be appreciated. --Zak 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC) ArchivedWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Khan Wali Khan1

  • Weak object still for the same reasons; it's a lot better now, but there are still many errors:
    • His mother Mehar Qanda belonged to the nearby Razar village, who was married to Bacha Khan in 1912, she died during the flu pandemic after World War I. The comma after 1912 should be a semicolon, or an "and" should be added.
    • He joined the Khudai Khidmatgar movement in his teens and, in 1942, Khan formally stepped into the field of politics "Khan" is unneeded, since the subject is already "he".
    • separated by a thousand miles Indian territory "of" could help
    • Wali Khan, along with many other politicians at the time, were imprisoned and disqualified was
    • The new Military leader capital M?
    • Shocked upon hearing the news that the military junta would not transfer power to the majority Bengalis; Khan here the semicolon should be a comma
    • possible internment in West Pakistan.[7].
    • Zulfiqar Bhutto who wanted to lift martial law and set up a new constitution comma couldn't hurt
  • Thanks, AZ t 21:48, 10

July 2006 (UTC)

All done AZ --Zak 12:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object 2a, there are prose problems throughout, of the same nature as described in the first FAC, and above. There are missing commas, changes in tense, and general copyediting cleanup needed. (I haven't checked the references, but they appear light for a political article.) Fixing only the few examples given doesn't correct the overall difficulties with the prose throughout the article. It needs a set of fresh eyes to start over on the text. Looking at a random section in the middle of the article:
    • overall cleanup, saw this: separated by a thousand miles (1500 km)of Indian territory, no space after 1500km)
    • Despite his father's efforts against partition and his brief attempt to instead create a new nation called Pakhtunistan, on August 14, 1947 Pakistan came into being. Whose brief attempt, his or his father's?
    • By the end of the negotiations, he held a series of meetings with then Governor General Ghulam Mohammed. Hard to explain, but tortured sentence construct. Why do we need the by the end of the negotiations?
    • Khan joined the National Awami Party (Awami meaning 'people') in 1956, a new political party formed by his father along with other progressive and leftist leaders from both wings of Pakistan. Why is meaning people in parentheses, yet another description of the party follows? Combine the thoughts with consistency. I just had a very hard time with the prose.
    • The opposition parties united under the Combined Opposition Party alliance and decided to field a joint candidate against Ayub Khan in the Presidential elections. decided to field --> fielded .
    • However, despite a compromise agreement on some issues, it is alleged that the military leadership and its political allies did not want Ayub Khan to succeed. [6]Wali Khan held a separate meeting with Ayub Khan reference placed with no space before next sentence (needs a thorough cleanup copyedit), and it is alleged or it was alleged? There are tense changes throughout the article.
  • Fixing the list will not address all of the prose problems in the article: I had problems with every paragraph I read.
  • Not comprehensive: if the article is a bio, should it gloss over his death with, "after a long illness"? (Section also has prose problems: After a long illness, Wali Khan died on 26 January 2006. He is survived by his wife Nasim Wali Khan, three daughters and two sons. His funeral was widely attended with condolence messages from Pakistani President Pervaiz Musharraf, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.) Missing commas, at minimum. Sandy 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sandy points taken, with regard to grammar however the bit about his illness i disagree with. Firstly Khan stayed away from the media and very little came out in public about the precise nature of his health problems. Additional referencing is hard because of poor documentation. --Zak 11:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you can work in some wording that explains that the cause of his death was unknown? Sandy 11:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes Sandy I've addressed the specific points you've made and put a mention about his passing. I'm going to see if I can get some copy editing help and look into the rest. --Zak 12:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I should have mentioned that I struck my comment above. Please leave me a message if you need me to take another look later. My house was hit by lightening, and I may lose track of what I'm following. Sandy 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. There's good in this article, but it's unacceptable until it's been through a thorough copy-edit. Don't just fix these examples from the top.
    • "Khan was the second of three sons, he received his early education at the Azad Islamia School in Utmanzai."—Ungrammatical.
    • His father's name is provided on the second rather than the first mention.
    • "which led to him wearing his trademark glasses"—Ungrammatical ("his", not "him"). What exactly does "trademark" mean here? Is it unambiguous?
    • "Despite his pacifist upbringing as a young freedom fighter,"—This seems contradictory, and thus should be explained or reworded.
    • "He was to later explain"—Splitting infinitives is not banned, but here it would be easier not to.
    • "Khan joined the Khudai Khidmatgar movement in his teens and, in 1942, formally stepped into politics by joining the Indian National Congress and served as a provincial joint secretary of the party"—and ... and. Perhaps split this sentence for easier reading?
    • Try an en dash for the range of years: it's kewler.Tony 16:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll have a look at the stuff you mentioned, the trademark glasses was how people would point him out in Pakistan. Pacifist upbringing: he was from a part of the world where revenge in retaliation to attack was quite common. The Khudai Khidmatgar movement was something of an oddity in the regions history. A non-violent army taking on the British Raj, obviously has its limits as Gandhi himself admitted. --Zak 17:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've put in some of the changes you mentioned what do you mean by en dash? --Zak 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentShouldn't the "Notes" section be "Bibliography"? WP 06:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm I'm used to Harvard referencing but if it's wrong that shouldn't be a problem to change? --Zak 17:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think the "Notes" and "References" are backward, at least according to WP:GTL#Notes. AZ t 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok sorted --Zak 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nashua, New Hampshire

Nashua is truly the best place to live, and should have a chance to show off the truth! Dmanskiman 23:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object unreferenced. I couldn't get past the lead without finding a glaring example of a citation needed. Please reference the article, and I'll be glad to have another look. Sandy 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Too many short sections and paragraphs. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Not the best example of a Wiki article, per above, but also because of the page layout and some of the pictures. FE, the entrance to a middle school is not a great illustration, unless the school is particularly notable. Also, the segment on politicians is a layout nightmare. Tdslappy
  • Object nomination not in the spirt of the regular FA nominations i.e., the basis of the nomination is to promote a "hometown" and not to nominate the article per already established critera.--Jersey Devil 04:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamilton-Burr duel

A clear and detailed article that documents an important event in American history. --kralahome 03:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object 2a, prose problems. This is the lead: The Hamilton-Burr duel was a duel between two prominent United States politicians, former Treasury Secretary General[1] Alexander Hamilton and sitting Vice President Aaron Burr, in Weehawken, New Jersey on July 11, 1804, in which Burr shot and mortally wounded Hamilton, who died the next day in Manhattan. Sandy 03:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with Sandy. I could imagine this could be longer too. --Oldak Quill 07:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object The detail is nice, the writing style is bulky and unwieldy at best. If that were cleaned up, I'd support. Tdslappy
  • Object. Short lead (see WP:LEAD). --Maitch 13:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Weak lead, unsourced quotes (I've noted several by inserting "citation needed" tags, but there are more), limited sources, and minimal discussion of the aftermath. The discussion of why this was such a bitter feud is OK but could be much better and more extensive. The collection of sources actually cited is interesting but narrow: essentially much is drawn from one academic article and the rest from original sources and local histories. Usually, I love to see both academic articles and original sources, but can't think of another case where I've seen them used without any broader secondary source survey. It would be good to either use more than one article or to throw in some broader material for the big picture. This isn't ready yet; I'd encourage some attention to these comments and would then consider. Sam 18:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sakoku

An interesting article not many people know much about . . . And with the current tensions in the Sea of Japan/East Sea very timely...

Rwnorman 03:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object unreferenced, short lead. Sandy 03:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Underreferenced. --Oldak Quill 07:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs a through copy-edit, and more references. One reference, with a place-holder still there, seems to be missing. -Fsotrain09 17:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution of Indonesia

A well-written article of reasonable length, with full detail and good references, written about an unusual and not widely known topic, by an editor who lives in Indonesia.--Anthony.bradbury 23:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support per nom.--Anthony.bradbury 23:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose No external links, no picture (not needed but helps), no reputation as a Good article, no peer review, half of the article is a list unlike US_constitution. -ScotchMB 02:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose very thin on content when you disregard the text of the constitution - which shouldn't really be there any way.--Peta 11:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose no footnotes. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

Self-nom: A good, comprehensive, well-referenced article, which has been through peer review thrice (1 - 2 - 3). All objections since have been satisfied.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(esperanza elections!) 19:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Article looks good. But before I support, I have a couple of questions.
  • 1. "However, certain practices like wearing and carrying of Kirpans in the profession of the Sikh religion, can be restricted in the interest of public order, morality and health." This is confusing because it gives the impression that the Kirpan is often a restricted item whereas the actual source makes it clearer. "Explanation I: The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion."
  • 2. It'd be interesting to see how these rights relate to a Overseas Citizen of India and what if any rights are denied.
  • 3. The expenditure on education graph does not make it clear if it shows the real increase in expenditure. By that I mean, does it take into account inflation? If it does not, then the figures are VERY misleading.
1. Corrected. Sorry for the mistake.
2. You mean NRIs? That was already there, but I explicitly mentioned it. They're the same.
3. I've totally removed the image. I forgot that the images also have to be referenced, and sice this one is not... :)
4. The templates have been used in the majority of cases. In the cases where it has not been used, the text renders the same as it would have with a cite template.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(esperanza elections!) 21:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Support - No, not NRIs. NRIs are citizens of India proper. This year, a new form of citizenship has been released (sort of dual nationality, but not quite there) known as Overseas Citizenship of India. If you're not certain, then leave it out - OCI is a bit tricky to define it seems ;) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I looked through the Act, and found (on page 5, 7B(2)) that only one right is not accorded to OCIs (see changes). So now that point is also taken care of.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(esperanza elections!) 04:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool, that's great. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: My very limited spell checker turned up a few ? items. Maybe a better spell checker would find some words that actually need to be fixed. Thanks Hmains 20:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Done some spellchecking, using MS Word.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(esperanza elections!) 21:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support needs a bit more copyediting. Excellent improvement from past position. This Fire Burns....Always 04:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - time to have FAs on substantial issues apart from Pop culture; though not sure abt the child labor photo - it is not India-related and doesn't depict begar, imho. --Gurubrahma 07:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - a laborious effort by Shreshth in writing this comprehensive article on an important subject. But, I strongly feel that it needs to be trimmed a bit more and copyedited. I'm not just concerned at the length of the article, but at the repetitions of certain things like the non-justiciability of the directive principles, for example. I also see that the article is "too-inclusive" when it comes to details. I can understand that it's hard to cut down given that the subject is vast and has a prosaic manifestation. But, in the interest of summary style and reader comfort, we definitely need to move some text to daughter articles. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object – need a good copyedit. personal good as well as the good of the community (textbookish), considered a gross violation of the spirit and provisions of the constitution (tone down "gross") ; have to be freed. --> released from custody. 2. Use Indian English spellings (offense-->offence) 3. The titles of Rai Bahadurs and Khan Bahadurs are also abolished expand on this sentence. 5. endeavour to secure a uniform civil code for all citizens expand on this (mention Goa and mention why this has not been sucessful elsewhere) 6. Avoid overlinking. Many terms have been overlinked leading to a sea of blue. 7. lakh acres? an international equivalent is necessary here. 8. except Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland. why? 9. Some critical commentary on the subject would make it less textbookish. (I've given some exanples on UCC). You'd need to get hold of someone why has not been involved with the article to copyedit it, since it would be difficult for you to do so based on the familiarity of the topic. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've done some work. I'll be looking into the other points as soon as electricity permits :) BTW, could you help copyedit.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(esperanza elections!) 07:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    Let me know once you've finished. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I couldn't find the reason behind the failure of separation of judiciary from executive in JnK and Nagaland, even though that particular statement is cited from a book. Should it be removed? --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 19:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, looks great! —Nightstallion (?) 08:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is sub-standard. I am not sure if the author is even aware that directive principles are those set of rights and duties that were not unanimously accepted by legislators in 1947 due to cultural differences. Hence they were moved to recommendatory status, that is directive. This is the same case as EU Directives today. It also means these principles are a matter of conflict even today unlike the consensus reached on fundamental rights and duties. The article does not seem to recognise this major point.
The structure of the article is unwieldy. It would be better if all the rights, duties, directives and amendments are listed in a tabular format first for ready reference and then explanations and illustrations can flow therefrom. Also, illustrations about enforcement of the rule of law would help reduce the legal-speak here. For instance, its an open secret that the Urban Land Ceilings Act is the most unforceable piece of legislation in the history of the quasi-democracy. The article is thoroughly misleading as regards the role of panchayats (now they share in Union tax pool). Anwar 15:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Having a tabular format would make it worthy of a list. As such, featured article candidates need to be mostly prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Anwar:
  1. I knew about the Directive Principles part since I had heard of it in passing, but I could find no valid source on the net, and thus, I decided not to include it. If you would direct me to any such souce, I'd be more than pleased to add the info about it.
  2. As Nichalp has stated above, the tabular format is not such a good idea.
  3. I did not understand how the ULCA applies on an article regarding Fundamental Duties, unless it would be with regard to the deleted right to property?
Thanks!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(esperanza elections!) 14:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a, and possibly 2d (POV).
    • "The Fundamental Duties are defined as moral obligations on all citizens of India which help promote a spirit of patriotism"—"On" is wrong; word order is clumsy, juxtaposing "citizens of India which".
    • "are not enforceable by any court, but the principles laid down in it are considered fundamental in the governance of the country"—Again, wrong preposition: "to", not "in the governance". "By the courts" is idiomatic, not "by any court". "But" does not contradict the previous statement, and thus is inappropriate; the deeper problem is that the two ideas don't go together in this sentence.
    • "universally apply to all citizens"—reverse the order of the first two words.
    • "The Indian student community in England was further inspired by the workings of parliamentary democracy and British political parties." No reference, and it would be hard to verify in any case: bordering on POV. The word "inspired" and its variants occur rather a lot.
    • Don't start a sentence with "Also,...".
    • "the independent India's government"—unidiomatic.
    • "the Nehru Commission composing of representatives of"—wrong.

Almost every sentence needs fixing. Please let us know when the prose has been thoroughly audited and is "compelling, even brilliant", as required. Don't just correct these examples; the whole text needs considerable work. Try to find a good copy-editor or two who is/are unfamiliar with the text. PS The title is kind of odd; couldn't it be simplified? Tony 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony - we've been cleaning up some of the obvious problems, but we need your help in spotting the intrinsic ones which affect the prose. Could you please elaborate a little more specifically about the problems? This Fire Burns Always 12:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's a Wonderful Life

Self Nomination. This article delves deep into the storyline, not merely outlining but describing and telling. Good pictures all around to give mental images, thusly making it more fun (and more compelling) to read. All information surrounding the film is discussed more than adequately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.31.8.97 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 6 July 2006.

  • Object No sources provided, in-line or otherwise. I would try a peer review first. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 23:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Agreed, please put this through a peer review first. Wikipedia:Peer review --P-Chan 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object No sources. --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object While I love this movie, the article has to be referenced. Try PR first. Rlevse 09:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object - As great a film as it is, no references, in-line or otherwise, plot is WAAY to long, it's supposed to be a summary, not a novel adaptation. And way to many images, is that really fair use? See Casablanca (film), simply the rockingest film article around, for ideas on how to improve this article. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 12:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: No refs per Cite.php, and no fair use rationales for the images (even the poster has no license tag). I'd love to see ==Trivia== merged into the content, and (reminiscent of The Star Wars Holiday Special's past troubles) all but 4 or 5 pictures need to go. Let's see about that at WP:PR, and hopefully it will return on FAC in time for Christmas. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, why is the section named "Bank run" hidden from the rest of the plot. If it could be transformed into a section of historical perspective, that would be fantastic. -- Zanimum

[edit] Collaboratory

Self nomination. This article has been through peer review with no major changes. Thus far has proved to be very stable. I have recently added images with the proper copyright notice. It is well cited (using APA style) and has inline references. Thank you for your time, consideration, and especially for your comments! C22an 03:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The article doesn't look ready, and starts out on a bad note: the headings are awful and don't meet the manual of style. Harro5 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments. Now that you read the article, could you please be more specific? Perhaps give some examples? I would appreciate your input! C22an 04:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • All of the headings violation the manual of style with captions, and most should be shortened. Harro5 23:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Headings have been fixed.
  • Oppose. Sorry, but not enough sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I suspect there are further aspects of the subject that could be illustrated, but I'll support because the references are actually fine. Every statement seems to be supported by a reference. Quantity is not everything. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Image:BioSc2.jpg should not be in JPEG. WP 09:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Why not? What about Image:BioSc1.jpg?C22an 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Because jpeg is a lossy format; png gives better results for pictures with less colour variation, i.e. technical illustrations, screenshots. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the explanation! That indeed helps! I could go back to the article (which is in Adobe format) and get a screenshot in png format. However, is that a strong reason for opposing an article? In my opinion the content of the article is more important than the format of the picture (particularly as long as one can still see what’s in the picture). I am confident I can find many Featured Articles that have jpeg images. C22an 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not a reason I would use to oppose an article, unless the picture was crucial and the artefacts quite obvious; however, a simple objection without reason constitutes a valid vote. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Right you are. And it all comes down to the mood I'm in when I read an article, no matter the benefit or knowledge the article brings to the Wiki community (and others). I’ve had plenty of “teachers” just like that in school… Many thanks for all your comments. Much appreciated! C22an 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Here: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed."
                • Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, this is different from the rules for Featured Pictures and Requests for Adminship. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fishing

Fishing is one of the most interesting pasttimes people practice. The article on fishing is also well-designed, and well-cited. --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Insufficient lead, too many lists, contains too many one sentence paragraphs, and lacks inline citations. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object.. While the article does have inline citations, it does not have enough of them. A lot more statements within the article should be sourced. -- Underneath-it-All 15:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object As per above. Many many other problems as well. A few examples -- hunter-gather is wrong. And every sentence in the Food section is a paragraph by itself.--ppm 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a really good article, but I suggest that you resolve the merge suggestion and either find a more direct (possibly primary) reference for the point supported by Guns, Germs and Steel, or at least add a page number. Object. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tobacco smoking

This article previously failed the nomination for Featured article for having being non-NPOV and for not having enough references. Since then, it was signficantly modified to become more accurate, better cited, far more neutral, and cleaner. Before, the article just focused on the harms of smoking. Now, it focuses on the Reasons for smoking, health effects of smoking (both pro and con), history of tobacco smoking, smoking in the media, and tobacco regulation. Tobacco smoking is a very stable topic and is not likely to be changed very frequently. Please re-review it and decide whether it is now Featured article quality. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - per nom --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. When the headings conform to MOS (capitalization and order of sections), and the footnotes have a bibliographic style, I'll have another look. With all those blue links to websites in the footnotes, I can't determine the quality of your references without clicking on each one. There also seems to be a link farm in the External Links. The TOC seems overwhelming, but I'm not sure any of it can be deleted. Sandy 21:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the page was modified to conform to MOS (capitalization and order of sections) --GoOdCoNtEnT 22:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please have a look at WP:GTL for the correct ordering of sections. Your TOC is overwhelming: there are one paragraph sections that could be combined into one section. When you've updated the references to include full bibliographic info, I'll take a closer look at the article. Sandy 00:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I upgraded a few refs as an example to get you going. You should also fix your footnotes; the inline cite goes right after the punctuation, with no space. I was pleased to find a number of PMID references, but saw some journal studies with no PMID abstract: you can find the abstracts by using the PubMed search function. Also, there are quite a few statements that need inline citations. Sandy 02:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, regarding the Free London Press report: per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles), be careful with media reports of medical studies. You can go to PubMed and find the actual study, and link to both the actual study and the media report, which will strengthen the quality of your article and references. You might go to WP:MCOTW for some tips on getting the article up to FA quality. Sandy 02:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Object—2a, 2b and 3a. There's a pervading lack of precision in the writing, and in some places it's over-sectioned; the lead is inadequate (should be at least two paragraphs, and do what WP says it should; it's not comprehensive—no mention of women and smoking, inadequate on the third world, superficial WRT advertising, and US-centric in places, e.g., "Taxation".

    • Spot the redundant word in the opening sentence: "Tobacco smoking is the act of burning the dried leaves of the tobacco plant and inhaling the resulting smoke." (The context of the smoke is so obvious that we don't want "resulting" here.) The rest of the lead needs therapy, but here I'm going to straight to the first para in the History section.
    • "Tobacco smoking, using both pipes and cigars, was common to many Native American cultures of the Americas." This sentence is a bomb-site. Do you need the amplifier "both" here? Can you avoid the repetition of "Americ(an)"? Check that you do mean "common to (emphasising "a common element in many cultures"), and not "common among". Why not: "Tobacco smoking with pipes and cigars was common among Native Americans." That's what it seems to boil down to when the fat melts.
    • "It is depicted in the art of the Classic-era Maya civilization about 1,500 years ago." Perhaps a reference?
    • "The Mayans smoked tobacco and also mixed it with lime and chewed it in a snuff-like substance." You can't chew something in a substance. I'm always looking for ways of avoiding "also", which is usually an admission of defeat. This might do the trick: "The Mayans smoked tobacco, and mixed it with lime to produce a snuff-like substance that they chewed." The comma is optional.
    • "Among the Mayans tobacco was used as an all-purpose medicine, and was widely believed to have magical powers, being used in divinations and talismans." Why the complicated passive voice? Try: "The Mayans used tobacco as an all-purpose medicine; they believed that it had magical powers, and used it in divinations and talismans." But this doesn't solve the awkwardness of listing two very different items—talismans are objects; divinations are processes.

You'll need to enlist the help of other copy-editors to get this up to standard. Try the medicos. They should be interested, given our reach into the third world. Tony 05:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I do not think that excessive links would hurt an article in any way. By the way, we are fixing the errors noted above. Can you please wait till we fix the errors before continuing voting? --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:NOT and WP:EL. Let us know when the article is thoroughly referenced, and I'll take another look. Sandy 18:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are some serious issues with accuracy in this article which I am disappointed were never caught by anyone. Amazingly, in this article, it credits an increase in the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the brain with the effects of nicotine. The information seemed suspicious to me, and to my dismay, I found that the source that was cited did not mention this at all! In fact, as nicotine binds to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the brain, it has an "antagonistic" effect, meaning that it inhibits function of these receptors, which is the exact opposite of what acetylcholine does. This alone almost made me want to put out a NPOV on this article and when I saw it was almost a featured article I thought I had better put this notice in here to make sure you correct the factual inaccuracies.

[edit] Ecuador

This article has wide-ranging informations, not too long with lots of links to further going articles. 亮HH 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object unreferenced entirely. Too many lists. How about an Ecuador template to minimize all that "See also". And a separate page or category for "famous" Ecuadorians. Sandy 22:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Not long enough lead, not enough sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Very messy article. --Shane (T - C - E) 02:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object because of the flow of the prose. Some sections drone on and on without getting very far, while others seem to jump around without strong connections. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs

[edit] Architecture of Norway

This is a self-nomination, though some of the best edits were made by another editor, User:Roede

There are a couple of reasons why I thought this would be a good featured candidate:

  • The topic itself is interesting, since it illustrates both the societal development of a country with unique challenges and a particular relationship to the outside world;
  • I think the article is well-written and well-structured - some recent contributions have strengthened it further
  • Featuring it would encourage more articles on architecture - as you'll see, there are only a few overview articles for European countries, and there are obviously non-European countries with an architectural history that is at least as interesting. --Leifern 10:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Object. It is a very interesting article, but it doesn't have inline references. --Maitch 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I withdraw my objection, but it will still be nice if you would have refs placed after punctuation as described in Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Maitch 07:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Only two refs, no inline cites, short and choppy style. Rlevse 14:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Good feedback, I'll be working on alll these (inline references, reference materials, and the style) over the weekend. I've also solicited feedback from three Norwegian architects. --Leifern 16:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. Stubby paragraphs and substandard prose. Please network with other WPians who are interested in the topic and can help to copy-edit the text. Tony 03:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Lead is way too short; article (as noted) has far too many single-sentence paragraphs. Daniel Case 03:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

All these objections have been noted, and the article is being updated. --Leifern 02:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychoactive drug

This article discusses a frequently debated a biased topic in modern society. The article is well organized, allowing an average reader to understand its context. The article is also mostly well cited. --GoOdCoNtEnT 18:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support because it is a well-written, concise article with good graphics and navigational tools built into the article (especially the .png venn diagram--good job!!). Gives just enough information for someone to understand the topic without knowing much before hand. Well-structured.
    • As just a few random examples, I could not find fluvoxamine, pimozide, ziprasidone, tiapride or sulpiride on the chart. Either they're not there, or they're not easy to find.Sandy 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object mainly for the whole bunch of {{citation needed}}s. The article's lists (mainly Ways psychoactive drugs affect the brain) should be converted to prose. Also, about the headings, see WP:MOS#Headings - if possible, avoid repeated the title of an article in a heading. Andy t 21:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I don't think the article meets any of the criteria, but I object mostly on poor referencing, with possible NPOV. Not only are there many citation needed tags, but there are almost no references to actual journal-published medical research, and the reference list seems to indicate bias. The article is not comprehensive or medical in tone. Sandy 22:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just replaced the diagram/chart with a new version, and added the above mentioned substances (I didn't add tiapride as there's no wikipedia article on it). While I agree the article isn't ready for featured article status, I think that the diagram is ready for featured picture status, as it was up for nomination before, and I believe that it now meets all the requirements. On a side note, another article to keep an eye on for future featured article status is the Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants article. (Formerly known as the Hallucinogens article). --Thoric 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Just because tiapride is not yet included in Wikipedia is not a reason to leave if off a chart if you want it be featured. When writing a medical article, you should not be using Wiki as your source. Still, there is not a single PMID reference in your article. Another problem with your image is that it does not have a global view, and is biased towards drugs available in the US, leaving out drugs like tiapride. I can't be sure of what else you left off, as that was only a random check. Your article, and graph, needs to be better referenced with medical sources. For example, I'm not sure if atomoxetine should or should not be on your list. I would need to see a medical reference. I found a group of pharmacists once somewhere on Wiki, although I can't recall where. I suggest that you dig them up and enlist their help in your article. Sandy 19:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The chart is not meant to be a complete list of psychoactive substances, only a list of common psychoactives and how they relate to each other. There are references at the bottom of the page for sources to placement of items on the chart. --Thoric 22:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Atomoxetine (Strattera) is common. Sandy 22:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I've put in a request, but still waiting for response. I also added a bunch of references to take care of some of the missing citation tags, as well as added a few more substances and categories to the chart. Currently the chart itself specifies three pieces of reference material. I'm not sure how many references are required, or if it would please the editors for the list of article references to exceed the content of the article, but I could certainly add more as needed. --Thoric 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leicester

As a resident of Leicester, I must profess a slight bias in my nomination of this article, but I have done little if any work to this article, none of it substantial. I believe this article is concise, well written, and provides in depth, encyclopedic information about the city without being too long or developing a multitude of 'tumour' paragraphs editted into certain sections which are irrelevant or boring. --Ivesfreak 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. The lead is too short (see WP:LEAD), it lacks citations, and it contains too many lists. --Maitch 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Ditto Maitch + too many lists. --Oldak Quill 12:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object - incomplete article, too many lists, no citations (just short list of outside sources);

Support - Seen worse articles make it to the main page, give me a week or so to try and make it better would love to see it on the main page. (Plus no disrespect but would't hurt some Americans to see that there are other places in England outside London)Jimmmmmmmmm 10:27 13th July 2006

  • Object. This article reads more like a sales brochure for Leicester rather then a critical description. For example it says that's "The city centre is mainly Victorian with some later developments, which have usually been integrated in smoothly." Is this true? Having lived there I certainly wouldn't agree. While this might just by my POV, the last time I looked at Leicester's entry in the English Lonely Planet guide it agreed with me. The history section is also very light (is this a space restriction?). For example, nowhere does it say that King Richard III set out from Leicester to fight the Battle of Bosworth Field, no reference is made to Lady Jane Grey, who was England's shortest serving monarch. I could go on.... StormCloud 12:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Józef Piłsudski

Józef Piłsudski was one of the most important politicians of the interwar period, author of the Miracle at Vistula, national hero of Poland and one of the few 'benevolent' dictators. The article has been through PR and is ranked as a GA. 60kb long, it has lots of inline citations and I hope is comprehensive and NPOVed enough to become a FA. Your comments, as always, are much appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Support on wheels now. Conditional support. This is a great article but some quibbles remain:
  • Inline references are somewhat messed up. Sometimes they're in front of the comma, sometimes after, sometimes with a space and sometimes without. IIRC the MoS says there must be no space and it must be after the period or comma, like this.[1] And seeing [22][5] is not very good either, but it's really a quibble :))
  • Poland is referred as "her" in the first phrase. Poland is not a girl, so it's an "it". :))
  • His pseudonyms should be translated (if they have a meaning that is).
  • The images are somewhat messed up too. There are a lot of them but they get pretty crowded. I'm sure some other reviewers will have suggestions.
  • Per WP:MOSDATE, day/months in dates should wikilinked, say November 22.
    • Aren't there some who disagree with this? I prefer to leave this alone and let experts fix this. Again, isn't there a script/bot to fix this?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead could use an improvement as per WP:LEAD. The second paragraph is kinda out of place and the other one should be expanded to summarize the article.
  • Piłsudski drove himself hard, working all day and, on a regimen <-- you mean a regime? I don't get it...
  • Look it up 1 a : a systematic plan (as of diet, therapy, or medication) especially when designed to improve and maintain the health of a patient b : a regular course of action and especially of strenuous training --SeizureDog 18:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Ooops, my bad... The other points remain though :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's all I can think of atm, I'll add a few things later maybe. Cheers, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Great article, but minor object on a few points:
    • The images need to be interleaved between the two margins; otherwise, image stacking will force gaps before section headers in some places.
    • Some issues with the section headings:
      • Is there really any need for a top-level "Biography" section, given that this is a biographical article? I would move the sub-sections up one level.
        • Here I'd argue that yes. The biography have subsections, which would otherwise be 'equal' not only to legacy, but to sections like qutes or references. I personally find it much more tidy if there is a biography with subsections, even if it compromises majority of an article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "Fall and rise to power": maybe this is just too much familiarity with Gibbons and Shirer on my part, but the wording is somewhat jarring; there's a certain gut reaction that the words are out of order.
        • Fixed Mieciu K 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "The benevolent dictator, the great leader": somewhat questionable to use such a naked assertion as a section heading, as context and citation is essential for such a statement.
        • Fixed Mieciu K 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "The death": should be just "Death".
        • Fixed Mieciu K 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • In the "Quotes" section, why is Joseph Conrad's view of any relevance? He's hardly a sophisticated political commentator or recognized historian; the inclusion seems slightly hagiographic.
      • Well, it is a quote and IIRC it was in the article before I rewrote it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • My point is that it's not a very relevant quote here. The majority of the quotes is at WikiQuote, and the ones left in the article should be those of particular importance; I would argue that Conrad's isn't one of them. Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, I generally agree that quotes should go to Wikiquote, so I moved the entire section there, and intext replaced Condrad with Mościcki (1935) and Sejm (1995).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There's a funny extra space after the "Marshals of Poland" template that I can't figure out.
Overall, though, this is quite good; I'll be happy to support once the above issues are resolved. Kirill Lokshin 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Support now that the significant issues have been resolved. I'm still hoping somebody will figure out what the problem with the template spacing at the bottom is, though. Kirill Lokshin 23:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't see anything strange around that template... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. As Kirill Lokshin points out, there are some image-alignment issues in this article, and the ToC needs reformatting due to the top-level biogrpahy section. The footnoting, however, is among the most extensive I have ever seen, bravo. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I work under a motto that 'in a FA-class article, every single fact should be referenced' :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I altered the ToC, don't claim it is outstanding but is IMHO better than the previous one... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Could persondata be added to this article? TheGrappler 11:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe... I have never done it before. Could you do it, perhaps?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I added the template. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Tnx!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I reformatted it a little to put it into the style suggested at WP:PERSON. I generally find it's better if people who are a little knowledgable about the matter fill in fields like "name", "alternative names" and "description" since they're more likely to get a summary right. Anyway that was handy, thanks. TheGrappler 20:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All the articles proposed here by Piotrus have become battle grounds for disgusting, incessant revert warring, because this editor's sole aim here is to propagate Polish POV. I have not seen a single NPOV article by him. Enough is enough. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo, you have already been warned once by Arbcom to avoid incivility or personal attacks (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Remedies). Balcer 14:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop your habitual personal attacks. Since you start revert warring even here, when this article has not been promoted, I envisage what a mess the article would become when you move your crusade to main space. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I see that you are honing your technique of blackening the reputation of other Wikipedians to a fine art. I simply restored my quite innocent comment in reaction to your personal attack against Piotrus, which you unceremoniously erased, and now this single edit is considered to be "revert warring" by me. Furthermore, could you provide some evidence that I make "habitual" personal attacks? You do realize that unfairly accusing others of making personal attacks is a form of personal attack. Balcer 14:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Since even my vote here provoked bouts of reverting rage, I leave this voting in disgust. My prediction is that Józef Piłsudski will spawn revert wars, just like other Piotr's opera - featured or not featured - have been. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Ghirla, since Pilsudski is an entirely Polish story (minus the 1920 war), I don't see how it could be of a slightest concern. We used to have some problems with articles related to relationships of Poland with other countries, where POV might be a concern, but honestly, whether Polish editors consider him a dictator or a genius, it is all the same for me. This is Józef Piłsudski, not Warsaw Uprising or Polish September Campaign. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Your remark shows two things: first, you don't know what you are talking about, second, the article is biased and incomplete. `'mikka (t) 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I tried to fix some of the image alignment, as there are quite a few images (I believe one of the requirements for FA status). I also tried to delink some of the authors who I found to be not notable, and some miscellaneous other things. I am in the process of taking mere links and converting them into references. Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Tnx for the copyediting! As for authirs, I prefer to leave them ilinked, in time we have more and more articles on them. Do you have a good rule to determine their notability quickly? For example, I wrote a stub on Piotr S. Wandycz, who seems quite notable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Usually, they are notable if they have written numerous books on one subject and therefore qualify as an author/academic too. If they are a professor then that adds to their notability. But other than that, I know no ways to determine notability, and especially on foreign authors I have no knowledge. Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I would still add something about the effect Pilsudski's death had on the policies of the Polish government. Right now the article implies that even though he was a dictator and died in office, his departure changed nothing. In fact, the policies of the "Colonels" became much more radical after his death. Also, there was an attempt to replace Piłsudski by building up the figure of Rydz-Śmigły, who was to be in effect his successor. That should also be explained. Balcer 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is far from neutral. All good is exposed in detail, all bad is covered in 1-2 "neutral" sentences, portraying him so positive that it is unclear why Pilsudski is hated by Ukrainians and Belarussians. Most notable blunders of the aricle:
    • His sanacja was a precursor version of fascism
      • No it wasn't if you think it was please provide sources. Mieciu K 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • His pacification of ukrainian indepencence movement (called nicely and neutrally "terrorists" in the article) bordered on henocide.
      • Genocide is a strong word, would you have any references to that? Now fairly recently we rewrote the polonization article, which describes the plight of minorities in SPR. While it does not paint a pretty picture, it certainly is far from genocide (or bordering on one). Especialy as Piłsudski represented the political faction that wanted to make allies of minorities. On a final note, we have a good example of contemporary genocide of Ukrainians just across the border (holodomor). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I Soviet Union all repression are blamed upon Stalin, but in Poland "good" Pilsudski, as this article says, left most of the internal matters in the hands of his "colonels", which is clearly bullshit: a dictator didn't care about putting his political opponents into concentration camps ?!.
      • What concentation camps? There was one camp "with a bad reputation" for political prisoners in Bereza Kartuska, according to different sources 4 to 20 people died there during the 5 years of it's existance (the proportion of them of them died of non-natural causes is unknown). Calling Bereza Kartuska a concentration camp (in the post 1930s meaning of that word), is a serious abuse of that term. Mieciu K 10:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Polish people love Pilsudski now. But the opinion of Pilsudski about Polish people was way far from love. And IMO most of his actions in internal politics was influenced by his low esteem of his own nation, which he expressed on multiple occasions. In the article it is all mutual love.
      • "Low-self esteem of his own nation"? is it your own original reaserch or do you have any sources? Every politic is from time to time dissatissfied with the lack of understanding of his actions and goals by the general public. Mieciu K 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
And there is more of these small "nicifications" of Pilsudski. Unfortunately I don't have sufficient knowledge to fix the problems. `'mikka (t) 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Please also leave a copy of this on the talk page. I would love to discuss it there further. I have no particular knowledge of Pilsudski myself, but that didn't prevent me from improving the article. I used Britannica and Encarta and sourced my statements in the article. Surely you can do the same? That's the beauty of Wikipedia, being able to change and edit articles for the better if you believe they can be improved. And certainly you believe this one can. Please also source your belief sanacja was a fascist precursor, so as to discern it from personal opinion. Aaрон Кинни (t) 03:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a plenty of other work to do. Yes, "precursor of fascism", along with most of my text above is my opinion (based on some reading). If I had any references at hand, I'd put something into the article. (In fact, I am in error: Mussolini started it earlier; like I said, I am not good in history) I just don't care in his case: overall the aricle is not bad. It is only not yet of "featured" status being too glorifying of this Polish version of Pinochet. `'mikka (t) 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggesting that Piłsudski ordered the deaths of his political adversaries (this is what the above mentioned dictators did) without any sources is not only against the rules of wikipedia it is also simply rude. And I have never heared of fascisim in the pre- 2 world war polish goverment, even the elite polish cavalery units like the "12th "podolski" Ulhan regiment- had a semi official motto - "Trochę Żydów trochę panów, to 12 pułk ułanów" - some Jews, some nobility, this is the 12th ulhan regiment. Does this sound "fascist"? Mieciu K 12:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
For the volunteers: here are some references that compare Pilsudism and fascism: Wolfgang Wippermann Europaischer Faschismus im Vergleich(1922-1982), 1983, W. Wippermann. Totalitarismustheorien. Die Entwicklung der Diskussion von den Anfangen bis heute. Darmstadt, 1997. (the texts actually disagree with this opinion by drawing some distinctions and mentioning that there were "real" fascists in Poland: Bolesław Piasecki's "Oboz Narodowo-Radykalny - Falanga") `'mikka (t) 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It is entirely possible that the article has some POV. I hope that people who think so will join us in editing the article. Thanks for the references, unfortunately they are rather hard to access. Still, as you note in their review, Sanacja was quite different from facism. I will look for particular references, but I do particulary remember I read somewhere a pretty good article on why calling sanacja 'facist' is a big mistake. And I again agree with you that Piasecki's ONR was much more facist, basically, the entire endecja (Dmowski) was much more facist then Piłsudski. Ironic that in Poland, the dictator saved the country from facism, while in Germany it was the opposite...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mikka for now. More problems (some are oviously POV) in chronological order (added later: "I am converting my entries below into a typewriter font because editors complain that it is hard to tell what is said by me and what's not, following the interjections, I will also add a sig Irpen in the end of each statement. --Irpen)
    • The article ommitts that he was not a Pole but a Litvin, a member of Polonized but Lithuanian nobility. This has been stated by me at talk a while ago and caused no reaction. --Irpen
      • "he was not a Pole but a Litvin" that is a serious claim, got sources? And when was that family polonized? About 200 years earlier? Thinking the same way we can even add that "his family not a catholic but a pagan, a member of Polonized but Lithuanian nobility converted to catholicism." Mieciu K 10:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • His childhood experience of the Russian gymnasium education forced upon the proud Polonophile (no offence, there is nothing wrong with a member of the oppressed nation to be its -phile) is ommitted along with the impact of such experience, solidifying of his hatred towards Russia, its czar, its people, its language and its culture. --Irpen
      • Actually this is discussed in the first para of his bio, feel free to expand with note on the gymnasium if you think it needs to be stressed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • His expelling from Kharkov University was formally for disorderly conduct, participation in the students disorders (riots) rather than mere membership in Narodniks. --Irpen
    • His activity in Siberian excile, imposed on the false charges, is ommitted. It consisted in private teaching and 6-momhts imprisonement for inciting the mutiny (again, I am not judgemental here) --Irpen
    • The activity of PPS, he organized, largely consisted of the targeted assasinations, as well as robberies for the Revolution sake. Ommitted. --Irpen 05:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That,s what revolutionaries at the beginning of the 20th century did. So what's so significant sbout that? Mieciu K 10:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually as we discussed before at Talk:Związek Walki Czynnej Piłsudski himself was not involved in any assasinations. As for PPS or other organizations - it is possible, although it would be nice to have a source for that. Although as Mieciu notes, being a revolutionary kind of implies such behaviour anyway...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The description of his peculiar travel to Japan ommits that he offered not just intelligence cooperation but assistance to Japan in their war with Russia through terrorism the acts of subversive destruction and sabotage. --Irpen
      • That's what "freedom fighters" at the beginning of the 20th century did. So what's so significant about that? Mieciu K 10:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • We have an entire para on that, with references for Piłsudski offering to organize an uprising. Terrorism is a rather POVed term and it would be good if you'd have a citation for it. Sabotage is likely, especially as Japanese gave PPS some ammo and such, but again ref would be nice.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The authors decided to present his 1905 activities in the context of the Russian Revolution of 1905, a legit angle if you ask me. However, then it becomes relevant that he refused to cooperate with any of many Russian revolutionary movements (Bolsheviks, Menshevik, Socialist-Revolutioners and others), considering the new Russia as much an enemy of Poland as the old one. --Irpen
    • Cooperation of his ZWC with the Austrian Imperial authorities is conveniently phrased as "permission" (I added some on that to the Związek Walki Czynnej article some time ago) --Irpen
    • His crushing of the Ukrainian independence is presented as simply "clash with Ukrainian forces". Followed by a highly controvercial statement "soon it became apparent that the real enemy of both nations was the Bolsheviks." as if Polish crashing of the Ukrainians was a friendly gesture. --Irpen
      • Polish-Ukrainian War did not crash the independence of Ukraine, only resolved a territorial dispute. Ukrainian independence was by Soviets - Piłsudski wanted to preserve the independent Ukrainian state (under Petliura); but Soviets wanted to create a Soviet Ukrainian Republic on those territories, and got them at Riga.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • His intrusion into Ukraine is presented as an "alliance" for the sake of Ukrainians themselves (much said on that in PSW and Kiev Offensive articles). --Irpen
      • The text clearly states what Piłsudski expected from Ukrainians in exchange. And yes, independent Ukraine was one of Piłsudski's goals, no matter how hard you try to ignore that fact.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The P.-sponsored intrusions into Ukraine following Riga to help the local insurrections are ommitted. --Irpen
    • Interment of Ukrainian "allies" as soon as they became unnecessary is ommitted. --Irpen
    • The entire controversy of the camps for war prisoners, were Russians and Ukrainians died en masse, and the murder of the Red Cross mission is ommitted as if P. had nothing to do with that. --Irpen
      • Stop. There is only one reason why there are no Polish books about "[Polish] camps for war prisoners, were Russians and Ukrainians died en masse" because no proof was found that such camps ever existed. If you have any serious sources to support your thesis (that the death toll in Polish camps for prisinors of war was higher than in other camps of that era), please provide them. Mieciu K 10:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
        • We have a well referenced article on Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924). POWs died on both sides from the rampaging post-IWW pandemics, although as article clearly shows Russian press tried to exaggerate the Russian POW casualties and create 'a balance' for Katyn. On the other hand, there were quite a few examples of mistreatment of Polish POWs, up to and including executions (prelude to Katyn...). I don't think Piłsudski was in charge of camps, and most certainly the unfortunate murder of the Red Cross team, described by Davies, was a spontaneous crime of some low-level soldiers, with no connection to any high-level officers (not to mention P.). Or do you have refs to the contrary?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That Pilsudski attempted to coerse Lithuanians into the Union by offering them Vilnius for that is nowhere in the article. --Irpen
      • Haven't seen that in my refs, certainly if you have them, that's another interesting fact to add to the article. Although wouldn't 'bribe' me more correct then 'coerce'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • When the article speaks of "Stabilization and improvement" following his coup it does not explain the extent of such "improvement". No word at all how poorly was economy doing (BTW even by 1939 Poland didn't reach the industrial output of its territory of 1913 when it was supposed to be in a miserable shape as the Russia-oppressed unfriendly province). --Irpen
      • Refs? Great Depression put a major dent on all worldwides outputs around that time, and Poland also had to rebuild territory completly devastated by IWW.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Article pays just a leap service to the political repression, which btw, didn't start in '30s, following the sejm dissolution as the article states, but immediately following the '26 coup (the conspicuous 1926 case of General Tadeusz Jordan-Rozwadowski arrested on the false corruption charges who soon dies suspiciously stands out). The Sejm dissolution itself is also ommitted as well as the rigged election. --Irpen
    • The description of the condition of minorities following the coup being called "less then satisfactory, despite Pilsudski's efforts" is "less than satisfactory" for sure. --Irpen
      • So you consider that sentance accurate, but you don't like it? Mieciu K 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, feel free to expand on it. We have refs for what we have, including that Piłsudski's polices were viewed favourably by most minorities, whose situation improved under his regime.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ommitted is the corruption and incompetence, hidden by the ultra-patriotic propaganda, of the narrow circle of his friends in power following the coup, see for instance the condition of the economy of which which Pilsudski didn't hesitate to admit he knew nothing about. --Irpen
    • Enough for now. The article has a wealth of factual info and lots of refs. I agree with Mikka that there are lots of good in the article. I do not want to put a very well warranted (as per this list and Mikka's) POV tag all over it but I oppose its promotion as it is definetely not ready for the main page. --Irpen 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Could you give some references for that, and hopefully edit the article? I do agree that the article shows Piłsudski as a rather positive figure, but those were the sources I (and other editors) apparently had to work with.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Support Great article; very comprehensive.--Kober 07:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per about 80% of the concerns raised above. Needs to be more balanced and thorough. Also, stylistic issues: 1) do away with completely superfluous "Biography" heading. 2) clean up external links (no need to link to a single picture, a geocities site, etc). Image thumbnail sizes seem to be all over the place - try and make them more uniform. heqs 14:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The 'biography' heading is unnecessary and not standard form for biography articles on wikipedia.
Further comment: I do not think that this article quite satisfies the requirement for "compelling, even brilliant" prose. It's good but not great. heqs 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
As I reasoned above, 'biography' is useful and found in many articles. There is a difference between 'biography' and 'encyclopedic article'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Piotrius, Piłsudski was a positive figure. Maybe it’s not acceptable for some Russians here but we must stick to the reliable sources. Ldingley 14:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • A very well explained vote! --Irpen 05:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose initially I planned to support the proposition. The cavalier way that user:Mieciu K dismissed a more balanced approach to the portrayal of the man gives me pause to do so. A portrait of a Great Man, needs to be presented "warts and all", otherwise you get a portrait of someone like Stalin with a halo over his head, receiving flowers from smiling children. When these issues giving us a more balanced article (which includes the good, the bad, and the ugly), I will change my vote to support. Although it is not of any importance to our discussion, I personally like Pilsudski, and think he was a Great Man. Like everyone he had flaws, and "issues", and these should be examined and included. Dr. Dan 15:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's stick to judging the article about Józef Piłsudski, this is vote is not about me and my actions. I have made only one revert of an unsourced claim. Do these [5] [6]edits look like edits of a "polish nationalist who wants to hide the truth"? (they were later modified by me and sources have been added). These are the 2 most significant "bad issues" (that I have heard of) about Piłsudski's regime that are mentioned by most mainstream Polish historians. Are these issues bad enough? Of course we could adress many more issues, but do we have place to write eg. about the foreign reletions and military conflicts between Poland and Lithuania (1918-1935)in an article that is supposed to be (just) an overview od Jozef Piłsudsk's life? Many facts about the Polish second republic have to still be covered in the English Wikipedia (many of them bad for it's reputation) but do we have to mention them all in the Jozef Piłsudski article? Mieciu K 16:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Who called you that here? No straw men, please. heqs 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't write that someone called me a Polish nationalist, and Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur (nobody can be punished for his thoughts) Mieciu K 18:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? As Mieciu notes, we are not judging him but the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You want specific, here's specific.
Irpen: (hard to be sure it's him because the continuity of his points were constantly challenged and interrupted)"The activity of the PPS, he organized, largely consisted of the targeted assassinations, as well as robberies for the Revolution sake." (sic)
"Ommitted".
Mieciu: "That,s (sic) what revolutionaries at the beginning of the 20th century did, So what's so significant about that?"
Irpen: "His peculiar travel to Japan ommits that he offered not just intelligence cooperation but assistence to Japan in their war with Russia through terror and sabotage."(sic)
Mieciu: "That's what "freedom fighters" at the beginning of the 20th century did. What's so significant about that?"
These responses were arrogant and cavalier. If Irpen, or whomever believes these are factual and significant questions that need to be resolved before putting the article as a "Featured Article", on the main page, let's do it. I look forward to changing my vote. In the meantime is that specific enough? Dr. Dan 00:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
With the disclaimer that I am not a native English speaker, I don't think that Mieciu's replies are "arrogant and cavalier". Brief, yes, but not IMHO uncivil.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Aren't you supposed to assume good faith? I just wanted to point out that to a person who knows the history of early XX century Europe it is alrerady known what the words "revolutionary" and "freedom fighter" mean. I do not object to the suggestions of Irpen, I just wonder do we have the space to realise his suggestions in an overview article ("what's so significant about that?"). I am not a native english speaker, my skills ar at level 3 "This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English." so judge the content of my edits and not their context or style. And again - aren't we supposed to judge the article instead of my actions? I am not preventing anyone from improving this article. Mieciu K 09:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I was asked for specifics and therefore gave specifics.
Do I think the remark What's so significant about that?, is "uncivil"? No!
Do I think it's "arrogant and cavalier"? Yes!
Evidently Irpen thought these points were significant enough to be considered in this debate about the article, and should have been given the courtesy to get a more helpful response. Dr. Dan 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC) p.s. Let's make the article balanced and non-POV, and make it a featured article as soon as possible. There's basically only a few points that need to be tweaked, and we're there!
  • Reluctantly oppose. When there are so many good paper references it's a shame to see so many purely web references, but web references of the form "this website" (just some lycos website) and the ref [37] to "some left wing papers" are unacceptable. If you are citing a website, make sure that you have a date of last access and the publisher at the very least. Making the website a genuinely "reliable source" would also be helpful. TheGrappler 20:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because a website is a lycos website does not discredit it in the least bit. Yes, reliability is something of a priority, but I'll leave that to Pyotr (because I didn't insert the link in the first place). Why are those "left-wing articles", as you dub them, unreliable? They are not papers, they are articles. Articles just then as articles are today. And generally they are very reliable. I don't see how you can discredit something if you can't read the language in which it is written (you can't speak Russian, I assume, naturally). I hope I haven't sounded testy, because I have the utmost respect, thank you. Aaрон Кинни (t) 06:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: If those articles are Russian, and I think they are, then this article isn't as POV as people make it seem. The Russians hated Pilsudski because he was a nationalist and revolutionary, linking to Russian documents just gives another point of view. Aaрон Кинни (t) 06:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I added that link, it can be described more specificly as "First-hand reports of mistreatment of prisoners in Bereza Kartuska and other related texts published in the 1930s" The site is Belarusian, but the texts are in Polish one text by a right-wing "Gazeta Polska" which writes that the camp is necessary ("Obozy koncentracyjne. Tak" Concentration camps. Yes), and articles by the left wing Robotnik (1894-1939) (it was an organ of Polish Socialist Party, Piłsudski was for a time that party's member.) Of course they may be partialy made up, but they give an overview of the situation at that time. There are many other sources related to the Bereza Kartusak camp, but this is the best internet link that I could find at a short notice. Mieciu K 09:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Update, this link actualy links to an article about the legal aspects of functioning of the camp, and contains "a selection of 1930s articles". The article is written by dr Wojciech Śleszyński who is an author of a book about Bereza Kartuska [7] (english desciption) the english translation of the title is "Isolation camp in Bereza Kartuska 1934-1939). So the only problem with this link is that it is in Polish. Mieciu K 10:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand my point. I've not got a problem with the reliability, but the references are very sloppily cited (i.e. it's a WP:CITE problem, not a WP:RS). In what kind of scholarly work would you see a reference that said "There's a bunch of left-wing articles on this lycos website"? Incidentally, are all the articles on that site about the point that they were being cited for? If not, make the reference specific to the article(s) or section of article that's relevant. The bottom line is, what was really being cited were articles, not the website, so please actually cite the articles (details like author, date, title, publication... all that standard WP:CITE stuff), make a note that they are available online on that website, then put in a date of last access as you should for any web reference. Anything less than that is sloppy. TheGrappler 10:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but I think this has been now fixed. As for lycos website, putting aside the provider, it is a pretty good site. True, it's not an academic per se, but has quite a lot of useful information and seems rather reliable (for a non-academic elink ref).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Blogs and personal websites, like any self-published sources with no editorial oversight, are frowned upon/disqualifiable, except in rare cases when they are from a person who is a well respected authority in their field. Same thing should apply for articles etc. stored or copied on personal sites - again, no oversight. Then there's the issue of linking to copyrighted newspaper articles etc which happen to be on blogs and personal websites -- directly linking to copyright violations is also frowned upon. I'm sure we all stretch this one a little now and then, especially when digging up historical info. I'm not necessarily discrediting this source, just pointing it out. heqs 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The articles themselves seem notable enough, so I am prepared to withdraw my objections now that the referencing looks better. But I second what Heqs said. TheGrappler 03:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I see your point now, Grap. Aaрон Кинни (t) 12:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose by now. Very good article with exemplary referencing but needs some balancing per Mikka and Irpen. A few balanced sentences in and I would change my vote to support abakharev 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Please tell me what needs to be balanced, and it will be done. Mikka and Irpen have raised some points, we have addressed them here (and in the article). I especially tried to source all information that may be POVed, if there is anything which seem POVed and not sourced, please tag it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I have looked through the changes in the article since July 9. It still looks like Irpen's and Mikka's concerns are not addressed, the only "balancing" statement that appeared there was that JP was not a good achiever as a secondary school student. I am sorry, but my vote has not changed yet. abakharev 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Well then provide some sources that can be used to justify other citations. I have asked Irpen for sources (and gotten none), and gotten none. Mikka has provided two offline German language publications which I cannot obtain nor read, but if he would like to do some edits using them, he is free to do so. But untill I am given some sources supporting the POVedness claims, I cannot do much edits - but of course you and others can, assuming you have those sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Why weak? There's plenty of room for possible expansion, as suggested by Irpen and Mikka. However, I don't see any real POV in the article that should be corrected, rather their arguments refer to possible omissions of interesting, yet not really crucial facts from his life. Otherwise, the article is really nice. //Halibutt 08:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parliament of Australia

I believe this article should become a featured article as it is nuetral, clear and concise and would fill the void of the lack of Australian featured articles. It clearly explains the roll and purpose of the Parliament of Australia.

Object. No references. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Object per above. The prose is uncompelling: e.g., how many times must the article reiterate the inferior status of territories and new states in apportionment? Also, the election results should go at the end.
  • Refer to peer review--Peta 06:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • So why are undated years linked (e.g., "1984)? And on the other side, why is one of the dates not auto-formatted? Tony 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparative method

This article does an excellent good job of explaining what could have been a hideously complex and technical subject without oversimplifying anything, has been very well written and makes excellent use of examples. Currently, there are only three or four linguistics (as opposed to language) featured articles, and this is by far one of the best of the others - better than many "introductory" textbooks on the subject. sjcollier 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about the inline citations - it's not part of the featured article criteria, and there are many, many featured articles, particularly on those scientific topics which are unlikely to be disputed, that don't use them at all. It's hard to see what they would add to the main body of the article, though I suppose they may be useful for the examples: I'll see what I can do. I take your point about the lead in, though, and will have a go and improving it, hopefully without duplicating too much of Comparative linguistics. sjcollier 09:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. The article is now much better. Thank you for your patience, I was on vacation and unable to respond more quickly. All of my objections have been admirably addressed. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Although it is an interesting article and alot of work has gone into it, there are still some problems. Inline citations are necessary, and those FAs lacking them should be thoroughly reviewed. Take this sentence from the article for example: "Modern Persian in fact takes more of its words from Arabic than from its direct ancestor, Proto-Indo-Iranian." I cannot speak Persian and even if I could, I couldn't subjectively verify this. As such, I may want to find out who discovered this fact and read the paper they had produced which would detail their experimental method. The best way to enable a reader to do this is by linking the sentence to a specific reference - inline citation. A second problem concerns the prose: although it is generally good and readable, it falls down in a few places ("This is because of heavy borrowing over the years from Arabic into Persian", for example). I do hope this article gets through. Good luck, Oldak Quill 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! That was what I meant about citations maybe being useful for the examples - inline citations for the comparative method itself would be rather spurious, as most of the books currently in the references section are basically more long-winded versions of this article. I'll see what I can do to provide citations for the Indo-European examples (though they won't be from the original papers...), but will have to appeal on the talk page for somebody else to help out with all the stuff from other language families.
By the way, the obvious example of an FA on a very similar topic that doesn't bother with inline citations is Vowel - though this has suffered a (failed) "Featured Article Removal" attempt because of it. A random sample of other FAs with no inline citations (or, indeed, no references at all), some of which admittedly seem likely to suffer similar attempts to remove their FA status in the near future: Geology of the Bryce Canyon area, Spacecraft propulsion, Telephone exchange, Regular polytope, Nuclear weapon. There are others. sjcollier 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain. No inline citations (they are a standard since few months). Lead is too short. See also is rather long. Are there no external links to link but one? Per MoS, usage of bold text should be avoided in body of the article. Just one of those articles that would benefit from PR first, as is stressed in FA guidelines.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, I agree about the citations (by the way, there are a (very) few inline Harvard citations alread, but not enough), and will do something about the lead.
I don't think that See also is abnormally long or irrelevant, though I suppose the four linguists could be given their own explanatory subheading, or (better?) individual explanations.
Sadly, it is true that there are very few useful external web-pages on this topic (another reason why this should be a FA?) - I've added the only one that I'm aware of; the first couple of hundred Google hits only duplicate information already in this article.
MoS does not say to avoid bold text in the article body, or even advise against it: it merely advises to use it "judiciously". I can't be bothered to argue the point, though, so I've changed it to italics anyway.
I've also carried out a few minor changes to bring eveything inline with the MoS (quotes, italics, etc.) and corrected and added a few internal links. Will have a crack at the lead later. sjcollier 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, the article is much better now. I'd prefer footnotes to Harvard refs, but this is a matter of style. I'd recommend adding a few more ilinks and creating some redirects (or stubs) - just look at the 3 red links that I now created in lead (all to strange terms that should be explained). Consider asking User:AndyZ to run his PRbot through the article if you don't want to submit it there for MoS comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I've added stubs for the redlinks. The criticim claim used to be cited, but I moved the citation when somebody pointed out to me that Wikipedia:Lead section says "All of the various points should be expanded upon later in the article, and the appropriate references provided at that point, rather than in the lead section." The claim is referenced in the Criticism intro. I will look into taking your advice on the PR bot. Cheers, sjcollier 22:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I ran the PRbot and acted on some of its suggestions - I had completely forgotten about captions for the images. sjcollier 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting - but I'd still support adding referenced to the lead. For example, I can't imagine a FA like Katyn Massacre without them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There's nothing about the origins of the method, that I can see at least. Also, this is perhaps just me, but I'm unfond of long blockquotes: perhaps you could re-write it and then turn "Assessment" into the lead paragraph for the "Weakness" section? The title "Weakness" seems a little POV, perhaps "Criticism" would be better? It might also make sense to combine the subsections of the "Neogrammarian hypothesis," rename "Problems with the Tree Model" to "Tree and wave models," removing the then-needless subheading. More broadly, some of the paragraphs are shortish, perhaps comibne them? To make the copy a little more appealing visually, try experimenting with the align attribute for your tables: {| class="wikitable" align="right".--Monocrat 23:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. Agent X, Red Newt and I have made a few changes to this article to try to meet the objections. The work done so far has been to:
    • add inline citations - now complete
    • reformat the tables into something that is hopefully a bit more aestheticly pleasing
    • drastically prune the See also
    • add an External link - though sadly, I can't see this section being expanded much further
    • rewrite the lead - including removal the bullet points and overly-scientific language
    • renaming of Weaknesses to Criticism
    • trimming of the blockquote, and moving the Assessment subsection so it becomes an introduction to Criticism
    • fixing and adding internal links
    • various minor fixes to bring the article in line with the MoS
    • add a new section on the origins and development of the method
    • fix, or provide stubs for, all of the redlinks

sjcollier 09:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that, although the article will probably be expanded further over the coming weeks, it is now up to FA standard - though any further feedback from those who objected would be appreciated. Therefore:
  • Support. as per my original proposal. Cheers, sjcollier 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not there yet. It is much improved, but it's still lacking in the origins of the method.--Monocrat 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the reminder. We've added a new section on the origins and development. sjcollier 21:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Better. I like the material in the "Terminology" section, but its placement and structure seem awkward. (It feels like an afterthought; perhaps break it up and place the material where appropriate elsewhere? This isn't a critical note. Just a thought.) Also, take note of your capitalization in the headings, per the WP:MOS. The copy needs some work still: we see "German" fourteen times in "Terminology" and "Origins" alone. And Verner "promulgated Verner's Law?" Promulgate has specific meanings that don't fit here, and did he really name it after himself? "Probably the earliest" is a little weasley (see WP:WTA; take care of that and look for other instances. In sum, the copy is a little awkward and a little too repetitive, even for a technical article.--Monocrat 18:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again for the pointers - I really appreciate all the help you're giving with getting this article up to scratch. I've addressed the individual issues that you picked out, except for the German thing - you do have a valid point, but it may take a while to work around (too many German linguists doing work on the Germanic languages). I've also read WP:WTA - for which, big thanks - and gone through the article trying to get rid of them: there were more than I expected, but I think I got them all. As for terminology, I guess it could be integrated in the article, but possibly at the expense of moving Origin and development somewhere else in the article (as that section has too many terms that would need explaining); personally, I think that Origin is good where it is (ie before Application) - but that's just personal preference. Cheers, sjcollier 22:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'm off on holiday for the week, but will probably be sad enough to take a printed copy of this article with me and see if I can find any more tweaks to make to it. If anybody has any suggestions, please continue to post them here or on Talk:Comparative method, and I guess if nobody deals with them while I'm away then I will once I get back. Cheers, sjcollier 14:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom DeLay

Self-nom. I haven't written much of this article, but I've tweaked just about every sentence of it, and I think that it meets the featured article criteria. The peer review is available here. NatusRoma | Talk 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This article has 42KB of prose as of 24 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style
  • Support. Article is well-written and well-referenced. An excellent article on a controversial subject. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Enlarge
  • Object – 1. needs to be summarised 2. Too many headings. Please reduce. 3. Image:TomDeLay.jpg is of a very low resolution. Please replace. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Question: Is it not possible to replace the low quality image ? I didn't see this addressed in the comments and responses here? Sandy 12:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The image itself isn't as bad as the infobox template makes it look. At a more reasonable size, it's not perfect, but I think that it is adequate. See Image:tomdelay.jpg for higher-resolution but smaller picture. NatusRoma | Talk 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object 1)There are too many small subgroups, for instance, the section on Dan Qualye could easily be integrated into the section on early congressional career and Northern Mariana Island could be placed in the main Abromoff section. 2)The Russian Oil event took place later, not earlier in his career. 2)There are several one sentance paragraphs that could be merged together, such as about him being prolife in Domestic POlicy and the impeachment of Clinton in cong. career. 3)Why did he contact Federal agencies int he redistricting case? Did he want the FBI to track them down?

These are a few examples, but they, and the other small things like them, should be easy enough to fix. Illuminato 14:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. I have integrated both the Quayle and Northern Marianas sections into their respective parent sections. The latter merge wasn't very clean, but I plan to rewrite that section soon, in accordance with Staxringold's objections.
  2. The Russian Oil events took place in 1998, before DeLay's tenure as House Majority Leader, but press coverage did not come until December 2005. I have clarified the timing of the events.
  3. The pro-life paragraph consists of two sentences, the first of which is very short. I plan to expand have expanded the paragraph about the Clinton impeachment.
  4. DeLay contacted the agencies in order to find the locations of the missing legislators. I have edited the section to make this clearer. NatusRoma | Talk 22:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I believe that I have satisfied all of Illuminato's objections. NatusRoma | Talk 01:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object My objections are as follows:
    • The lead should be shortened to conform with WP:LEAD
    • The article should be shortened/split-off as it is currently 68 kb
For both of these first two: what do you think needs to go? NatusRoma | Talk 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As for the lead, it just goes into too much detail in paragraphs 2-3. I would shorten each one down, removing smaller details, and merge into one large 2nd paragraph. As for the main article body, remove further small details from sections that already have split-offs (for example, all that information in the Terry Schiavo paragraph led by Law and Order) or add large amounts of information to the split-offs as in all that information under "Grand Jury Indictments" for the corruption indictments. The purpose of split-offs is to allow the detailed coverage you are providing here in the main article body, but keep the main article slick and readable. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
A three-paragraph lead is permitted by WP:LEAD. The third paragraph does give a lot of weight to recent events, but I think that the fact that they're still current means that some recentism is justified. Also, I think you'll agree that it does a thorough job of laying out the content of the article that follows, which is beneficial in view of Wikipedia 1.0 proposals. As for the split-offs, I think that I'll change many of the {{main}} tags to {{see also}} tags, because the Tom DeLay corruption investigation page is the only true split-off from the main article. However, that page has been edited very little which means that what's in the main article may in places be more up-to-date than the information in the split-off. NatusRoma | Talk 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The "Accusations of misuse of federal investigative agencies" subsection is very short for it's own section, needs refs, and should try to avoid the list
The two inline citations that are presently included in the section source everything that's there. I will change it to avoid the list and expand it. NatusRoma | Talk 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll try to check in on the article, but leave me a note if you feel you've fixed this (or any other) problem and I haven't responded. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "Cuban cigar photograph" would be greatly aided by at least a properly fair use explained copy of the photo and perhaps further text on how people knew it was a Cuban from just a photo(never mind on the second part, looking at the Time ref the zoom makes it clear)
Done. NatusRoma | Talk 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The Abramoff scandal could use almost a complete rewrite for such a key section and the AP quote isn't all that helpful
Fixed. NatusRoma | Talk 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Early portions of "Investigation of alleged misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments" need some refs (I see whole paragraphs of detail without a single ref) and there probably should be (this is a personal idea, not per any specific policy) at least a mention of the jokes/comments made about Delay's mugshot and how, because he was clean shaven and happy looking, opposition to Delay didn't get the effect they were hoping for out of the mugshot (I remember some decent sized hay being made out of that photo for a few days following it's release).
Fixed. NatusRoma | Talk 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Under "Reaction to indictments" the statement "DeLay and his attorney, Dick DeGeurin, have said that Earle has a history of indicting his political enemies." is completely unsourced, despite being a supposed summary of a quote.
Fixed: I couldn't find a source for DeGeurin, but I did find one for DeLay. NatusRoma | Talk 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The single See Also link can probably go.
    • The refs should use the "small" div code (I'll do that).
  • Sorry for the long list, but I figured I'd be thorough. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I'm now willing to vote support as the Natus has done a fantastic job addressing my objections. I would still say the lead could use a bit of trimming, but I don't know what should be trimmed so I don't feel right objecting. Ditto for the daunting article size of 77kb. My only remaining issue (which should take 2 seconds to fix and isn't worth an objection) is that the statement "DeLay is pro-life. In 2005, he voted 100% in line with the views of the National Right-to-Life Committee and 0% with the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League." from "Domestic Policy" could use a reference. Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 23:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support-I gotta say, that regardless of anything else, the article is really informative and surprisingly balanced and fact-based when discussing Delay. A whopping 82 citations lends it a lot of credibility in my book. I don't mind the sub-headings as they are placed well in the article and are to the point and actually should help readers to better understand various aspects of his life. The entire article has a strong focus in fact and good chronological flow. Great work! Tombseye 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I noticed that Notes (inline citations) are referred to as References, and there is no References section. As an example, the Dubose and Reid book is cited several times in what should be called Notes, and it should be listed as a Reference, so that people can easily find it when it is cited with a page number. Notes are inline citations: References are general references. For an example, see Notes and References sections on Hugo Chávez. Sandy 13:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC) I also noticed that your External Links are not balanced, per WP:EL. I strongly object (changed to Weak Object, see below) to a controversial, current political topic as an FA, if balance of criticism has not been addressed, to assure that all sides of the story are presented. It is too easy for POV to creep into an article if balance isn't present in sources and/or External Links. Sandy 13:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I will fix the notes/references split. As for the question of a controversial topic, if Ku Klux Klan, an organization that has killed people because of their race, can be today's main page article, then I don't see why this article, about a man who merely makes a lot of people angry, can't be a featured article as well. Many other editors and I have worked very hard to ensure that this article is neutral, but if there is something that you think is unbalanced, please say so. NatusRoma | Talk 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll reevaluate my vote once the refs/notes are revised, but would still like to see balance in External Links, to be more assured that any potential POV is addressed as thoroughly as possible. One support External link versus so many critical: maybe you can check whether all the critical are needed? Sandy 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
After looking at Wikipedia:Citing sources#"Notes" section, and given the fact that the list of references adds 16 kb to an already lengthy article, it might be advisible to avoid a duplicate references section. Do you know of any way of directing citations of multiple pages of the same work to the same note in the current citation format? NatusRoma | Talk 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Another option may be creating a subpage for the notes (e.g., Tom DeLay/References). NatusRoma | Talk 03:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I just had another look: perhaps I'm wrong, but my understanding was that it's not necessary to replicate every inline citation (Notes) in the References section. I thought References was reserved for the main References and important books or other publications upon which the work is largely based, or references that are used many times in the article. Is every inline citation being added to References now? (BTW, I really dislike the idea of a subpage: readers need to be able to see a Reference with one click.) Sandy 12:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I have cut down on the number of references in the References section. NatusRoma | Talk 21:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object (changing from strong object above). NatusRoma, your ongoing work and efforts to address all objections raised is commendable and the article is impressive. The Notes/References style is much better. The length seems fine, but I'm still wondering about the low quality picture? I think the lead is fine now in terms of size and content. The talk page and history seem to indicate stability, and I don't see POV concerns there. The TOC doesn't overwhelm me, but when I glance at it, I find one heading vague: I know very little about Tom DeLay, but I shouldn't have to click on "Settlement in civil suit" to get an idea of what this heading refers to. Perhaps it should say Settlement in perjury civil suit or something more descriptive for the TOC? I did not get as far as reading enough content in the middle of the article to convince myself whether the article was neutral, as I found some cleanup issues at the top and bottom of the article. It would be a shame for excellent writing to be diminished by some silly, easy to fix cleanup issues. Some of these objections are more "cosmetic" than substantive, but these are the kinds of things that should feature Wiki's "best work":
    • Wiki links needed: In the lead, I had to go search for Wiki content on the terms Republican caucus, lobbying, and congressional districts. Perhaps a run-through of the entire article to check for Wiki-linking is in order? We have to keep all readers in mind, including non-USA readers and teenagers trying to write term papers, who just may not know all the terms involved.
    • Some copyedit cleanup may help: for example, In 2005, a Texas grand jury indicted DeLay on criminal charges that he had conspired to violate campaign finance laws during this period. "In 2005" and "during this period" seems repetitious. In order for the article to exhibit 1) "our best work" and 2a) "brilliant prose", a runthrough by a tight copy editor might help. I raise this not because the article doesn't read well, but because many FAs are being brought to the newly-established WP:FAR if the prose isn't brilliant, so it may be best to tighten it up as much as possible now.
    • Moving to the bottom of the article, I find some other cleanup and inconsistency issues: let's try to make sure the bottom of the article also represents the best work, because references are so important.
      • Per WP:EL, try to make sure all links are described. For example, on the documentary, what does "mid-decade" mean ? There is an inconsistency in how the links are described, and how extensive the descriptions are. We should clearly know what the link is, its title, and a brief description of the link.
      • Inconsistency in External Links, Further Reading and References: some use bio style (not always correctly), some don't. The link that really threw me is the CREW one, with the use of caps, and no quotes. Some External Links are fully labeled, some aren't. Some are labeled incorrectly, more like pipes. Further Reading and References aren't alphabetical. Some dates in references are wiki-linked, others aren't (do we need to wiki link dates in references?). Some sources (CNN, Time, etc.) are wiki-linked, others aren't. Some references don't put the author's name first, others do. Some have the author's first name before the last name. In general, just try to clean up the bottom of the article so that it truly represents out best work and a thorough, consistent bio style.
      • Categories should be alphabeticized.
  • Please let me know if you want me to take another look later. Sandy 14:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a more thorough look at things. See above about the lead picture; I've had trouble finding free images that suffice in terms of both size and resolution.

  1. The "Settlement in civil suit" section has a sufficiently descriptive title. The media allegation of perjury was not related to either the suit or the settlement. It is natural for a reader who does not know much about the subject of an article not to be able to guess everything from the article's table of contents.
  2. I have added wiki-links, though User:Tony1 has complained about the addition thereof.
  3. The antecedent of "in this period" is the phrase "in the early 2000s" in the previous sentence. I have changed "this" to "that" to make the connection more clear.
  4. I have added descriptions of the external links.
  5. I have alphabetized the Further Reading section. News articles in the References section that do not have authors' names available are listed in alphabetical order by publisher, and then by title. Is there a more correct practice? Throughout the References and Further Reading sections, I have placed authors' last names before their first names. What, exactly, is "bio style"?
  6. Throughout the sections pertaining to source and other external information, I have linked the first instance of a newspaper or media company's name, and left further instances unlinked. I have not linked the names of authors who are unlikely to have Wikipedia articles. The "accessdate" parameter of the {{cite x}} templates automatically links dates, while the "date" parameter does not.
  7. The categories do not need to be in alphabetical order. In fact, it is probably more useful for them to be grouped topically. The reason that the categories are currently not quite in alphabetical order is that {{Jack Abramoff}} forces the article into the category associated with the template. This category is "read" before any of those listed at the bottom of the page.

Please let me know if you have any other concerns. NatusRoma | Talk 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Support. Impressive article: well-written and well sourced. My one suggestion for improvement would be to round out the "Majority leader" section (after 3 but before 3.1). It skips too quickly from his election as majority leader to his exit. A short summary of his political actions during this period should be included. --Alex S 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object.

(1) Confusion of registers, e.g., "was credited in recent years with compelling House Republicans to march in lock step" [my highlighting]. I think you're using a loose, colloquial expression here to refer to forcing them to follow the party's policy, but I'm unsure.

(2) Awkward prose, e.g., "exacting political retribution on opponents".

(3) Undesirable omission of "to" in quite a few places, e.g., "he helped start".

Plus lots of other little foibles, such as an en dash used where an em dash or a comma is required. Overlinked with dictionary terms and simple, undated years.

Sounds like a lovely chap. Tony 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support.Some refs have been lost doto edits after the first posted news story on Tom DeLay page. Everthing first posted on Tom DeLay has refs or is removed fast. If a story is short on a ref it is becouse a some lazy Johnny-come-lately editer deleted it. Political hack 13:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent article, neat, well referenced, well done. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, and please keep leaving supports and objections. I have been working very slowly of late on overcoming the various objections, but my new job is taking a lot more of my time than I expected that it would. I hope to do substantial work on the article over the weekend. NatusRoma | Talk 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

I believe this article is ready for nomination. It has recently been Peer Reviewed, and is now ready for the somewhat better peer review of FAC. I believe that it is an excellent article about this spacecraft. Tuvas 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak Object: Prose needs some cleanup. Examples:

  • 'The launch was postponed from the previous day after discovering in the few minutes before liftoff that the computer software monitoring the fuel systems was malfunctioning.' Simpler would be 'The launch was postponed from the previous day due to a malfunction in the computer software monitoring the fuel systems.'
  • MRO is inconsistanly italicized.
  • 'The spacecraft entered orbit precisely as planned and on schedule. "Oh, look, it's right on the money!" shouted one NASA engineer. "Right on the money!"[6]' Not sure the quote is helping here... Second opinion?
  • 'Aerobraking is currently being conducted to bring the orbiter to a lower, shorter-period orbit.' Better is 'The orbiter is currently aerobraking to achieve a lower, shorter-period orbit.'

Structure and detail of the article looks good to me, however. Themillofkeytone 18:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made the suggestions that you requested, except for the italiziting of MRO, to which I would like to question. What is the correct manner to express it? Without any kind of special font? I don't think bolding is the way to go, so it's either italicizing or leaving just MRO. Which is better? Tuvas 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
According to the MOS, it appears that it shouldn't be italicized. Themillofkeytone 20:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:MOS-T states that "Abbreviations of the above should also be italicized." Above it is a list, that includes ships. MRO isn't a ship in that context, but I believe that the abbreviation should be italicized. Whichever way though, they should be consistant, but I'll await your thoughts on it. Tuvas 20:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Apollo 8 is featured and is italicized, so I'd say go with that. Themillofkeytone 00:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
And now I've done it for ya. :-D Themillofkeytone 01:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Anything else need to be changed that you see? Tuvas 01:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Support: Alright, I've gone through it again and done some more copyediting so now I have no problems supporting it. Themillofkeytone 17:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The format 'Mb/s' almost certainly means 'Mbit/s'. You may wish to change it. This anomalous format was identified by the monobook tool that I describe elsewhere on this page. Hope that helps. bobblewik 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This problem has been cleared up. Anything else? Tuvas 16:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This is mostly solid (and I love all those great pd-NASA images), but a copyedit is necessary. Quick examples:
    • "The HiRISE camera will be used to analyze Martian landforms, whereas CRISM and SHARAD will detect water, ice, and minerals on and below the surface...": whereas is the wrong word here.
    • "Data transfer to and from the spacecraft will occur faster than all previous interplanetary missions combined and allow it to serve as an important relay satellite for future missions.": Parallellism issues.
    • "In addition to the two Mars Exploration Rovers on the surface, the orbiter will be the sixth active Martian spacecraft - the largest number around any extraterrestrial planet in the human history of space exploration.": Somewhat of a dangling modifier.
There are a substantial number of small errors like this sprinkled through the article; someone needs to go through and clean those out before it will be ready. --RobthTalk 17:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I'm not an english major, quite the opposite (Engineering), so I don't see these kinds of things very well... But if you might be able to explain some of these things a bit more, I can probably fix them. Thanks! Tuvas 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
We're working hard on this issue. I've gone through the first half of the article pretty boldly, but additional specific things to improve would be very beneficial. Thank you for your time on this!--will 09:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the changes that were made, and I went through and tweaked a few things myself. The one remaining issue I have is this: is it "MRO" or "the MRO"? Presumably one of these is correct (and I'm inclined to suspect that it's "the MRO", just based on what seems logical), but either way, someone should find out which it is and then go through and standardize our usage. That is, however, a minor issue, and assuming it gets dealt with, I now support. --RobthTalk 14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, doing a quick search of NASA's site, I saw MRO listed alot, but never THE MRO. Same with the internal HiRISE documentation. Still, I don't know if it's even worth changing, but, for the record, MRO is the correct way. Sometimes the MRO just sounds better... Still, probably is better to be consistant. Well, I'll make the change right away.Tuvas 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just an update, I went ahead and made the changes, see if I missed anything... So, thus far we have 2 supports, no opposes. Don't think I've ever seen a FAC for so long with so few votes... Tuvas 15:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've also finished going through the entire article to clean up grammar and flow.--(will)Koeppen 23:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Neutral Object. First, please eliminate the overview section—that's the purpose of a lead. Expand the shorter subsections if at all possible. Remove all bold text except that which appears in the first sentence of the lead. Fundamentally I'm not sure that this should be featured, since the mission has not yet been completed. There's no discussion of what the orbiter has accomplished, only what it hopes to accomplish. As a result, I'm not sure that this can satisfy the stability requirement, at least for now. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I've eliminated the overview and disseminated the info into the article. I also removed the boldface per your suggestion. However, I would disagree with your assertion that the article is unstable. This article is about the spacecraft, its electronics, power systems, and instruments, NOT about the discoveries it may or not make. Text in the article about what it hopes to accomplish are there to outline its main purpose and objectives, not to serve as a sink for new information as it comes down the pipe (though some editors may try to do this). Even if MRO fails, it's original purpose and specs will not change, just the tense of the article will.--Koeppen 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Boldface is being discussed.--Koeppen 23:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Boldface is resolved (and removed), sorry bout that. -Ravedave 02:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to add that there are spacecraft that are FA, first and formost Hubble. Hubble, by your statement, would not qualify. MRO made it to Mars, it's going to be there a while. But, nothing has really changed in it's status for the last 3 months, nor is it likely it will for the next 3 months. At least, in my mind, it is stable. I will also agree with Koeppen's statements with reguards to the Overview section, it's intent is to give information that doesn't belong in the intro, but is important to the article. Perhaps it needs a new name, but, not placing in the lead section. Tuvas 00:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... So you're saying that when this mission is completed, most of the findings of this spacecraft will be added to articles like Mars? I guess that makes sense... and even if a section was added to this after the fact, I suppose that wouldn't really be "instability". Good job, you guys are persuasive ;-). Thanks for dropping the overview section. As for other issues, is there any way to expand the subsections "CRISM", "Attitude Determination" and "Telecommunications system"? They're rather short. And could the external links be pruned somewhat? Some of them seem rather unnecessary (Slashdot?). I'm not sure that for example the CRISM link should be here, since CRISM has its own article. Switching to neutral for now; will review again. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
CRISM could have more information, but as it has it's own article, I don't know if it's really appropriate to put that much more. It's a basic overview as to what it does. I'll see if I can add a bit more. As for the Attitude Determination and Telecomuncations systems, well, I'll work on it right now. I'll also take a look at the links, to make sure that all of them are actually useful. Any that aren't, I'll remove. Tuvas 16:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks better. It's a tough balance; having the right amount of information with each subsection. These are on the short side, but they're not excessively short. The external links look better. One final thing—on most monitors, that infobox runs into the launch image, causing the text in the first heading to get pushed down, which leaves a white gap. Rearranging the images would be helpful. Switching to support. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object. The article lacks of any information prior to the launch of the spacecraft (original idea, original goals, funding, problems that occured during construction...). Plus could you create a section that describes MRO's goals, future expectations and expected discoveries separated from the "Equipment" section. CG 20:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I've renamed one section to "Mission Objectives" to highlight it and created a standalone "Instruments" section. We've also started a section on the talk page to acquire information prior to launch but are still working on it. ("Unfortunately" MRO was pretty smooth sailing from being selected to being built so there's not much in the way public or exciting information, but it's a good suggestion.)--Will.i.am 22:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Good call on the lack of the history section. I've dug up some sources, and posted at least a brief history of the spacecraft, but, there isn't a whole lot to say. I'll work on expanding it a bit more. Tuvas 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. Here are examples.
    • "attained Martian orbit on 10 March 2006"—a bit grand; why not "and has been in Martian orbit since 10 March 2006"? The "aerobraking" thing looks temporary: will someone update it when it achieves a lower orbit?
    • Is "additionally" necessary?
    • Why is "MRO" italicised?
    • "Future" occurs twice with doubtful purpose: can you pave the way for something in the past? Would you search for past landing sites?
    • Transferring data faster than all previous missions combined: what exactly does this mean? Do you add up the data transfer rates of all previous missions and compare? Unclear.
    • No hyphen after an -ly word.
    • Thought I'd leave it at the lead, but then the second sentence of the next section contains a mysterious word: "survance".

This is not good enough. Tony 09:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed all of the changes you mentioned, except for the attained martion orbit, I believe that is how it should read. Sorry, I guess I can't spell... As to why MRO is italicized, see further up on the proposal. Aerobraking will last for the next 2 and a half months, and yes, it will be updated, within the same day as it's completion (I hope even faster than that). Will look for more such phrases, thanks for the extra eyes though. Tuvas 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
But but but ... have you networked with other like-minded WPians to find copy-editors to massage the whole text? My examples above are to demonstrate that this is necessary. (PS its versus it's is a pain in English—counterintuitive, even—but once learnt, never forgotten.) Tony 09:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
If you have time and have read through the article, why not be bold?--Will.i.am 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me explain a few things. The lead section has been constantly reformed, to try and raise it's status, and a few errors were appearently left in. The first two paragraphs of the history section are brand new, again, to meet the requirements of a FA. During that process, some errors were left. However, most of the article has been much more stable, and doesn't have these problems. Feel free to try and find these types of problems withing the body of the article, I doubt you'll find as many. Tuvas 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
After having seen the recent changes from Will.i.am, I can see there was more than I thought as for typos and such in the main article. Still, they seem to be largely fixed up. Tuvas 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the content is great, but I can't see the merit in featuring this before the probe even started science operations. The article will surely change drastically when that happens, and the post-mission version of this article will certainly be very different to this version. I think that as the article is clearly not in a finished, stable state (even though right now it might not change much from day to day), now is not the time to feature it. Style concerns, though, are that I noticed a couple of spelling errors (acheive in the intro, for example), and quite a few section headings are incorrectly capitalised - they take normal sentence case. Worldtraveller 08:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Please check out the discussion above per Spangineer (if you have already and still disagree, it's fine). The article may not be in a finished state (that's why we're here with "like-minded WPians"), but it will not (or at least should not) significantly change with the science discoveries. Even finding intelligent alien grammaticians on Mars will only merit a bullet point in THIS article and will not revise the goals, purpose, or internal workings of the satellite. And if the science is so incredibly groundbreaking than it deserves its own article and shouldn't be on par with the launch information anyway. None of the Mars spacecraft articles contain extensive science information, and I don't believe this one should either.--Will.i.am 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the heading capitalizations and all the typos my friend Word and I could find.--Will.i.am 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I do disagree, still, I'm afraid - you drew an analogy to Hubble, and I see your point but I think this is like having an article about Hubble before it began science operations. Think of what became clear after that - the mirror problem, the fix, the HDF, the HUDF, all the stunning images, ground-breaking results, etc etc. Before it started imaging, very little was known about how it would perform, and its article, had it existed then, would have changed enormously.
I also disagree that the results shouldn't be included in the probe article. Hubble's article discusses the most important results from it. All probes are designed to find out something new, so what they find out, or don't find out, should certainly be reported in their article.
Given that the probe might yet crash, fail, make groundbreaking discoveries or raise significant new questions, I just don't think the article can be considered anywhere near finished yet, nive as it is in its current state. Worldtraveller 11:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, those are all good points. My last shot on this and then I'll give in.... The MER rover teams did not put out a scientific press conference until a full two months after they landed. Their first papers in Science were not published until 1.5 years later. MRO will not exit aerobraking for another 4 months and, using MER as a model, we should be seeing published science results to add to the article in about 2 years. (I'll grant you some pretty pictures off the HiRISE website in 5 or 6 months, but none will have published science attached to them). If MRO does crash or instruments fail post-November (which I think is extremely unlikely at this stage) it could add to the article, hopefully it would be done so in the spirit of a GA if not an FA.--Will.i.am 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a comment: NASA's website for MER had 1.7 billion hits in the first week they were on the ground. It would be great to have not just a good, but a GREAT article on a public spacecraft for people interested in knowing more about it. That's not a reason to force it to be an FA if it's not good enough, but that's why we're here — to try to get it to the necessary quality.--Will.i.am 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me just explain quite a few of these points. First of all, it's highly unlikely that the probe will simply crash as is right now, no mission to another planet has acheived orbit around a planet and then crashed, from any country. All of the instruments have been tested, except SHARAD, and all are working perfectly. I would expect the first scientific research press releases perhaps around the begining of next year, and not earlier. MRO actually will end aerobraking in about 2 and a half months, followed by a brief period of time known as the transition phase. PSP will begin in November, and until that time, there will be very little possible changes to the article, except mentioning that it has ended aerobraking. Your logic about groundbraking discoveries, raising signifigant new questions, or crashing can wholy be applied to the Hubble article just as easily as with MRO. Tuvas 14:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object Just a tad too many images I think, to be encyclopedic. Think of eliminating those that aren't really, really needed. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 11:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khan Wali Khan

Resubmitting: Self nomination Pashtun nationalist, political prisoner and leader of the opposition in Pakistan. I've redone this article with the help of Tombs and Ryan. Opinions and constructive criticism will be appreciated. --Zak 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC) ArchivedWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Khan Wali Khan1

  • Weak object still for the same reasons; it's a lot better now, but there are still many errors:
    • His mother Mehar Qanda belonged to the nearby Razar village, who was married to Bacha Khan in 1912, she died during the flu pandemic after World War I. The comma after 1912 should be a semicolon, or an "and" should be added.
    • He joined the Khudai Khidmatgar movement in his teens and, in 1942, Khan formally stepped into the field of politics "Khan" is unneeded, since the subject is already "he".
    • separated by a thousand miles Indian territory "of" could help
    • Wali Khan, along with many other politicians at the time, were imprisoned and disqualified was
    • The new Military leader capital M?
    • Shocked upon hearing the news that the military junta would not transfer power to the majority Bengalis; Khan here the semicolon should be a comma
    • possible internment in West Pakistan.[7].
    • Zulfiqar Bhutto who wanted to lift martial law and set up a new constitution comma couldn't hurt
  • Thanks, AZ t 21:48, 10

July 2006 (UTC)

All done AZ --Zak 12:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object 2a, there are prose problems throughout, of the same nature as described in the first FAC, and above. There are missing commas, changes in tense, and general copyediting cleanup needed. (I haven't checked the references, but they appear light for a political article.) Fixing only the few examples given doesn't correct the overall difficulties with the prose throughout the article. It needs a set of fresh eyes to start over on the text. Looking at a random section in the middle of the article:
    • overall cleanup, saw this: separated by a thousand miles (1500 km)of Indian territory, no space after 1500km)
    • Despite his father's efforts against partition and his brief attempt to instead create a new nation called Pakhtunistan, on August 14, 1947 Pakistan came into being. Whose brief attempt, his or his father's?
    • By the end of the negotiations, he held a series of meetings with then Governor General Ghulam Mohammed. Hard to explain, but tortured sentence construct. Why do we need the by the end of the negotiations?
    • Khan joined the National Awami Party (Awami meaning 'people') in 1956, a new political party formed by his father along with other progressive and leftist leaders from both wings of Pakistan. Why is meaning people in parentheses, yet another description of the party follows? Combine the thoughts with consistency. I just had a very hard time with the prose.
    • The opposition parties united under the Combined Opposition Party alliance and decided to field a joint candidate against Ayub Khan in the Presidential elections. decided to field --> fielded .
    • However, despite a compromise agreement on some issues, it is alleged that the military leadership and its political allies did not want Ayub Khan to succeed. [6]Wali Khan held a separate meeting with Ayub Khan reference placed with no space before next sentence (needs a thorough cleanup copyedit), and it is alleged or it was alleged? There are tense changes throughout the article.
  • Fixing the list will not address all of the prose problems in the article: I had problems with every paragraph I read.
  • Not comprehensive: if the article is a bio, should it gloss over his death with, "after a long illness"? (Section also has prose problems: After a long illness, Wali Khan died on 26 January 2006. He is survived by his wife Nasim Wali Khan, three daughters and two sons. His funeral was widely attended with condolence messages from Pakistani President Pervaiz Musharraf, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.) Missing commas, at minimum. Sandy 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sandy points taken, with regard to grammar however the bit about his illness i disagree with. Firstly Khan stayed away from the media and very little came out in public about the precise nature of his health problems. Additional referencing is hard because of poor documentation. --Zak 11:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you can work in some wording that explains that the cause of his death was unknown? Sandy 11:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes Sandy I've addressed the specific points you've made and put a mention about his passing. I'm going to see if I can get some copy editing help and look into the rest. --Zak 12:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I should have mentioned that I struck my comment above. Please leave me a message if you need me to take another look later. My house was hit by lightening, and I may lose track of what I'm following. Sandy 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. There's good in this article, but it's unacceptable until it's been through a thorough copy-edit. Don't just fix these examples from the top.
    • "Khan was the second of three sons, he received his early education at the Azad Islamia School in Utmanzai."—Ungrammatical.
    • His father's name is provided on the second rather than the first mention.
    • "which led to him wearing his trademark glasses"—Ungrammatical ("his", not "him"). What exactly does "trademark" mean here? Is it unambiguous?
    • "Despite his pacifist upbringing as a young freedom fighter,"—This seems contradictory, and thus should be explained or reworded.
    • "He was to later explain"—Splitting infinitives is not banned, but here it would be easier not to.
    • "Khan joined the Khudai Khidmatgar movement in his teens and, in 1942, formally stepped into politics by joining the Indian National Congress and served as a provincial joint secretary of the party"—and ... and. Perhaps split this sentence for easier reading?
    • Try an en dash for the range of years: it's kewler.Tony 16:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll have a look at the stuff you mentioned, the trademark glasses was how people would point him out in Pakistan. Pacifist upbringing: he was from a part of the world where revenge in retaliation to attack was quite common. The Khudai Khidmatgar movement was something of an oddity in the regions history. A non-violent army taking on the British Raj, obviously has its limits as Gandhi himself admitted. --Zak 17:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've put in some of the changes you mentioned what do you mean by en dash? --Zak 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentShouldn't the "Notes" section be "Bibliography"? WP 06:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm I'm used to Harvard referencing but if it's wrong that shouldn't be a problem to change? --Zak 17:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think the "Notes" and "References" are backward, at least according to WP:GTL#Notes. AZ t 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok sorted --Zak 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Museum of the Portuguese Language

Self-nomination. This is a translation of the featured article on the Portuguese Wikipedia — but it is not POV like that version (I don't think,) it is less unnecessarily specific and it is well-referenced. (Apparently referencing is actually somewhat discouraged over there.) I think it is enough for a featured article here as well, but I'm curious as to what you think, and what can be improved if it does not qualify. Grandmasterka 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Several short, stubby paragraphs of only 1-2 sentences, at least one image has a deprecated tag (the first image) and the big quotes with the large quote marks are distracting and should probably go to WikiSource. Rlevse 12:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I fixed the image tag over at Commons, according to their own instructions. I'll work on expanding info on the individual museum rooms in the next few days. Do you think the quotes should be removed entirely and summarized? Should I remove the cgqote template from them and leave them be? Or remove just a couple of the quotes? I'm interested as to what others think about the quotes. Grandmasterka 06:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I agree with Rlevse, paragraphs and subsections are wat too short, trvia section should go bye bye as well. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leonhard Euler

I feel this article is comprehensive and adequately cited, and looks nothing at all the way it did during its first nom (archive1). I'll be relatively free in the next week or so to respond to comments, so I welcome any input. Borisblue 02:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Borisblue 19:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Please fix your refs, and your layout should conform to WP:GTL. Sandy 03:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    Wow, I can't believe I've been in this projct this long and have not seen WP:FN. Thanks for the input Sandy! I'm going to bed right now, but fixing the refs will be the first thing on my to-do list tomorrow. Borisblue 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    I've fixed the refs, and the last sections have been rearranged to conform with WP:GTL. Borisblue 23:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is well referenced, but it might benefit from one more run through, to tighten up the prose and add a few inline cites.

  • This work wasn't very influential however, it was said that "for musicians it was too advanced in its mathematics and for mathematicians it was too musical." Italics should be used sparingly; it's not necessary to italicize quotes. Also, the weasle words "it was said that" should be eliminated; the statement has a citation, it should say who said that.
  • Needs to be cited: He is considered to be the preeminent mathematician of the 18th century and one of the greatest of all time; he is also one of the most prolific, with collected works filling over 60 volumes.
  • Redundancies in the lead: Euler developed many important concepts and proved numerous lasting [mathematical] theorems in diverse areas of mathematics, from [areas including] calculus, to number theory to [and] topology. In the course of this work h He introduced much of modern mathematical terminology, for instance defining the fundamentally important concept [such as the definition] of a mathematical function.[1]
  • Skipping further down the article, to a section in the middle, "There is a very famous anecdote inspired by Euler's arguments with secular philosophers over religon." is awkward. Very famous is redundant. Euler's arguments with secular philosphers over religion inspired a famous anecdote.
  • More weasle words: It has been estimated that it would take eight hours of work per day for 50 years to copy it all by hand. (by whom, name the person).
  • Stubby sentences: A lot of mathematical notation in use today was introduced by Euler. Euler introduced the notation f(x) to describe a function. Additionally, he invented the notation for the trigonometric functions that is currently in use.
    • Euler introduced much of the mathematical notation in use today, such as the notation f(x) to describe a function, and the notation used for the trigonometric functions.
  • Skipping down to number theory: Two sentences in close proximity start with "a lot of".
  • Skipping down to graph theory, this sentence needs a cite: In 1736 Euler solved, or rather proved insoluble, a problem known as the seven bridges of Königsberg.

These are just random examples: in general I the article is very readble, but a bit more work is needed to tighten and refine the prose, and to cite a few more statements. I won't object, as I won't be able to revisit the article due to travel, and these issues should be easy to fix. Sandy 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to comb through the article. I've fixed all the problems you cited. Borisblue 16:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There are several stylistic problems with this article, but I cannot fix them since those screen-high citation blocks make the source text impossible to navigate. Please move the citation details to the end of the page. Fredrik Johansson 14:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    Oh dear me, you're right, the citation is a mess. I've formatted it better and removed unecessary parameters so the 1-page-long citation block doesn't happen anymore. I hope the markup is editable now. Borisblue 15:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, but a few things could use attention:
  • "Several of his children also attained distinction." Details?
  • "Richard Feynman (Lectures on Physics, p.I-22-10)." Make this consistent with the rest of the article (use a footnote)
  • "Understanding the infinite was naturally the major focus of Euler's research." A layman isn't going to see why this is so "natural".
  • "Trivia" by definition is trivial; either expand these points (especially the last two), work them into the text, or eliminate the section.
Overall, though, a great article. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the "children" bit, and incorporated the trivia section in the article like you suggested. I'm trying to figure out exactly where the Feynman quote comes from, but once I do, yes that ref should be in footnotes as well. Thanks! Borisblue 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

*minor note. As a native french speaker, I'm not sure that "he is the master of us all" is the correct translation for "c'est notre maître à tous". In terms of connotation, I think the semantics of master is slightly stronger in english, especially with the phrasing "the master of us all" rather than "our master". Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't "the master of us all" suggesting some sort of hierarchical relationship? The wiktionary entry The french word "maître" is routinely used to denote reverence to the rolemodel, I don't think that's the case in english. Pascal.Tesson 05:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC) I fixed it. Pascal.Tesson

  • Oppose for now. Here are things that should be adressed I think: See update of vote from Oppose to weak support below. Pascal.Tesson
  1. I have quickly gone through it and the prose, while quite good, is not exactly compelling and certainly not brilliant. For instance I have removed a number of occurrences of "Euler" where the pronoum suffices. Some adjustments of that sort would really improve the flow of the article.
  2. I've corrected the translation of the second french sentence which completely missed the witty point of Condorcet. this has also been adressed. Pascal.Tesson
  3. The philosophy and religious beliefs section is not so clear and in any case it seems odd that this would appear before the description of his mathematical legacy. Pascal.Tesson
  4. I'm not sure about the Feynman assessment of the first formula as being the most remarkable in mathematics. As a math major, I had a number of different profs describe the second one (Euler's identity) as the most beautiful truth that has ever existed and I suspect that the Feynman quote is simply misplaced. By the way I think it's worth adding the sentence that one of the magical aspects of Euler's identity is that it involves the 5 arguably most important constants in mathematics.
  5. Why don't we have a nice picture of the 10 swiss franc bill? Is this a copyright issue? If it is, then I'm sure we could either argue for fair use or even manage to get authorisation. It seems like Swiss banknotes are not copyrighted. Good news so I put it up. Pascal.Tesson
  6. There's no discussion about his work on the logarithm of negative numbers. The history of mathematics book I have home (Boyer and Merzbach) credit him with explaining to D'Alembert that the log of -1 is i pi. I don't claim to know much about Euler, but I did remember that one so I'm worried that the article is far from comprehensive in terms of his mathematical contributions. (added now) Pascal.Tesson
All that being said, it's still a great article and should be able to make it to FA after a few weeks' work. Pascal.Tesson 06:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the comprehensiveness issue is pretty much unavoidable, as Euler is the most prolific mathematician ever it would be impossible to say something about every mathematical advance he made in a 32kbish article(that would fill an entire wikiproject) the best we can do is say something about his more significant contributions. Plus, I was trying to make the math readable to the lay person, thus omitting some of the details of the mathematics and concentrating on the "big picture" And looking at it again, I agree that more can be said about his work in logarithms, which really were a focal point in his research in analysis. I agree about the Feynman quote, it should refer to Euler's identity rather than Euler's Formula, I'll see if I can get access to the Feynman book to check it out. Borisblue 14:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Re the log of -1: I think Euler was mainly settling a dispute between Johann Bernoulli and GW Leibniz. I'll try to get a source on that and stick it in the Euler's identity article soon. Melchoir 20:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. What I wrote I got from Boyer's book. From what I remember he says something like "although it should have been apparent to Bernoulli." Pascal.Tesson 20:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm continuing to make some minor fixes and have added one more inline reference in the intro. By the way, I think the duplicate references shouldn't appear as all distinct. The article has a list of 27 references when in fact there are only a dozen or so. The Calinger article appears 6 times for example. Pascal.Tesson 23:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. Midway through adressing that comment, I realized that the various citations are to different pages of those references. That still looks like over-accurate referencing to me but then again maybe that's not the standard. In any case I will stop merging the references until we agree on that issue. Pascal.Tesson 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I like doing references this way because I find it easier when I have to do research- since the page information is already there, I don't see any reason to rm it. By the way, since you know french, would you mind fixing the "master of us all" quote? Thanks!
Wow, just looked through the extent of you improvements- thanks for all the good work! I've reverted the referencing changes and placed a discussion topic on the the talk page. Borisblue 02:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that if we do decide to revert to the old system, which franky I don't really mind, only the names of the refs need to be changed. I did not actually modify the references themselves since as soon as there is a name match, the rest of the reference is ignored. I will change the translation to "He is a master for us all" which is epsilon-better I think.Pascal.Tesson 04:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment any chance you could rewrite the second half of the graph theory/topology section? It seems unnecessarily technical. Actually, one way out of all this is to create a separate article on Euler's contributions to mathematics where it would be fair-game to describe this to a more mathematically inclined audience. Pascal.Tesson 05:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'll work on that section later tonight. Actually, I did try to create a subarticle about Euler's mathematics contributions that would cover it more in depth, but then one of the established editors in this article overruled me and reverted my changes. I think I'm going to try again and create an article mathematical discoveries of Leonhard Euler which would be more comprehensive and technical, and leave the math in this article to be more of a casual read. Borisblue 16:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. It's not that I think there's too much on the math section of the main article, I think it's about right except for what I mentionned about logarithms (needs more) and topology (needs less). It's more a question of getting some article where we can do him justice. Pascal.Tesson 17:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Added a paragraph about the logarithms in the analysis section and trimmed out the topology part. I don't think it's correct to say Euler made any contributions to topology at all. Topology as we know it didn't exist in his time- while it might be right to say his work suggested it, that's not really enough to justify saying too much about topology. Borisblue 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe the latest issue of Nature has a book review on a recent book on the subject. Since you are a mathematician, it might be worth your while to check out both the review and the book itself. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm... I'll check it out. Thank you! Borisblue 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As suggested earlier, I've created a specific page for his contributions. Hopefully this will help in slightly condensing the section in the main article without sacrificing any content or, more to the point, make sure that this section does not grow unreasonnably in the future. For now I have more or less simply pasted the current section into the new article which can be developped. BorisBlue, you might want to add back in there what you deleted from the main page. Since I also copied his list of works there, it might also make sense to shorten the current list to include his most famous works and refer to the other article for a complete list. Pascal.Tesson 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh and it might help if I said what that article title is! I chose Contributions of Leonhard Euler to mathematics. I most certainly won't be offended if anyone wants to move it to a more euphonious name. Pascal.Tesson 03:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added a few external links to extra references. The good news is that there's a lot of good information in those references. The bad news is of course that this reinforces my belief that the article is not yet comprehensive. Note also that many of these references are very well written and we should aspire to that kind of quality for the wiki article. Pascal.Tesson 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    The issue is, given that Euler has been written about by a lot of peer-reviewed journals, I have been very picky in choosing sources. The bulk of the article has been based on sources from the Historia Mathematica, American Math Monthly, and books published by the American Math. Society and Oxford press. I think we should be reluctant to base facts on the article on some professors lectures that he published on the internet, or even non-peer reviewed sources like mathworld, given that so many serious historians are dedicated to Euler and we can (and have) use them instead. You have stated repeatedly that the comprehensiveness of the article concerns you: well, other than the now-fixed omission of the negatuve logarithms, this criticism is unfortunately very vague; what precisely do you believe should be added? If it is discussion of Euler's mathematics, bear in mind that Euler is the most prolific mathematician in history, and so it will be impossible to discuss all his mathematical contributions in a 30-40kb wiki article. I think the article in its current state does give a good overview of his most significant contributions; and now with the "contributions" subpage we can add more detail if need be. But I need to know needs to be included.Borisblue 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    One of the external links you added was the EB article on Euler: note that that even that omits what is one of his most famous discoveries: the Konigsberg bridges problem. Of course, our standards should be (and already are) higher than EB's, but please keep in mind Euler's humongous total output when citing comprehensiveness concerns. Borisblue 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment actually, I know that I'm being vague. I don't claim to be anything close to an authority on Euler and I'm simply worried about comprehensiveness because I want to make sure we cross check other references before making this an FA. I'm not saying we should put in here every little bit of info we can find but we might find in those references important aspects that have been overlooked in the handful of references which were the primary sources for the bulk of the article. Skipping through some of these I was for instance able to put in the year for the St-Petersburg fire and the subject of his master's dissertation. (Not that either is tremendously important) My goal in putting these other references is also just to give the reader ample choices of further reading. I am much happier with the article now than I was a week ago. Actually let me make that clearer by changing my opinion below. Pascal.Tesson 13:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. Great article, well-written, good pictures, etc. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support Let me update my earlier comments. I think this is much closer than what we need for FA. My remaining concerns are:
  1. Writing still has to be polished. Because Wiki articles are written incrementally, their flow is often subpar. This has been improved from last week but it still needs a bit to reach the "brilliant prose" criterion.
  2. The philosophy and religious beliefs section is not so clear. In particular the Diderot anecdote is odd. There's an apparent contradiction with the Diderot is dumb/Diderot is not so dumb thing.
  3. Comprehensiveness: much better but as noted above we should cross check with other references. Also Euler's bibliography has been removed which might be a bit of an overkill. How about adding back his four or five most important publications and referencing to the long article for an extended list?
  4. I'm not sure about the Feynman assessment of the first formula as being the most remarkable in mathematics. As a math major, I had a number of different profs describe the second one (Euler's identity) as the most beautiful truth that has ever existed and I suspect that the Feynman quote is simply misplaced. Pascal.Tesson 13:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Updated my recommendation from "weak suport" to "support". The writing is much better with all the tiny fixes made by various editors. There are extra images, extra references, better overall organization. I can confidently say that the quality of the article has surpassed the featured one on Gauss. Pascal.Tesson 05:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I fixed the feynman reference. The Diderot thing is a bit confusing- what the article is trying to say is that this anecdote is very commonly circulated (ie, that diderot is dumb) but that the anecdote is definitely untrue. I'm not sure how to reword it however. Thanks for bringing these points up. I must say that you are definitely the best kind of FAC participant, seeing how much you contributed to make the article better. Reading the EB article again, I feel that there is some stuff that should be added (synthetic geometry, e.g. Euler Line). Also, about comprehensiveness, since we are both college math majors we are perhaps not that qualified in the field- you are right, and that is one problem with wikipedia. I'm going to try to email Ronald Calinger, a math historian who specializes in Euler (he is referneced in the article) and hope that he will respond. I think having an expert check will give us a better idea whether the article is comprehensive, and if not what needs to be done. Borisblue 22:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it's been fun working on this. Certainly a math historian should take a look at it. I recently posted a notice on the WikiProject mathematics page to try and get some more feedback from mathematically competent people but you're right: it's the history we are likely to represent incorrectly. In any case, I am likely not going to contribute much to this article (save minor edits) in the coming two weeks but good luck with it. I'm sure that you'll get plenty of support now. Pascal.Tesson 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Terrific article on a terrific mathematician.UberCryxic 17:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment have added an Infobox (see talk page). Pascal.Tesson 18:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well written article on important topic. Unlike articles on so many other less important topics, it can't possibly cover everything completely, because there is so much more to write about one of the greatest scientists of all time, then, say, about Cynna Kydd, but it covers the most important points, and what it does say, it says very well. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Request to delay promotion The tally is 5-0 now, but I asked an expert historian to review the article, and he brought up some issues I would like to fix before promotion (see Talk:Leonhard_Euler#Letter_from_Ronald_Calinger.21). These shouldn't be hard to deal with, but I think it would be good to fix them before this article is featured. Borisblue 15:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    Real Life (tm) is getting in the way, it may be a while before I can work on the stuff. Borisblue 01:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Same for me actually, but I don't think there's any rush. Not sure which admin is currently in charge of checking the FAC debates but I'm sure he/she will not mind a reasonnable delay. The article is close enough to deserve that patience. Pascal.Tesson 16:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I have addressed Calinger's comments. Borisblue 19:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article has been up for a month, creating work for editors who have to keep checking status in order to vote Keep or Oppose. Since it's close, and it appears you will have the support once you have time to iron out the remaining issue, maybe you can consider withdrawing the nomination until you're ready to finish it up, and re-submitting when it's ready? Sandy 18:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment with all due respect, I don't think that makes sense. For one thing, even the expert's opinion was globally positive and there's not much to do left. I think the current version meet the criteria and it's not like we have to stop improving the article once it gets FA status. Also, I'm not sure that there are many editors who have followed the article's progression that closely over the past month. I feel it would be more time consumming for everybody to start the process all over again in two weeks. Just my 0.02$ though. Pascal.Tesson 20:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Now wholeheartedly support I don't think that there's any question the article meets all the FA criteria.
  1. I won't go and say that the prose is brilliant, but I think "compelling prose" is probably a fair assessment. The flow is there, the traces of the construction of the article have been erased.
  2. Comprehensiveness I don't think is an issue anymore, especially after the integration of Calinger's comments.
  3. Factually acurate. Certainly falls in line with the references I had available. Thoroughly referenced, good combo of hard references and somewhat less reliable but online references.
  4. Neutral (not that this ever was an issue)
  5. Stable: while there has been extensive editing in the last weeks, the content wasn't drastically modified.
  6. Manual of style compliant. The content is well organized, lead section does what it should, TOC is good. Infobox and metadata were added.
  7. Good, varied images: portraits, stamps, figures explaining his contributions to math, copy of title page of his book.
  8. Lenght has been kept reasonnable especially after splitting the "contributions" section. 35kb is not short but then again this is Euler not Lindy Booth and that's probably below the biographical FA average anyways.

I plan to stop fiddling with it, at least until the FA status is resolved. The next target should be to rewrite the spinoff article on Euler's contributions to mathematics. Pascal.Tesson 16:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Another bit of feedback from an editor who recently updated the assessment on the talk page and whom I asked for input. Pascal.Tesson 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this one is ready to go now. Kaldari 04:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this is a great article. I made a few fairly minor changes. Here are a few more comments:
Other than that I think the article is great and support its nomination. --Zvika 17:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and something else (Spangineer has already commented on this, but it went uncorrected): "Understanding the infinite was naturally the major focus of Euler's research." I don't really understand why this is "naturally". Anybody? --Zvika 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It's just that calculus is just, essentially "the study of the infinite". I'll remove it, since it's not clear.Borisblue 15:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Fixed all the issues you brought up. Thanks! Borisblue 15:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC),

[edit] Aortic dissection

I feel that it is ready now. Commons has no more images in this topic, every section is full, it is well organized, meets all of the featured article criterias. NCurse work 14:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose for the moment. Main reason is WP:CITE - although the statements about diagnosis and treatment are common knowledge, I'd like to see them sourced to reliable sources (e.g. sensitivity and specificity of an arm blood pressure difference). Syphilis is not mentioned as a cause. DeBakey III has 3 subtypes. Regret not having taken the time to work more on this one. JFW | T@lk 15:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The intro is too short and the article does not have any inline citations. -- Underneath-it-All 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Has three. NCurse work 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it would be better to submit this article to peer review as it is currently the medicine collaboration of the week and we could improve the article using the comments from peer review. Subsequently this could be a featured article. --WS 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Do as you wish. I help if needed. NCurse work 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charmander

This is a very good article, told me all about the Pokémon... before I knew that it was a dragon that had fire on it. :-D I think it is Featured Article quality. GangstaEB• ice slides) 13:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. No inline references. --Maitch 16:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I forgot to earlier. GangstaEB• ice slides) 22:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, the information is good, but it needs referenced. Highway Batman! 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No (Object), Not enough references. Also, needs to explain about Starter Pokemon and the TCG a little more.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 22:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs a little more information. Also, the intro needs more citations, like "Baby Charmander that are not yet familiar with the flame sometimes accidentally burn themselves with it." This article also goes off into more tangents than needed. Bibliomaniac15 21:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. While the article is well written and there are inline citations throughout I feel that a lot more statements can and should be sourced. -- Underneath-it-All 03:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object per above Minun (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hickman's potentilla

Newish, but already well-formed. If not FA quality, shouldn't take much to turn around any problems. At least deserves GA status. SP-KP 17:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak object, however I'm not a botanist :P What is the better name: the current or Hickman's cinquefoil? --Brand спойт 19:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Care to explain why you object? Googletest - Potentilla 164 v Cinquefoil 159, so ... !! SP-KP 21:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. Also could article be expanded a bit or there is all possible info? --Brand спойт 21:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • literature uses primarily Hickman's potentilla, especially the EPA publication in the federal register. google also returns more hits for potentilla vs cinquefoil. article has now been expanded about 70 percent since this comment above Covalent 05:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object. Article has a good basis, but, agree, short. Bobolot 00:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • article has now been expanded about 70 percent since the above comment. Covalent 05:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. Article possibly could be expanded, but information is limited upon such a rare plant with severely restricted spatial occurence. The other risk is that much of the information (which i possess) that would expand the article relates to specifics of colony location, which is not necessarily great to advertise. Covalent 20:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Remember the Wikipedia policy that statements need to be sourced. If the information on colony location is published already, it's already available to anyone wanting to find it, so adding it here is not such a big deal. If it's not already published, it shouldn't be included here. I therefore don't think we have too big an issue with this. SP-KP 20:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
its published, but good luck finding all of it !! Covalent 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice, and re: Brandemeister, given the rarity of this plant, a lengthy article is likely impossible and not necessary. Re: Bobolot, the author can't work on a non-specific objection. Rlevse 00:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)...PS article was inconsistent in having ending sentence ref before or after the period, so I fixed them, they should be after the period. Rlevse 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I didnt want to support it until i exhausted all the literature i could come by. ive now expanded it by about 60% over its content when nominated. wikipedia could use at least one featured article on a plant (other than saffron which was really a culinary masterpiece). Covalent 03:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Although the copyright info on the lead image seems a bit shaky. If at all possible I'd like to see some California Wikipedian who lives nearby the region they still live to drive out and take a nice GFDL pic just to keep things simple. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Lead is inadequate, it should at least mention something about its conservation status. The conservation status is full of stubby/short paragraphs. Article needs a copyedit since it does not represent our best work yet. Sentences such as "Discovery of P. hickmansii was made in the year 1900 by Alice Eastwood, the Curator of Botany at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco. That year she made one of several excursions to Monterey County to collect specimens of rare plants, and she named this species after J. B. Hickman, who was her guide on that collecting trip." need some work to be considered of featured status quality. See also should go before notes or references per WP:GTL. Also is this article comprehenive on the topic? Joelito (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • very constructive comments. at this point there are no more red links, the see also section has been moved per your comment, a new image has been added and considerable copy editing has been carried out, especially a total rewrite of the section you flagged Covalent 05:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the redlinks should be dealt with too, even if only by creating stubs/redirects. I still support FA status, however. SP-KP 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - copyright information on the main pic is not just shakey, it's wrong. The photographer actually allowed the image to be used non-commercially and to be be able to keep track of any usage, obviously incompatible with the "the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author, as if in the public domain" tag. Without that picture there's no photo of the actual subject of the article at all. I think it all depends on whether the photographer can be persuaded to be a bit more liberal with their rights-releasing. TheGrappler 19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
CommentIt explicitly says usage on Wiki is okay, so a tag change should suffice here.Rlevse 00:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Objection continued - if you change it to the "wikipedia use only" tag, then it will be deleted. The whole point of that tag is to identify images for deletion. "Wikipedia use only" is completely unacceptable. The image has to be either free for anyone (including commercial providers) or claimed under fair use; "permission for use on Wikipedia only" isn't good enough. Have a look at WP:COPYREQ for what needs to happen here for this image to be suitable. TheGrappler 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. Here are examples of why the whole article needs a good copy-edit, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with the text.
    • " United States federally listed"—ouch, that's cumbersome, right at the top.
    • "a narrowly restricted range"—are both epithets required? Is "very" required later in that sentence? "Sharply delimited" is a bit odd here. Should "and" be inserted before "secondarily"? (It's A, and B.)
    • "the spring"—I'm always looking for words to remove: "the"?
    • So a plant "receives support for its survival from the U.S. Government"? It's a funny way of putting it. Same for the notion that a classification is a principal mechanism for protecting it. Surely it's the mechanisms that arise from that classsification that protect it ...

Venturing into the first section:

    • "prostrate to decumbent, of variable length five to forty five centimeters"—I think most readers won't have a clue what the first phrase means, even though "decumbent" is linked. Insert "from" before "prostrate" and it's a little easier, but perhaps rethink? "Of" is required after "length", isn't it? Consider using numerals in this context, even though they're small numbers, with en dashes; e.g., "5–45". There are so many ranges expressed here.
    • "in width"—why not just "wide"?

Please massage the entire text; then it will be a worthy FA. Tony 09:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encantadia

This is a hugely concise and informative article, without being too wordy. It appears to have a large team commited to expanding the numereous pages on the trilogy. Any problems are minimal. --Bearbear 12:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Object. No inline citation I could spot, no references, no fair use rationale for the images. Article is also long (54 kB), and parts are very listy. Could benefit from branching out into sub-articles (I notice several has alrady been branced off) and being rewritten in a summary style. WegianWarrior 12:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Object. Per WegianWarrior. --Howard the Duck 13:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Object. per above. Rlevse 23:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Object. also for all the reasons stated above. -- Underneath-it-All 04:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banff National Park

Renominating this article which was previously nominated almost two months ago but the major contributor disagreed with the nomination, wishing instead to make further improvements. Banff National Park has been at Peer review for a couple of weeks and no serious objections were made. No doubt, all the bases are covered here as far as information goes and I believe this article is well referenced, informative and encyclopedic.--MONGO 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Could we wait until next week, say Wednesday? I will pretty much be on wikibreak until then, and unavailable to address any objections. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
(co-nominate) I have now gone through peer review suggestions, and will be around this weekend to address any concerns. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It's a good article... :) Thankyoubaby 04:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A lot of work was put into this. It's beautiful. Bremen 06:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Footnotes go at the end of punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence. Suggest adding template coordinates, which will display lat/long in upper right of article page. See Baden-Powell House and Gilwell Park for examples of usage. If you fix these two things, I'll support. Rlevse 12:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I've gone through and fixed references, and added the coor template. Now, there are a few instances where footnotes are mid-sentence, referencing a particular phrase, fact, or number (such as the first one, "...encompasses 6,641 square kilometres (2,564 mi²)[1]". According to Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags, that's fine. But, there were a few others, such as in the "Ecoregions" section that were clearly formatted incorrectly. These have been corrected. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to chime in that having the coordinates in the upper right at the top of the article page is redundant, and I usually remove this on sight in these types of articles...reasoning...the same coordinates are located in the infobox which is already at the top of the article.--MONGO 17:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
AH, I hadn't noticed that. Agree they don't need to be in both spots.Rlevse 02:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now Rlevse 16:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The locator map in the introduction needs some work. At first glance the large green spots showing the locations of other national parks are quite a bit more prominent than the small red dot showing Banff's location. - SimonP 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure we can do anything better. What do you suggest? The locator map, implemented with the {{Infobox_protected_area}}, uses Image:Locator_Dot.gif and the background map, Image:Canadian National Parks Location.png. This map is used for all Canadian National Parks, and for consistency any change would need to apply to all Canadian National Parks.
  1. We could switch to a plain map with only province boundaries and no parks. See Glacier National Park (US) for comparison, which uses a plain map with state boundaries.
  2. We could keep the parks on the map. Though, maybe the green colour could be adjusted to make them less prominent?
  3. Much more complicated to implement, but we could change the dot symbol to something else, adjust its colour, or size. Though, this would break from consistency with dot locator maps across Wikipedia. This would also require a separate Infobox for just Canadian parks, and this new symbol/size/colour would apply across all Canadian parks.
  4. Get rid of the dot locator map, and come up with something entirely different. But, would loose consistency across park articles.
Which of these options would you suggest, or do you have some other suggestions. My preference would be to keep the map with the parks, as it helps to show Banff in relation to the location and size of other parks. Yes, some other parks happen to be much larger and thus more "prominent". But, I'm open to suggestions and other ideas. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Any of the first three should work, though changing the dot is probably the best idea. - SimonP 12:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the map with more washed out park areas (change will affect all pages on all wikis using that image).--Qyd 14:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks very good. I think the map is best with the dot, as-is. It's the same dot used on all dot locator maps, and good to use it here for consistency. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support nice job by Aude and co. PDXblazers 18:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support very good looking article—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 12:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It looks very impressive and has gone through proper process for becoming an FA. It would take serious objections on the factual content of the article for me to change my support.--Jersey Devil 20:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mudkip

Mudkip is one of the 493 species of Pokémon. Wikipedians from the PCP say that it is better than Treecko. it is very similiar to the article Torchic which was earlier promoted to featured status. If this doesn't qualify, it will be improved depending on the reason given. I think it would qualify for the following reasons.

  • It contains no stub, cleanup, wikify or cite templates
  • It is a clan article
  • It is very useful
  • It is written in a way suitable to Wikipedia Minun (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Object The article is a copy of Torchic, it needs completely rewritten. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • How is it a copy? Minun (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • A lot of the paragraphs are copies of each other, look at it. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: I think he wanted specific paragraphs, so aside from some interchanged names, types, etc. the lead of all of the sections are the same. Morgan695 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If you look at the similarities, they're very similar. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, you kept copying the text from Torchic over to mudkip, Highway. But despite that, I will still say Object, because it isfar from ready for FAC.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying that it was the wrong thing to do, it's a good way to cultivate good articles without months of writing, I am saying that we do not need pastry cut Pokémon FAs, it's ridiculous. Torchic got attacked for having half a paragraph the same as Bulbasaur, this article is three quarters Torchic. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not blaming you, just saying. But anyway, that thing about being "Too similar to bulbasaur" in the (torchic's) first FAC was absolutly wrong. The pokémon articles should look similar, but not like cut and paste copies that have 20% of the words changed.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree. The Bulbasaur problem was harsh, but I think it was backlash because it was featured. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stefan Nemanja

Stefan Nemanja was a very talented military strategist, a holy man, a cunning politician as well as a forger of a Realm. I have vastly raised it from a tiny stub into a large, sourced article, split on sections and with several images just add some flavour to the top. I think that it's sufficient for a featured article - if not, any recommendations shall I seriously take into consideration regarding its improving. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. In addition to lacking references (which are vital for any article to be considered as a FA), the article appears to be very POV in supporting Nemanja, as evidenced by the fawning lead. I'd also like to see a section placing the person in a historical context and a section providing criticism of Nemanja. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Image problems. Every image in the article has been haphazardly tagged {{NoRightsReserved}}. Not one of them has a verifiable source. Looks like Image:Simeon.jpg might be trying to claim {{PD-art}}? Image:Stefan Nemanja.jpg might be {{Permission}} and need deleting? Image:Nemanja pecat.jpg is probably {{nsd}} (no artist information, other than that they were an amateur). Image:Stefan Nemanja povelja.JPG might be {{PD-ineligible}} if it is just the reproduction of the original text. Jkelly 20:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, primarily per Alabamaboy. The language also needs to be cleaned up by a native speaker of English, as there are a variety of terms used (e.g. "Republic of Venetia", "Nirnberg", etc.) that are incorrect or archaic. Kirill Lokshin 20:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per all above. Rlevse 23:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jasper High School

It is a well-written article, and I feel the school should receive the recognition it deserves.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs).

[edit] Ah! My Goddess The Movie

I withdraw the nom, will pursue peer review. --Cat out 17:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe this article is ready to be promoted, however I need help in determining how to expand it. --Cat out 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You want a Peer Review. Withdraw this nomination unless you really believe it ought to be promoted. —mercuryboardtalk 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh I will expand it with comments here. Peer review is a dead process (per experience). --Cat out 22:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
He is right you know, 120 in peer review and most just have automated bots. Judgesurreal777 22:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Machine input is... well... not all that interesting. --Cat out 23:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Dead or not, I concur that you should have gone through the motions of a Peer Review first. Excel Saga had a great review, and I've reviewed several articles. If it's a dead process, I imagine it's because reviewers get no or little feedback from other editors. "The forms must be obeyed." ;) Therefore: Object. Nothing about production or critical reception. The plot section is way too detailed for my tastes: "Belldandy's former master, Celestin, escapes his imprisonment and uses her as a tool to continue his war against the Almighty. Keiichi, Urd and Skuld must race against time to save Belldandy, themselves, and the universe." More detail can be employed, e.g. mention Morgan le Fay (oh, why did they hijack King Arthur's mother?) and the World tree, but plot per se shouldn't take more than one or two paragraphs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monocrat (talk • contribs).
I do not have another anime featured list to base this as an example, that is why I ask the direction I should modify the page.
Production and critical reception will be there shortly.
--Cat out 10:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of film Featured Articles that could serve as a template (recent ones: Tenebrae, V for Vendetta, Revenge of the Sith). A problem you're going to encounter if you attempt FA for real is the lack of Japanese sources (see Excel Saga's FAC.--Monocrat 12:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, automated semi-bots actually provide pretty useful advice ;). This article definitely could've benefited from it, interesting or not... Object for short lead, lack of footnotes and references, inclusion of a trivia section; in fact, all it is a giant plot summary, with nothing about reception. Check out some of the featured articles at WP:FA#Media. Thanks, Andy t 00:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not know whats wrong with a trivia section. I thought that was good practice. None of the featured lists are about an anime movie, that is why I want opinions from the 'featured candidacy comunity' (whatever that means). --Cat out 10:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
While Peer Review certainly needs more attention, it has been my experience that I get at least one comment there more often then not, sometimes more, and now we have a great PRbot by AndyZ who will give you some MoS advice, too. Please use PR first, then try FAC. I'd assume you will submit the article to PR after taking advice from this section, I'll sure comment later.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Very well. Though I do not exactly like listening to a bot. :P --Cat out 17:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durian

Durian was one of the focused articles of WP:FAP. Thanks to the members of the project,the sources have been cited, more references were added, external links were turned into references, more images were added, and a lot was done to help the project. If you have problems with the article, it will prbably be fixed as soon as possible Minun (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Object
    • The "Selection" section? The one that's "sourced" from the http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Durian_-_Selection/id/1342712 ? The one added in today amid a flood of other rushed edits? That's a mirror of a section of an older version of this same article. It's all unsourced OR, in other words, and now I'm rather worried about the quality of the rest of todays edits.
    • The {{PD-ineligible}} copyright tag on Image:Durian King.jpg and Image:Durian_Tree.jpg is, as far as I know, completely innapropriate: photographs are not generally ineligible for copyright. What is the source of these photographs? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Sources were added to the images; they were indeed simply grabbed off the web and asserted to be PD. Eek. I've removed the images from the article and tagged them as {{wrong-license}} -- I'm not conversant enough on Image copyvio and deletion practices to know what to do next about them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The lead image is blurry.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed it now, is there anything else that needs changed? Minun (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, I've been through the rest of 1 July's edits with a fine-toothed comb and nothing else really alarming has gone on. As one of the significant recent contributors to this article (BorgQueen did most of it, though) I'm going to abstain from voting now, though I do feel that the subject deserves a much better set of photographs than the article currently has. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object There's no picture of the edible part (there used to be, but it was removed a few months ago). While I'm here, I may as well say that this kind of unseemly rush is not the way to produce good articles. HenryFlower 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object,
  1. I don't understand the division between the Flavour and odour and the Ripeness and selection sections since they appears to be dicsussing closely realted topics.
  2. Cultivars should probably be a subsection of species, the information in species is a bit overwhelming and the descriptions vary in the standard of grammar, detailed species descriptions might be better in the list of species.
  3. Durians may be attacked by insect pests which lay eggs in the fruit, and the following text are quite uninformative (and in the wrong part of the article), which insects are pests for durian? Does is also have viral pathogens? Are their any other challanges to cultivation?
  4. The trade figures section skirts dangerously close to a cut and paste copyvio from the FAO material.
--Peta 06:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Obviously premature. I appreciate the good intention of the nominator, but the article has a long way to go, as pointed out by above comments. Should have been submitted for peer review first. --BorgQueen 06:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object References formatting is a trainwreck. Highway Batman! 21:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individualist anarchism in the United States

  • Nominate This is an extremely informative, comprehensive (especially for the topic) article with plenty of helpful graphics. Definately Featured Article worthy. K-UNIT 22:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just did a quick scan, but there are multiple [citation needed] templates throughout the page. Cite all those claims, and then a careful readthrough can be done. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was not featured. — Davidpdx 01:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micronation

  • Nominate Great article! Aint 23:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no citations at all. —Nightstallion (?) 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, This article suffers from continued abuse from unidentified IP's adding nonsense. Also the article length is too long. Davidpdx 14:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nominate, Davidpdx, if you actually understood the article, then you would not be saying that. Aint 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment First of all, to the person who said I don't understand it, your wrong. Second, there is quite a bit of vandalism and abuse going on, which I do know something about since I was involved in stopping some of it. Third, it seems strange that you think you can vote twice. Maybe because your 10 years old and can't follow the rules. By the way, "ain't" isn't proper English.Davidpdx 06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Besides, this isn't even linked to from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (maybe it was at some point?). Whatever. I hereby close this nomination, as it won't succeed, either way. —Nightstallion (?) 09:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reopen While this page does suffer from a lot of Vandalism, it still has lots of great content and people should know about this phenomenon. (unsigned by Kitia)
  • Comment I believe your wrong Kitia, this should have remained closed. It has been almost three weeks with very few comments. Also, the person that listed this did not properly link it to the Featured Candidate Page (as mentioned by Nightstallon). This should be closed and after waiting awhile renominated properly. Davidpdx 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What the hell, I've listed it at WP:FAC properly. It'll likely fail, anyway, unless the nominator is actually willing to *work* on it, but meh, might as well let her or him get a chance. —Nightstallion (?) 20:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with you, those who nominated need to look at the suggestions being made, rather then attacking those who are making them. In the end, if the issues are resolved, it will make it a better article. Davidpdx 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Lack of refs: oppose Computerjoe's talk 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Lack of Referances? Are You Kidding? Kitia 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Call that lack of in-line references. Mangojuicetalk 23:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose. The article itself does contain lots of good info. Perhaps some grouping of the history sections would make it even better. Some more illustrations may also improve it further. And I left some straightforward recommendations for improvement towards compliance with Wikipedia standards on the talk page. When these compliance issues are taken of, I'll gladly support it. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment I knew someone would support my decision of reopening the debate!Kitia 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That's fine, but the nomination process shouldn't be a endless ordeal. My thought is now that it is listed properly it needs to be decided in a week or so no matter what the outcome is. Davidpdx 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - no inline referencing, and tone is slightly odd in places. Otherwise looking good. -- Alfakim --  talk  16:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What About the Erwin Strauss book? Kitia 17:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Nightstallion. Citations are needed for a subject like this to easily ensure the material is accurate. Cedars 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Hong Kong International Airport

I believe that this article is neutral, concise and to the point and not of excessive length. It's informative and easy to read. It has illustrative photos that portray what the airport appears to be. OOODDD 20:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. People are inevitably going to complain about all the lists, which take up the lower half of the article. Skinnyweed 01:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Largely unreferenced. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Very listy, and not much prose. And I left quite some improvement recommendations on the talk page, that should have come out in a good peer review. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Entomopathogenic nematode

This article is amazingly well written and interesting. Its easy to understand and the pictures used in the article are all of high standard, it meets the criteria perfectly.

  • Comment I don't mind Harvard referencing, but can you convert the references and inline citations to {{Harvard reference}} and {{Harvard citation}}, respectively? That way, readers can click on the inline citation and it brings the reader down to the "References" section. Andy t 20:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The first sentence is horribly confusing. Reading Entomopathogenic nematodes are soil-inhabiting, lethal insect parasites that belong to the phylum Nematoda, commonly called roundworms, if I personally didn't know better, I would think that ENs are lethal parastic insects from the phylum nematoda. Try phrasing it Entomopathogenic nematodes are sopecies in the phylum Nematoda that specialise in parastising insects, so that who is parastising what is clear. Wikilink some more in the intro for the benefit of those without a background in biology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Infobox is necessary. Inline referencing should be fixed as made into hyperlinks. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The references are fully in line with what policy dictates. Raul654 15:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. First, page numbers in inline citations are necessary. Second, (though less importantly), using the Harvard reference templates would be much appreciated and make the references much more useable for readers. --RobthTalk 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baden-Powell House

After an interesting previous nomination of the article, many good recommendations for further improvements, notably by TheGrappler, have been with his help (thanks!) included in the article. The perception is that it is at high quality now, and therefore I hereby re-nominate the article.

  • Support, self-nomination. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Strong support. Much better than first time, and a very quick turn-around too.! Rlevse 21:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Only a comment at this point. The use of the Elizabeth II quotebox is contrary to the proposed WP:QUOTE guideline. It draws "special attention to the opinion of one source, and presents that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it". Tuf-Kat 00:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response to the comment. The mentioned WP:QUOTE explicity states: quoteboxes may be acceptable in certain circumstances, especially when the quote is itself notable, and a major part of the article's topic. Considering that the HM The Queen's address at the opening of the house does not pose a controversial opinion, I don't think that endorsement of it will be relevant. And the subject of the speech is the prime subject of the article, so I propose to keep the quote on that ground, unless others support Tuf-Kat's comment. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Object—2a.
    • The first sentence is not long, and IMV should also tell us where the House is (in South Kensington, London, not in Manchester or Toronto.)
    • Rather than saying that refurbishments "take place", it would be more natural to say "Over the years, there have been several refurbishments ...". Later in that sentence, does "it" refer to "the Scout Movement itself", "the largest part of the cost", or (somewhere a long way back from this clause), the House? "Costs" better as singular here.
    • "Upon": yes, this is a matter of personal style, but why would you want to be old-fashioned? "On" please, to be plain and simple, the way most readers like it. It's like "whilst" and "amongst".
    • "to build a hostel for Scouts to stay at a reasonable cost while visiting London"—well, you need "at at" to be correct, don't you. Reword. In any case, the second "a" is redundant.
    • "For this the committee purchased"—A few commas would make it smoother to read (e.g., after "this"). But in any case, you need "For this purpose,".
    • Can you say an empty site of a property?
    • We don't need to be told again that it's in London.
I won't go on; that's the first three paragraphs. The entire text needs auditing for poor expressions and redundancies by someone who is not familiar with the writing of the text. Tony 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment worked your comments to assist submitter. Rlevse 04:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to objection and comment See below. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Support --evrik 02:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now, based on prose problems (2a). The article appears to be well referenced, so if you can solve the prose problems, I will change to Support.
    • I picked a random paragraph from the middle of the article, and found copyedit issues: This painting was a personal favorite of Baden-Powell, and has been used as typical picture of him on numerous articles and publications throughout the scout movement.[8] I shouldn't be able to find a typo on the first sentence section I pick to examine, as this gives rise to concern about the overall copyedit status.
    • Here's another random sentence I had a hard time winding my way through: Run by The Scout Association, Baden-Powell House continues to provide the envisioned base for Scouts visiting London, and a Scout conference centre, in the middle of the London visitor area, actually neighbouring the Natural History Museum, Science Museum, Royal Albert Hall and the Victoria and Albert Museum.
    • By the way, please put categories in alphabetical order. Why do you have a red link in See also? Sandy 02:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Support Objection removed, prose corrected, nice work ! Sandy 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment copyedited the two paras you mention. Rm'd the parent cat. Don't know about the red link (just helping here). Rlevse 03:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Response to objection and comment Thanks Rlevse and Danaman5 for stepping in here. I'm in another timezone and cannot act as quickly as you did, and you're English is better as well. I have re-edited a few sentences to get the intended meaning into it. All red links have been created. The red (now blue) wikilinks are to subjects of note, worthy of an article of their own, which I therefore simply created. The prose improvements pointed out both by Tony and by Sandy have in my humble opinion been taken care of. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC).
Do you mean that the whole article has been copy-edited, or that merely the examples here have been addressed? Tony 01:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The examples pointed out have been given prime attention in copy-editing, and other improvements have been made as well, as I interpreted the comments to be regarding the prose of the whole article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment - Why do most of the images, such as this one, have text indicating they are public domain, but a tag indicating that they are GFDL licensed? Two images are claimed under fair use without rationale. Pagrashtak 06:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response to comment Thanks for pointing out: all texts have been adjusted to better reflect the intention of the image producer. And proper fair use rationales have been added to the two pictures and the article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Well, I have to say that this is now a lot better: well done, contributors. However, I still found a few glitches, and see WP's policy on not starting titles with "The". Objection removed. Tony 02:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for you kind words, and your assists in this, Tony and Sandy. And for your support on the nomination. The said section is retitled, now, of course. 07:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Support:Although I have contributed to the architecture section. However the remainder of the page is vastly improved since it was last a candidate. Giano | talk 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics

Nominating: this article seems to me to be featured article material, it provides comprehensive and accurate coverage of a much misunderstood subject, and cites both primary and secondary sources from the expert literature. -- The Anome 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[8]] and [[9]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning.

[edit] What still needs to be done?

  • Clean up notes and references. There seems to be a few different styles in use.
-Worked on, perhaps done.
  • Does the section on braking belong? It is certainly a part of bike physics, but it is not mentioned in the intro, and I can't think of a good way to add it.
-Now mentioned in lead section
  • Is the section on misconceptions appropriate?
  • A picture showing the relevant forces (gravitational, inertial if in a turn, aerodynamic, and ground reaction) would be nice.
-Added in turning section
  • Turning and braking could also use an illustration, but I can't think of what they would be, yet.
  • Should 'Turning' and 'Braking' come before 'Wobble and Shimmy' and 'Stability with full suspension'? They seem to be more basic.
-Well, wobble, shimmy, and stability all relate to balance, so leave them there.

AndrewDressel 01:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change?

  • After reading the FA requirements, especially for lead section, I'm thinking of changing the title to "Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics". Dynamics is a much better fit than physics. Otherwise, in order to be complete, the article would need to be expanded to include performance, efficiency, etc. Given the very different power plants and speed ranges of bicycle and motorcycles, I believe this would be impractical. Comments? AndrewDressel 14:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
-Done. AndrewDressel 14:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

1. This article is awfully light on non-science explanations - it would be nice if instead of "Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics is the science of the motions and forces of bicycles and motorcycles. It includes how they balance, steer, and brake." and so on that it was a bit simplified for the casual reader. For example, something like "Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics is the science of the steering, balancing, and breaking of bicycles and motorcycles." or something (I imagine that is incorrect but hopefully helps someone).

-Thanks for the suggestion on the lead paragraph. I tried to model it after other science articles, and it was a mess. AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

2. "Examples of misconception" scares me - if it were me I'd nuke it - it seems pointless and something the reader should decide. Ditto for the mention of "incorrect" online examples (which, BTW, in these articles one really needs to be more specific then just "online").

-The problem is that with the prevalence of these misconceptions, it could seem that the article is incomplete without at least addressing them. AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

3. "careful" in the lead is really redundant and speculative without attribution - "in fact", again, makes me think that the article is trying to prove some sort of point.

-Again, there are sites that refer to holding a spinning bicycle wheel to see how the gyroscopic effect keeps a bike upright. However, this is not correct. AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

4. The lead should really have less stubby "paragraphs" 5. Referencing is a bit odd, I'd recommend some sort of script to convert those links to some other more accessable reference style.

-Isn't this "Embedded HTML links" as desicribed in Wikipedia:Citing sources?AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

6. "The design charactersics of a bike can affect the stability in the following ways"

a. "caractersics" is misspelled :) -Ouch AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
b. This list should really be turned into prose

7. "A bike is a nonholonomic system because its outcome is path-dependent" and now the writer has lost me :(. This makes it difficult to evaluate the article... RN 08:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job on improving the article!! I'm still uncomfortable with the misconception section, but even that is quite a bit better. Hopefully you'll get some comments from someone else! RN 06:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewellery

This article has come a long way from the last time I nominated it foolishly too early for FAC. Not this time. Thanks to me kick starting the new look & to Bridesmill & Co for perfecting eveything, I finally think it is time to resubmit. The article was accepted into the release of Version 0.5 & was rated as an A-class article (That's one away from FA! Yay!) by the team. The article is a good representative of Wikipedia & of hard work & diverse knowledge. The article goes into most aspects of jewellery, & is planned out in a unique style. There are ample pictures & it is overally well referenced. I hope you enjoy the article & feel the same way I do about it. Thanks. Spawn Man 10:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominator Support. As per above. Spawn Man 10:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC).
  • Oppose the geographic content covered is lopsided. Too much content on European history, while Africa is absent, only India and China are covered in Asia and the Pacific gets a small mention. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, the geographic content is a bit lop-sided. I have corrected the absence of Africa, as Egypt is part of Africa, although more closely related to other Middle East countries. The reason for the absence of jewellery in the rest of Africa is that contenbt thought of as too broad, (such as a paragraph on slave beads & on South Africa's blood diamonds), was moved to other sections of the article. For the Asian reference, there is also the Paduang tribe mentioned for its body modification uses of jewellery. I think it would be unwise to try & mention every culture that's ever exsisted, as the page would be both long & repetitive. For example, in New Zealand, we have much the same jewellery as Australia & America for example. To write about all three countries & say the same things for their jewellery again & again would be pointless. The jewellery of Asia is very much the same; elegant, ceremonious & revered. China ruled much of Asia at one point, so their jewellery styles influenced much of Asia, thus making it all seems similar. This too also happened in Europe when the Romans conquered most of the continent & Roman styles were adapted throughout. Again we also see this happening with the Incas & south americans when the Spanish invaded; they adapted many of their designs. My point is, is that we should aim for a diverse selection of cultures who each use their jewellery differently, rather than add every culture whop have similar designs (which could get quite boring). Your suggestions are good, but I hope you may understand my rationale after reading this. I will definitely expand the Australasia section. I did have a referenced paragraph on the Australian opal trade, but it was deleted for some reason. Thanks a bunch! Spawn Man 00:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Instead of doing a historical analysis, (I don't see a drastic chronological evolution of jewellery), you can break it up into geographical zones, covering all six continents. Take a look at the article on Butter which is a general topic but covers the topic on a global scale without going too much into detail over each country. Secondly, what about the usage of jewellery in animals? I've read that primates and birds also use natural jewellery. This could be added perhaps as a sentence somewhere? PS will be busy till next weekend. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Found a weird caption in that Butter article: "Butter is regulary found in modern Kitchens" - quite apart from the two typos, that has to be the most pointless picture caption I've ever seen. I've chaged it. Carcharoth 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Call me stupid, but I'd like someone to explain what they want on the article exactly. I'm not one to take hints, so if you continue like this, I'll never get it done. But tell me what you want exactly & it'll be done in days or hours. For example, I would need something like this:

Cat anatomy.

Cat whiskers.
Cat noses.
Cat eyes.

Fedding habits.

Mice.
Beast mice they eat... etc etc.

If you could swap cats with jewellery & how you would like me to rearrange the text & section to your requirements, it will be done. If everyone could come to a sort of concensus it would really really help. Thanks a lot. Spawn Man 23:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - too many uncited sweeping and general statements. Some examples:
    • "many items of jewellery, such as brooches and buckles originated as purely functional items, became more decorated over time, and in some cases became purely art objects as their functional requirement disappeared." - says who?
      • I was on an extended leave from wikipedia with a couple of other editors editing this page. I referenced every paragraph apart from the one with slave beads, which I got from here. As to why my references for this paragraph was deleted, I will never know. I've rephrased & referenced the sentence.
    • "As early as the 13th century, Murano glass and Murano beads became known as the finest glass in the known world." - source? Also, repetition of 'known' is jarring.
      • I've rewritten the sentence to a well known fact, rather than speculation.
    • "Islam for instance considers the wearing of gold by men as Haram" - it is annoying for a reader to have to click the link to find out what Haram means. A short explanation is all that is needed, and should be in the article, either in the prose, or as a footnote. See Wikipedia:The_perfect_article - "the perfect article is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles."
      • I 100% agree with your point. I myself find it annoying, almost makes you feel dumb. I've changed the word linked to a commonly known word. Again, this & most of the other problems here were created whilst I was absent.
    • "It has shaped the course of history and provides various insights into how ancient cultures worked. - you fail to say anywhere how jewellery has shaped the course of history. If you say things like this, you need to expand on it and cite what someone else says about this.
      • Deleted that speculation al together. Good job pointing that out.
    • "The first signs of established jewellery making in Ancient Egypt was around 3,000-5,000 years ago." - source?
      • Again, it was referenced, reference had been deleted. Now referenced.
    • "Egyptian jewellery was predominantly made in large workshops attached to temples or palaces." - this needs a source, and this is a one-sentence paragraph. Not good. Some of the sections come across as bullet-point sentences joined together to make a paragraph, rather than flowing prose telling a narrative about the subject.
      • Again, it was referenced, reference had been deleted. Now referenced. Joined this sentence up with a bigger paragraph too.
    • Picture missing from the "Jewellery in Greece" section.
      • I'm not too sure what you mean by this? I checked & all pictures seem to be there? Maybe you could explain?
        • Gold earring from Mycenae, 16th century BCE
          Enlarge
          Gold earring from Mycenae, 16th century BCE
          is not appearing properly for me. Carcharoth 23:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
          • It's appearing for me. Maybe it is something to do with a glitch on your computer? I could replace the pic with one you can see though if it will cause you to continue to object? Thanbks.... Spawn Man 00:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The "In popular culture" section is too short. Either expand or (preferable) get rid of it. At the moment, the shorter sections drag the article down.
      • Ridded. :)

Overall, some good bits, but many bad bits as well. Needs tidying and tightening up. Nice images though, and I'd be interested to see how much better it could be in a few months. Carcharoth 22:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you for your valuable insight into what was wrong with the article. My question is: Why wait a few months when I can do it in days? I'll be adding an extension onto the Pacific section & will be doing general copyedits all round. Hopefully I can get more stuff on Africa & such too... Thanks... Spawn Man 23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC).
  • Object. Although many sections are well written and thorough, the sections on Modern jewellery and Jewellery and body modification are sorely lacking. Kaldari 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Initially I disagreed with the above comment but on further ruminating I feel they could be expanded, just not sure how. In modern jewellery I recall plasting and modelling clay type thingies, especially with broaches and things. Also, there is scope for some thing on body-mod things but this is something I know little aboutCas Liber 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes: I have significantly expanded many section of the article. These include; Jewellery in the pacific - generally expanded. Australia & New Zealand cited & expanded. Modern jewellery - Rewritten and a small expansion. I don't feel there is much more to say about how much better modern jewellery is etc. Jewellery & body modification - Added cited section about hooks & trance induced piercings. Hope this helps everyone? Thanks, Spawn Man 08:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffer Overflow

I think this page has stabalised and provides a clear and concise introduction to the subject aswell as a good overview of associated issues which have their own daughter pages. If it is not up to the standard, I think any problems can be fixed. -- Tompsci 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Object, some sections way too short. Merge some info back from the main articles. See WP:SUMMARY. —mercuryboardtalk 15:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Which sections, I added some material to two of the shortest sections. -- Tompsci 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see Heap overflow, Executable space protection, and Deep packet inspection merged into the main article, with expansions in the other areas of Protection against buffer overflow coming from the main articles. No section should have fewer than a full paragraph, and in most cases should probably be a couple small paragraphs as a summary (depending on the main article size). History could use some expansion. Additional example source code in a higher level language might be clearer to the novice reader. Consider your audience. WP:LEAD is going to need to be expanded and definitely written for understanding by a more general audience. I understand the article, but I'm also a CS major. You also need to cite references, see WP:CITE. I know somebody's going to bring that up soon. I've just finished a monstrous overhaul for my own FAC, so I know it's a daunting task, but definitely possible. —mercuryboardtalk 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Good points, but a few objections. A higher level language is probably immune to buffer overflows, since they have bounds checking (i.e. Java). Also, I don't think the article should cater for a more general audience as is it of no use to them. Maybe the wording could be tweaked to make it more accessible though. About references, where are they needed?[citation needed] Cheers -- Tompsci 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure your External links could be converted to References and give you a start as to making sure this article is properly cited. —mercuryboardtalk 18:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You need to read WP:FOOT and WP:CITE. —mercuryboardtalk 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
More references added. Still more to come. -- Tompsci 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be best to use the {{cite}} templates as described in the above links. —mercuryboardtalk 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment Could do with more images to break up the text, particularly the long last section, and more references (would also be better to use the reference template/footnote stuff to replace inline links). NicM 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC).
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object For one, the "history" section starts out at 1988 - surely they were known before then, or perhaps it needs to be restructured accordingly with a different section name (i.e. moved to exploits or something). Referencing is inadiquite - a general reference such as a good C book should probably be used. Also, as a nitpick I'd like it to be a bit more descriptive and the lead a bit longer - i.e. often "crashes" are the result of memory protection. RN 07:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Title now more specific, more references and altered lead. -- Tompsci 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
WOW! Well done :). I'm sort of lukewarm about the examples (even though they are nice :)) though as they seem kind of unencyclopedic, but consider this my Tentative Support pending the below issue addressed! RN 06:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, "Use of safe libraries" could use an inline citation or two, ditto for "Choice of programming language."RN 07:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per above--ppm 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Comment The link under Deep Packet Inspection to Heuristics points to a very general page on Heuristics. I believe it needs link to Heuristic_(computer_science)--FrostFiend 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- Tompsci 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Article meets FA criteria; content is stable in terms of value, not in terms of vandalism (i.e., GA-related edit-wars, etc.) Peer reviewed and Passed GA with vast consensus. —Rob (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose Poor lead, and too many one sentence paragraphs abound in the article. Generally does not flow like a FA should. --Wisden17 15:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not impressed with the writing (which strikes me as merely decent) but a bigger issue is the continual edit warring over the article. I don't think this article meets the "stability" requirement for an FA. As evidence of this, I should note that editors are arguing on the article's talk page about whether the article even deserves to be listed as a "good article" (with some editors listing it as such and others removing the listing).--Alabamaboy 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The article does not satisfy the FA criteria 2(b), since it neglects major factors which contributed to this controversy. (See: [10]). And btw. the article did not pass GA. Raphael1 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It passed several times and was vetoed several times to be exact. Homestarmy 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Article is poorly-constructed, heavily biased and full of basic errors of sense, spelling mistakes, incorrectly identified references etc. (see the outstanding problems listed on its talk page). It has been delisted from GA twice, and yet the critiques of those delisting it have not been addressed in anything but the most cursory and dismissive manner. (Incidentally, the FA nomination above is quite misleading: vandalism has played no part in the GA-related "edit wars", the article has not been peer reviewed, and it did not "[pass] GA with a vast consensus" but rather it was promoted to GA by a single user, HighwayCello, twice — perhaps what Rob means is that its advocates achieved a supermajority in a GA Disputes page discussion.) — JEREMY 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "non-content-related editing" would have been a better term. Nonetheless, if a supermajority (or, as I read it, consensus) works for featured articles, I fail to see, even granting that WP:GA doesn't have very many set standards, how consensus doesn't apply to GA. As for the article itself, I would help with the flow but I'm a poor copyeditor. —Rob (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I take back the "no vandalism" comment, given I have in fact accused those promoting the article to GA against its rules of vandalism. I'd ask that you change your "peer review" claim and clarify the "passed GA with vast consensus" wording, above. — JEREMY 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could we please keep the GA war out of this nomination? Let's try keeping this nomination relevant and only comment on the content of the article. --Maitch 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article has real a problem with the flow.
    • Merge the overview section with the timeline. The lead should be the only overview section.
    • The "Danish Imams tour the Middle East" section needs to be shortened. It already has a sub article, so we will not waste any information.
    • The timeline should include the massive demonstrations around the world, which right now are mysteriously omitted.
    • There are three really short sections, which only purpose seems to be to lead the reader towards a sub article. Something needs to be done with those. These are "Descriptions of the drawings", "International reactions" and "Economic and human costs".
    • Rewrite the section "Comparable references" into prose. --Maitch 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. In addition to all the above, the article has too much 'back-and-forth' in the line of "this side says X, that side says Y". Although a degree of that is necessary in an article of this nature, in this case it overwhelms the content and disrupts the flow of the text. The intro in particular needs to be rewritten to focus more on the basic facts and less on vague opinions by "supporters" and "critics". --Aquillion 20:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is slightly biased. The recent edit warring as well as the issues mentioned to the above don't make it a quealified Featured Article (yet! - be bold and keep improving it! - there's always hope!). --HolyRomanEmperor 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; prose still seems as choppy as a current event article ("In Muslim societies, for a Muslim to insult the prophet Muhammad is one of the most serious crimes anyone could commit." reads like a school project on Islam), article is not consistant on Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohammed etc. and masses of white space is occuring in some bits of the article, such as "Reprinting in other newspapers". Plus, listing an article for FA because it failed GA seems too "Pointy". smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
A big part of the problem is at this point, I have no idea if it passed GA or not. I do know that in my opinion it's not a huge leap to FA status from where it's at right now; refinement just needs to occur, and maybe at some point in the near-term or far-term, it might be stable. Just because an issue is unusually controversial doesn't mean it can't be FA, though. —Rob (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon etc. discussions

  • Oppose, simply because I believe the image should be hidden behind a link and not appear immediately and involuntarily to the reader. I feel pretty strongly about that and I doubt I could ever feel comfortable supporting this article unless the presentation of that image is done in a less provocative way. Everyking 11:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This ridiculous objection can be safely ignored. Raul654 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I suppose you are the one best in a position to ignore it, Raul, but I don't like having my objection called ridiculous. There is a serious controversy about the presentation of this image, and a good many Wikipedians feel it is quite inappropriate to present the image to the reader without giving him or her a choice about viewing it. I will concede that it would not be possible to implement my suggestion, due to the apparent majority in favor of having the image as it is, but I maintain that the controversy is simply too deep, serious and ongoing for this article to be featured now. Everyking 08:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Your objection can be ignored because it goes flatly against policy - eg, that Wikipedia is not censored. Moreover, it's not as if the image is gratitious - if we want to inform readers about the controversy surrounding the cartoons, it would be extremely remiss of us not to actually show the cartoons. Raul654 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
          • You're simplifying an issue that is much more complex. Wikipedia is full of censorship in a loose sense: tactful, considered choice and placement of images. That's not the same thing as deleting the image outright, which would be censorship. I would not in a million years want for us to not present the image—my concern is about how it is presented, with an eye towards cultural sensitivity without eliminating the information. Everyking 03:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm essentially in accord with this, although I feel a slightly better solution would be to spin-off a "cartoon" article with the images and descriptions, then replace the image of the cartoon in the main article with an image showing an aspect of the controversy itself (ie. the actual subject of the article) such as a burning embassy or a mob of protesters. Failing that, the image should be moved down the article to a place more appropriate to its relevance to the article subject. (Of course, if you attempt to convince the article's champions of either your or my solution, they will refer triumphantly to their straw polls, which reject anything less than placing the cartoon images at the head of the article as prominently as possible to demonstrate their solidarity with the Free Speech position adopted by Jyllands-Posten.) — JEREMY 12:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Totally ridiculous idea to move the cartoons to another article, the cartoons are at the heart of what the article is about. As far as the motivations for why the cartoons are as prominently displayed as they are why not conduct a survey of the 200+ individuals who expressed their view about where the cartoons should be shown rather than make an attempt at blanket referring to the sum of their motivations as being in accord with a desire to, "demonstrate their solidarity with the Free Speech position adopted by Jyllands-Posten". Such conjecture really strikes me as mean spirited. Netscott 13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the images are a problem where they are. It is important to remember that context is important; when they were originally published, most of the Islamic world saw them as a deliberate insult to Muhammad and Islam. On the other hand, simply reporting on them is not a deliberate insult; many papers in the Islamic world (such as El Fagr in Egypt) reprinted them while reporting on them without attracting anyone's ire. Likewise, republications intended to 'take a stand for free speech' (and therefore, implictly, against an Islamic anti-free speech movement) were seen as an insult to Islam, while republications commenting more neutrally on the controversy generally weren't. As long as the article is NPOV, in other words, any images used within its context will be, too. --Aquillion 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The way the events were unfolding regarding this controversy does not support your thesis, that republications weren't perceived as insult. In fact there have been more violent protests as the cartoons were republished in various newspapers. Raphael1 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - While I personally support free speech and the right of newspapers to print whatever cartoons they like, I am a bit concerned that by placing the image right there on the page with no warning, it actually pushes one POV. We would appear to clearly support the free speech camp. On the other hand, not showing the cartoon at all would put us firmly on the side of the protesters. Therefore I feel that putting the image on a separate page is an effective NPOV compromise (although perhaps not perfect). By not compromising, I worry that Wikipedia might become part of the controversy rather than just reporting on it. The reaction of different segments of the Muslim public to reprinting the cartoon in other media is irrelevant either way. We shouldn't care what people think. It's impossible to please everyone. I will support any decision as long as it sticks to what in my mind is the #1 goal of Wikipedia: neutrality. A newspaper is not obliged to stay neutral on its editorial page. We are.Sheep81 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is truly like déjà vu. My only recommendation to those who don't agree with the display characteristics is to do like was repetitively done previously and conduct a straw poll. User:Aquillion's comments above couldn't be more eloquent in explaining that it is about context. The most strident agitator for censorship of the cartoons User:Raphael1 himself said that he'd be fine to see the cartoons displayed on the islamophobia article... his reason? I'll paraphrase here, "Because Wikipedia would be making a statement against the cartoons by doing so." Wikipedia is not in the making statements business (not a soap box). Regardless, corresponding to his view they'd be fine there for informational purposes, well excuse me but why are they on this very article? Netscott 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Aquillion's comments could in fact be more eloquent... for instance, if they were factually accurate. Sheep81 08:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Comment withdrawn, inappropriate tone... must get more sleep. Sheep81 08:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe that there's people in earnest suggesting to move the cartoons to another page than the one that they're on, beliving that it will make the article more NPOV - That's like suggesting that a mathematical formula should be listed on another page than the page describing the formula, because some oddball religion thinks mathematical formulas is an affront to all that is holy and therefore the formula should be placed on another page for greater "NPOV". It's simply ridiculus; Without the cartoons, no controversy. Finally, anybody searching for "Muhammed cartoons controversy" or clicking a link saying that should expect to see the Muhammed cartoons that created the controversy. Now, this article might have some problems with it's flow, may need to have some sections shortened and others (like the timeline) elaborated; These are valid problems with the article. But please, the cartoons are right where they need to be and any and all criticism of the cartoons are therefore invalid and only serves to distract the editors from the real improvements the article needs. The.valiant.paladin 14:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Your analogy is off the mark. But you are right, there are other problems with the article that need attention and the placement of the image is clearly a done deal anyway.Sheep81 08:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a "done deal" so long as the short-term one-cause wikipedians defending it so vehemently continue to hang around here. Once they've gotten bored and left, sanity and good sense can and will be restored. I give it a year or so. — JEREMY 08:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy, you've done well to make a foolish statement that is excellent in a capacity to mischaracterize Wikipedians but lacking otherwise. You've falied to mention one key aspect here and that is that the display characteristics of the cartoons are not going to change until general consensus about them changes. As well you've called those who've endeavored to maintain respect of the current consensus "fanatics" which is a personal attack against such individuals and is very poor form to say the least. We mustn't forget Jeremy that it is policy to not personally attack other editors on Wikipedia. Netscott 10:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't really a personal attack in my view... (maybe WP:CIVIL). Ian¹³/t 14:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Seeking Consensus Rob, as the only person supporting the article's FA nomination in the discussions above, are you prepared to withdraw your nomination at this point? Is there anyone else who'd like to add a support vote, lest this be recorded as a unanimous rejection? — JEREMY 07:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe I can have a vote as the nominator (at least, in my head, that's how it should work)... plus I think an administrator usually does that sort of process-related thing. It'll take care of itself. —Rob (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rob, good idea.. to let the process complete itself. Jeremy's the only one asking for you to withdraw your nomination. One wonders if he might be looking for a little satisfaction from an early close. Cheers. Netscott 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA personality theory

From my own perusal and judgment this article meets the criteria necessary for FA status; it has already attained the honour of being a "good article" and has also met the broad criticisms required of the peer review process. Were it to become a Featured article then it would be one of very few psychology-related articles to attain said status; this article is of an in-depth, special nature and puts forth many interesting concepts. -- D-Katana 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong object - A lot of work has gone into this article, but I see not a single inline citation or reference from a recognized, well-known peer-reviewed, medical or psychological journal. There are very few inline citations, and most of the inline citations are to the author of the concept, so the reader gets little idea whether this "theory" is well received in the broader community of its peers. I also see no criticism section. The TOC is also overwhelming. The article almost seems like a vanity entry for the Horney author. All of Horney's books are published by Norton: what kind of editorial review process did they have, or is it akin to self-publishing? What is the applicability of this theory? There is a discussion of predictive aspects, but what do medical peers say about the predictive aspects? What studies on the predictive aspects have been done? Were they controlled, and on large samples? What broad acceptance or practical application does the theory have from peers? If some of these questions are answered, and if citations and references to reputable peer-reviewed journals are added, I'll reconsider support. Sandy 23:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
There are no theories of personality yet accepted by peers. Also; I suggest you read Karen Horney's article - she is to this day a well regarded psychiatrist, and her work forms much of the structure of this particular theory of personality. There is also a reference to one Dr. Hobgood - a woman researching this theory with over 1,000 patients; and perhaps you would be interested by Livesley's study which concluded that narcissism was a resoundingly inherited trait of personality? Do you believe that with illustrious companions such as the "Japanese Blood Type Theory of Personality", "Spin-mediated Consciousness Theory", or the "Triangular Theory of Love" accompanying it in the psychological theories section that the NPA theory is somehow inferior? Perhaps we ought to make clearer, in the form of articles regards this field (such as one for the highly respected Livesley), that genetics as a personality trait is a serious and ongoing field? Once that is done would you change your vote? Or are all personality theory articles excluded until utterly proven? As to the self-promotion accusations, I believe these to be uncalled for. I nominated this article, as I personally was hugely impressed by its content and merit. Also, as a closing point; the Verification section could be changed to "Criticisms" in order to illustrate your points. -- D-Katana 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that the NPA personality theory is on par with the Japanese blood type theory of personality and has virtually no acceptance amongst psychologists then the article should clearly reflect that in its lead. Quoting from the lead of the "Japanese blood type theory of personality" article, "this theory is dismissed by many scientists as superstition or pseudoscience". Cedars 05:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object - For the same reasons as Sandy, there is no sense of how widely accepted this theory is and where it is being applied. There is insufficient criticism of the theory. It now also appears that the pseudoscientific nature of the subject is not properly represented. Cedars 05:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter

I nominated this because it was one of the best I've seen, and is better than some featured articles I've seen in the past. andrew... 13:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. I read this article a week ago while trying to find out information on the next book (perhaps due out next year) and found the article to be poorly organized and extremely frustrating to read. For example, there is no listing and summary of the six published books in the series (along the lines of what the article gives for the main characters). In addition, the overview of the series devotes a ton of space to the first book and then one short paragraph to summarizing the next five books. Finally, I never did find the link to Harry Potter book seven and had to search elsewhere to find it. Overall, this article is not an example of Wikipedia's best.--Alabamaboy 14:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I need to read the article more thoroughly in order to make a full comment/vote, but will just add that I read the article yesterday, and exactly the same concern struck me - no neatly laid-out overview of the books whatsoever, and no discernible link to the seventh book (which is what I went to the article looking for in the first place). Seb Patrick 15:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Response to Objections *First off, this nomination surprised the hell out of me. A series overview can easily be written if this is what is needed, but I'm personally of the opinion that the status quo will do. If you go through each novel's respective article you'll find them teeming with information, it's practically a chapter by chapter cliff note. I don't imagine that they were always that way, but people just kept adding crap on top of crap. A neat chapter by chapter guide resembling the character guide in this article would probably lead to the same. In my opinion, cut the crap early and maintain more control over the article by declining to send an invitation to a stream of eager annonymous editors who are sure to bring a ton of spoilers that will piss someone off; less is more. It's not that it's impossible to write (if it's absolutely essential I'll suck it up), but it wasn't really out of carelessness that it wasn't added. I also don't think its absence makes the article "poorly organized," as far as I can see and what's been said so far, the rest of the article is quite good. (A link to every published book, video game, movie, and future installment can be found in the link in the series template box at the bottom of the page, by the way, though every book save the seventh was linked to throughout the article and it has since been linked to in the future section) TonyJoe 03:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I hate to differ, but in this case "less is not more." Myself and another editor independently went to the article and were 1) Unable to find info we wanted to find and 2) Believed the article should have a listing of each book. Just because that info is in related articles doesn't mean it shouldn't be summarized in the main article. However, there are other issues with the article that also need to be addressed. For example, in the first paragraph of the "Themes & motifs" section, the article states that "One of the most enduring themes throughout the series is that of love..." The reference for this is Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (U.S. Hardback), pages 844 and 511. As an editor who works on numerous literary articles here, this is the first case I've seen where critical analysis such as this is only supported by referencing the original work. This strikes me as original research. What should be referenced are critical reviews, essays, or critiques of the books which state what the themes and motiffs are, not passages from the books themselves. The entire "Themes & motifs" section suffers from this and, as a result, is probably original research and not allowed. Please don't take me wrong on all of this--I love the Harry Potter books. The problem is that this article needs a lot of work before it can become a FA. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand the desire here to add book details, this is most likely true. In addition your opinion on themes and motifs seems valid. However information on the seventh book can be found is almost any Potter article, they are at the bottum in the nice template. SorryGuy 00:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article has greatly improved of late, but this FA is far premature. The prose is weak: for example, "Criticism" could be slimmed down a bit (does it really need six or seven setences on what Steven King thought when three or four would do?). Half of the paragraph discussing Taylor from Salon.com is one huge sentence! "Origins and publishing history" needs a lot of work (both blockquotes could be rewritten as regular text); some of its later material seems like it could go under "Commercial success" or "Pottermania" or elsewhere. "Themes and motiffs" is still under-cited as it is, and really should still be slimmed, since you're summarizing a separate article (see WP:SS). I'm personally unfond of character lists, since they enable cruftiness (in myself not least!). I would prefer that each character receive two or three sentences at most and that be it, and to have them all is flowing paragraphs. There really also should be a discrete subheading for the plot synopsis. In my opinion, there's still not enough on the films for a FA. I understand the books drive the franchise, but the movies are important. (Side note: if you were to follow the example of Revenge of the Sith or Attack of the Clones, you could probably get the HP movies featured.) I'm unsure what value the photo of the boxes of books adds. --Monocrat 15:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. (This version: [11]). I have many concerns. Ones marked with "m" are minor points. (1m) There are two spoiler warnings. Is the one before "origins" really needed? (2) Generally speaking, there are some long, awkward sentences, and the text doesn't always flow. Two examples: in the lead, the full stop after "criticized, both literarily and otherwise." was very annoying, and left me wanting to read at least a brief summary of the criticism, and the flow to the next sentence is very bad. In the origins section, the transition after "He sent the manuscript to Bloomsbury..." is bad. First of all, the use of an ellipsis is probably a bad idea most of the time in encyclopedia articles, but here particularly, there's a stop after Bloomsbury, and in the next sentence there's a link for Bloomsbury, and you then explain what it is. (3) I think the statement that "J. K. Rowling" was used instead of "Joanne Rowling" to appeal to males needs specific sourcing. (4m) I don't like the use of superlatives and comparatives in this article. "very popular." "very high profile". Drop the word very. Putting it another way, show, don't tell. Generally speaking, I felt like the prose was gushing about the books and their popularity in some places. (5m) Nice use of bildungsroman, but could you maybe hide the actual term? It's very distracting. Perhaps [[bildungsroman|novels of education]]? (If not, at least pluaralize). (6) I strongly object to referencing the Voldemort article in this article. See WP:ASR. Also, WP is not a reliable source. Cite a linguistic source of some kind for the claim. In fact, I'm quite suspicious of the sourcing of the Themes & Motifs subsection in general: surely there is an analysis of Harry Potter that can be cited? Citing the books directly in a section that analyzes them is a kind of original research. (7) The criticism section needs work. You discuss what A. S. Byatt says, but the importance of that particular piece of criticism is not at all clear. It would help if you mentioned the venue that criticism appeared in, and the fact that it prompted reactions from many other authors. Also, the context into which A. S. Byatt's remarks fits is not given. That was a review in 2003, LONG after the series was published. What was the general reaction from critics before that? In summary, I see issues of undue weight in this section, and I also have concern about the neutrality: in essence, the text lets Stephen King and Charles Taylor have the final word, while critics who agreed with Byatt get only two lines of mention. Is that the actual landscape of the reaction? Frankly, it may not matter: I think probably this whole Byatt business isn't really that important, and should be reduced to at most a couple of paragraphs. (8) In the Controversy section: shouldn't the Christian witchcraft denouncement thing come first? You're presenting a history here; you should probably give some dates, and put things in chronological order. (9) I find the article insufficiently illustrated. I would think someone could find a reasonable image of J.K. Rowling (actually, the one in the JK Rowling article has a fair use claim for this article, but it seems a little out of date there), and perhaps a screenshot or poster for one of the movies? (10) The cultural impact section needs work, or could even be removed. It's no surprise that Harry Potter has been parodied, and a link to the Harry Potter parodies article is reasonable, but this section seems like a "Trivia" section (not something I want in a featured article), and a thin one at that. Surely the few facts in this section could be incorporated elsewhere, except for the emergency medical assistance bit, which should probably be removed. (11m) As a general point, I agree that some brief mention should be made of each of the books, so that it's clear which books are in the series and which is which. (12) There are ten books in the Further reading section written by people other than J.K. Rowling about the Harry Potter world or the Harry Potter books. However, none of the references in the article currently refer to the books. I think most of the specific references are reasonable, but it would be nice if this article used those books are sources more and used the Harry Potter books less. We should, after all, avoid primary sources when we can. Okay, that's it. Huge chunk, I know. I'm not sure if any editors of Harry Potter are actually fighting for this FAC; in case they aren't, I put a permalink up top so if someone wants to know later which version I was looking at, there it is. Mangojuicetalk 19:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Another small objection: I think it might be premature to feature this article before the last book comes out. Not that every FA of this type needs to have its subject itself "complete" - but in this case, the last book, one that could upset nearly everything about Harry Potter (or could not) is probably about a year away. Can we wait a little bit on this one?
And if not, well, there are still many other problems with the article. It's just not very well-written. The second sentence is already about criticism, and uses the word "literarily"? Immediately following we have the empty, unmodified "this", an awkward phrase (in addition to its original medium) splittling a verb and its objects, and it doesn't get much better from there. A high school English teacher would tear this apart. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Just for curiosity's sake, what's wrong with the usage of the word "literarily?"TonyJoe 01:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, for one, it's just an awkward word in and of itself. But the real reason is that it's used incorrectly in the sentence. Saying "the books have been criticised... literarily" means that the books have been criticized in regards to literature, which is meaningless and gibberish. What is meant, of course, that the books have been criticized in regards to literary merit, but that's not what the sentence says. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I considered objecting b/c of the 7th book not being out yet. But it doesn't really make sense to me. That material can become incorporated later. And it's not like any subject is totally static; new developments can occur for just about any article. Besides, feature status isn't irrevocable. If the article becomes bad later it can be delisted. Mangojuicetalk 21:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Reading through several of the sections in this article I must agree with many of the above objections. In addition the prose does not seem FA in multiple locations. I will do my best to fix these myself and hopefully change to support soon. SorryGuy 01:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Strong Object and suggest Peer Review: A Good article, but I think that this Article needs a Peer Review, where it will hopefully highly critical comments. False Prophet 17:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom and Jerry (MGM)

I have nominated this article because Tom and Jerry are deep rooted in cultrue around the globe, the article is well written and neutral, provides documentation, and is fun to read. Maclover134 13:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: try and split the LEAD into parapgraphs, make it look a bit more organised :) --Skully Collins 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object There strikes me as being too much detail in the history section, but nothing about how critics have viewed the franchise over time. The part about Ted Turner is unnecessary or could be placed elsewhere. The writing (e.g., the part about Turner) is drab. "Plot" and "Characters" could be reorganized: you spend most of "Characters/Tom and Jerry" discussing plot resolutions. There are only two references and absolutely no inline citations. You should probably send this through Peer Review.--Monocrat 17:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linfield F.C.

This article is concise, interesting and NPOV, it is enlightening and novel.Starsweep 11:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - it's a bit brief, and lacks any citations whatsoever. The prose needs cleaning up in a few places, the squad list looks strange with all those question marks in (how hard would it be to find out the missing player numbers?), and there's a lot of ambiguity in the "Biggest club in Ireland" section (does it mean the entirety of Ireland, or just Northern Ireland?), a section that also desperately needs citations and verification of the claim it makes. Even if some of these problems were addressed, however, I'm not sure it's FA material due to its brevity - however, if the citations and prose (and amount of redlinks) were sorted, I'd say it might have a decent shout at being a GA instead. Seb Patrick 12:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Its brevity is a plus point, the reason being that so many FA's are arduously long, it is my view that one of reasonable brevity should make the grade and for this the Linfield F.C. article fits the bill. It's a very intersting article and should be seriously considered and not just brushed aside because in one person's view it lacks the odd citation. Starsweep 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't just lack "the odd" citation, though - it doesn't have any, nor are there any references. That's not my "view", it's a simple fact. And unfortunately, these are now prerequisites for a featured article - please see the criteria for more information. Seb Patrick 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object This article is definitely not of featured quality. It lacks any photos (a simple photo of the stadium should be relatively easy to find or take), and has no references whatsoever. A large number of statements definitely need support from sources. And while brevity in itself is not a concern, incomprehensiveness is. The article has a "notable players" section, but none of them are mentioned in the article itself. The "History" section leaves enormous gaps (while there is extesive attention for the most recent season), as does the "European record" section. Other parts could use some elaboration and a part about past managers (either a section or integrated) is missing. The section "Biggest club in Ireland" is wrongly titled (except for the first paragraph). The links section has mostly links about Irish football in general, and the See also section features articles already linked from the article itself. Jeronimo 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, main reasons are (a) no citations or references at all, (b) large gaps in history section, (c) too much current history in relation to the other info, (d) some sections are too short, (e) strange squad section, (f) a lot more... A suggestion is to take a look at the currently featured football club articles in Wikipedia; Arsenal F.C., Manchester City F.C. and IFK Göteborg, to get some ideas what it takes to get to the FA status. – Elisson • Talk 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Some reasons include:
    • Has not been submitted to peer review.
      • this is not a requirement for becoming a FA, AFAIK Jeronimo 10:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • True, so I've combined it with the objection below. Qwghlm 22:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Lots of copyedits needed for writing style & formatting. The prose needs improvement and could do with a peer review first.
    • Club history is nowhere near comprehensive, too present-oriented.
    • Famous ex-players mostly redlinks; no criteria given for inclusion.
    • "See also" section not at all necessary.
    • Needs to cite sources and provide references. Qwghlm 00:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and the article also lacks images (aside from the club logo). Qwghlm 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martha Stewart

This article was a former featured article removed because of a couple problems with neutrality and applying too much focus to the ImClone scandal. The section on ImClone has been moved to it's own article, and the neutrality issue is no longer a problem, so I think it's time to resubmit it. --Alex 05:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Object I believe Wikipedia:Inline Citations (as per WP:CITE) are now required in WP:FACs. It can be a nasty twist if you are not used to such a thing, however. Also, trivia sections almost always attract great opposition at FAC. RN 05:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: Alex, have you read this before? Honestly, I think the Martha Stewart article needs to be a lot of work before this can even be nominated. I'm not trying to be nasty or anything, but I think there would simply be too much work for you to do in order to get this up and running in the near future. (If you really want an elaboration, just ask). Also, has this article been nominated for an FA in the past? If so, where is the archive of the old FA?--P-Chan 06:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It was featured as part of the brilliant prose batches - see [12] RN 06:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Unduely strong? Yeah maybe you've right, but it's suprising that a person with so much coverage, fame, controversy, history and money surrounding her would have an article so small and incomplete. (But yes, the prose is nice I agree with you there).  :) --P-Chan 06:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Heh - I never commented on the prose myself :). Anyway, often what happens here with former FAs (and it seems to be happening more now) is a clash of sorts between FARC and FAC standards. That is, often the standards to "keep a article featured" are much lower then what it is to go to featured normally, so sometimes people think that can get close to the former only to find themselves coming up against the newer, much higher, standards such as the requirement of inline citations. RN 06:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I did not realize that the standrards have improved very much. I still believe that it is a strong article, much of it was expanded by myself and a few other users over the last 2-3 months. I've read it back when it was a FA, and it is much nicer that it was when it still had that designation. --Alex 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
            • To RN and Alex: it's nice to know that standards have improved over time. I'm a little suprised as to how much of a improvement there has been. For example, I dug this up from the Martha Stewart Archive and.... wow. [13]. (Yeah I agree with you Alex, you did add a lot to the article.) :)--P-Chan 06:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, it can be discouraging at times. I wouldn't think too much of it though - if you want to try for something less involving there is good articles now that is basically the same requirements as what featured articles used to be, so you can nominate yours there once you think it meets the good article criteria. (Good articles is, unlike WP:FAC, not a formal process, but the status is still basically close to a featured article). I'd also recommend taking a look at the article assessment table. RN 06:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Alex, you may also want to get it peer reviewed along with the GAnomination. It should hopefully help you scope out what content to focus on. The biggest thing you have to do right now is expand on the content. I can see every section in the article doubling in size, and act as headings for subheadings. (Make sure the pictures are properly sourced and have encyclopedic value, as you don't want to have 10 pictures of her smiling.) Best to you! --P-Chan 07:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I've expanded it a bit, andhow to I submit it for a good article?--Alex 03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Dude, there's like hardly any difference from last time. I think you might be rushing things too much here. Building up a quality article takes a lot of care and is not something that can be done overnight. If you put it up for a GAnomination, I'm certain it's going to lose, but at least you might get some feedback from the one user. I suggest, instead that you go through a peer review first. And during that peer review say that you are trying to shape this article into FA status. Also, try to invite people who are knowledgable about the topic to peer review your article. The feedback that you will be getting, hopefully will move the article forward. If you have any questions feel free to ask.--P-Chan 03:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
First, I'm not a dude my friend! second, I was just stating that I had tried to expand it a little, I didn't mean that I though it was already in featured article shape. thanks for you imput anyways! --Alex 04:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoops! (Oh man I'm such a dork.) Err anyways.. maam, here is the info that you're looking for.
If you need any help, just ask!--P-Chan 04:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 17:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infiniti G20

It is a well rounded article that seemingly is referred to in my circles. The article is stable and does not have any editing wars. The references are adequate for a car with the popularity level it possesses coupled with that most of the information is homebrew in nature (stemming from a tight knit owner community). Also some sections of the article only appear on the wikipedia for other sources have been lost to time (i.e. paint code and sales per calendar year). I look forward to comments and if possible marginal edits. Thank you Zoli Elo 21:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Not enough references, among other problems. "Homebrew" information isn't acceptable for a featured article. Also, too many short sections, and rethink section order - should a one paragraph "Marketing" section really be the first after the lead? Pagrashtak 22:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the suggestion on the "Marketing" section order. Maybe a move to after the "First Generation 1991-1996 (P10") and "Second Generation 1999-2002 (P11)?" Or moving "Marketing" and "Engine" into a subsection of a new section? Do you have any overall section reordering, exact thoughts? Thanks. Zoli Elo 23:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Also for the "Homebrew" information that included is quasi folkloric in nature, how would one go about properly referencing such information? I would hate to cut such information on the base that it is "poorly" referenced.... Zoli Elo 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I notice you've got a recent peer review for this article that's still open. Typically, peer reviews are closed when an article is nominated at FAC. However, I would suggest withdrawing this FAC for now and let the peer review run first. This article will need work before it has a shot at being featured. Pagrashtak 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eurovision Song Contest

Self-nomination

Okay, I think this is ready! I am re-submitting this article for FA consideration, after having done a lot of work on it. Before I started, it looked like this, and was in dire need of a re-write. I re-wrote the entire article from scratch, as so. However, it was still a little sketchy and lacked references, so I worked to get it up to Good Article standard (seen here). After some more work, I submitted it for FA candidacy when it was in this state, but the nomination failed, although I addressed many of the objections raised. From this, I began to have a much clearer idea of the FA criteria, and have since understood exactly why it failed the first time. I decided to concentrate on really addressing everything possible, in order to bring the article up to standard. I made sure that all major points were referenced, and expanded on any vague explanations to make them as encyclopædic and comprehensive as possible. A peer review was carried out, in which many very useful points were raised by fellow Wikipedian Bravada, to whom I am very grateful for his input. I addressed all the addressable points raised, and the article's quality was raised enormously; thanks to his strict criticism ;) There are points which were not addressed, but to my mind they are not addressable - and only a matter of preference as to how one would write the article. I do believe that there are no remaining addressable criticisms which could knock this nomination down, based upon Wikipedia guidelines. Following the useful peer review, I have carried out many more tweaks, re-writes and stylistic edits; finally going through the entire things, word-by-word with a fine-tooth comb. I am very proud of this article, and — as I now have greater understanding of what the criteria are for an article to be featured — I do believe it is ready.

So, fellow Wikipedians, I refer it to you: please, if you have any addressable concerns with the article then mention them here and I will promptly deal with them. If you have no objections, then please support. Thank you :) EuroSong talk 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • SupportRlevse 10:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - 12 points, well structured, written and referenced. Rossrs 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support no objections ST47 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild Support the rules section seems to be overly complicated when there is a separate page for them, perhaps the current rules only would be sufficient for the main page? Also I think there is a lot of jumping around in the chronology which can get confusing, perhaps a list showing the years of the main changes would help. Terri G 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is structured to be themed, not chronological. Do you think that a list of years showing major changes would be repeating too much information, or do you think it would be okay? It can be easily done... I just did not do such a thing because I thought it might make the article too repetitive. The separate rules page is not a good article at all - in fact it was created as a "break-out" article from an ancient version of this main article, and as it stands is pretty poor. It's one of my next projects to work on actually :) Therefore I have included all the important rules here in this article as it stands, and information contained in poorly-written other articles does not influence the flow or content of this article. Thank you for your (mild) support :) EuroSong talk 19:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Very good, all-round. Kingfisherswift 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: A better lead-off picture would help to draw in the reader. Right now, the massive amount of text with a logo that is basically text isn't friendly to my visual sensibilities. A captured image of the actual contest might be better perhaps? --ScienceApologist 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Funny you should mention this. I have, myself, been thinking this for a long time: however I have not really come up with a suitable, appropriate alternative. The article used to have a more colourful logo: the old one, which was used for the Contest from 1956–1993. However, this was replaced with this modern, generic logo.. which — although accurate — is rather bland, I agree. The problem with having a screen shot is that it would necessarily come from one particular year, and while that might be very appropriate for the invididual Eurovision year articles which exist, it is really not what I want for the main article. No single year should be given precedence – not least in the lead. Perhaps someone can suggest something I haven't thought of? Until then, I'll keep the current logo. Thank you for your comment; do you like the rest of the article anyway? EuroSong talk 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
A screenshot from Congratulations, showing a lotof different artists from different years on stage together? I have only seen some fragments of Congratulations, so I don't know whether there was an appropriate scene, but the stage and performances seemed kitchy enough to serve as an illustration for the entire ESC. Bravada, talk - 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Possibly. I don't actually have the programme with me though, so such a screenshot would have to be uploaded by someone else. However, the image of "kitschy" is something I want to get far away from. If such an image is used it should be a decent, sensible one. EuroSong talk 08:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you, but if its to be about Eurovision, you won't get far away from that. Bravada, talk - 11:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
For me, Eurovision has never been about that. It's just about beautiful music and international friendship :) EuroSong talk 12:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Important in European Culture Flymeoutofhere 12:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA Premier League

This article was previously nominated (see here) but failed. Since that time a number of editors have working to bring the article up to FAC standards. The use of lists has been vastly reuced, the article is well-written and far more informative than it once was, and the content is complete and written from a NPOV. - Pal 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - per nom. - Pal 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — "The decision to go with pay TV is still criticised by many, particularly with reference to the cost when compared with other pay TV platforms around Europe that offer coverage of live top flight domestic football." is not supported by a reference; it also contains what some may consider to be weasel words ;) — Deckiller 07:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I've junked that sentence. I'm working on referencing or eliminating any other unreferenced statements. Oldelpaso 09:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Jeronimo 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The Norwegian picture is hardly illustrative or relative. Furthermore, it requires people to zoom in to even read what it's about, and read even further to understand what's going on. Instead, I would expect some pictures of relevant players, coaches, clubs, etc. There are many available in Wikipedia.
    • A lot of the article is very listy, without any prose. The all-time table is nice, but I'm not sure it belongs (in full form) in this article. Similarly, the "current season" get's a lot of detail, but the other seasons don't. The article should be a good overview of the entire history, not just today. Make it a separate article (if not already present).
    • The article needs more references to the previous league system; and I think it may even be better to join the article with Football League First Division, as it is basically just it's continuation under a different name.
    • The media section has a tiny bit on "worldwide", but it is supposedly one of the most internationally followed sports leagues. More must (and can) be said about it. The media section also completely focuses on TV, but there are other media. We'd also like to know more figures on numbers of spectators throughout history (not just the 2006 figure) to get a better perspective.
Could you clarify point two please? On one hand you say the article is too list heavy, yet including more details on prior seasons would likely necessitate inclusion of more lists in order to show participating teams (a list of this type was actually removed recently). Or perhaps your referring to the "team movement" section? Because that really could be removed. Thanks. - Pal 21:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a two things in my second point: 1) Long lists or tables are best avoided, unless they're essential to the article. Replace it with prose and a part of the table/list, while referring to a separate "List of" article if necessary. 2) Don't include a separate section on the current season, the article is about all of the League's history, not just next season. Put the stuff in a separate article and refer to it. - However, I think the crucial point for me is #3. Jeronimo 07:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion to merge FA Premier League and Football League First Division is an entirely erroneous one, as they were separate competitions and ran side-by-side between 1992 and 2004. See Talk:Football League First Division. Qwghlm 07:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Response to Jeronimo: In regards to the list of teams in the current season, I feel strongly that this info should not be split off from the article. This is not an article only about the FAPL's history, but about its present as well. And as there can be no FAPL without the clubs, I think this is a case where a list is useful. In other words, it is not really a section that focuses on the current season, but rather on the format of the competition. The only reason a reference is made to "current" is due to promotion/relegation issues.
The all-time table could probably be split off, however. - Pal 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

*Object - incomplete, some POV. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? - Pal 13:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Too much focus on current events and games. Not enough comparison information (comparing rules&regulations to other Premier Leagues, showing popularity of FA Premiere League compared to other Premier League). Then the history section talks about Football in England in general rather than the premiere league in specific. And the whole article just seemms lacking. --GoOdCoNtEnT 16:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Issues were fixed. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- After reviewing the article I have some points and questions,
  • Of these, the most successful are Manchester United and Arsenal, who have won the title eight and three times respectively -- This stat doesnt need mentioning in the lead. Just mention the most successful ie "Man.U who have won eight, the current Premier League champions are...."
  • in Origins ...consider leaving the Football League in to capitalize on the ... has something been removed or left out.
  • UEFA and FIFA should be linked on the first instance. I would prefer to see these acronyms in full at first instance.
  • the Bolton, Fulham match image should have the horizon tilt corrected or does the game get played on an incline.
  • decide which it is -- TV deals, television rights(TV rights), television agreement, broadcasting agreement. It doesnt matter which terminology you use but use one and be consistant.
  • League corporate structures, is this an independant league, or part of a governing body, how does it work with in the these structures. An overview of club ownerships, can I create my own club from sctratch, do I need to buy a license to become part of the league. Affiliations does the league have input to a UK body or direct input to FIFA or UEFA.

Not being from Europe I dont know how all these leagues are related to each other, its something that should be covered in this type of article, at least from this leagues position within it. Gnangarra 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Points 1-3 should be taken care of now. I'm not sure what to do about the picture. There seems to be a lack of images relating to the PL available in Wikipedia, and it makes sense to have one relating to the competition, even though the slant is kind of annoying. I can see your point on the final two points. I'll try and work on that. Thanks for the feedback. - Pal 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I rotated the image 2 degrees then cropped to square. Image quality was poor rotation degraded it a bit more, horizon is level. Remember to refresh your cache to view Gnangarra 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that! - Pal 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
unchanged vote, my concern about the Acronym if consensus can be reached I'll support. saying you should know it, or be able to guess from the article isnt sufficient reason... Gnangarra 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Thankyou for addressing the concerns I'm now happy to support this nomination Gnangarra 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
    • The "Competition and structure" section should be split; the middle "Competition" part promoted to a single section, while the finance-related paragraphs either side merged into a single section (e.g. 'Finances and Turnover').
    • Remove or correct the Title Holders graphic, it is currently misleading. Arsenal do not play at home in yellow, nor do Blackburn play in all-white.
    • FIFA and UEFA do not need to be spelt out in full.
    • The Jack Walker picture should not be used, I don't believe the Fair Use rationale is strong enough. Try delving round other club articles to find Premier League action shots (there are some; alternatively, try searching Flickr for any with an appropriate Creative Commons licence).
    • Change "last season" link in list of teams to "2005-06" so as to be more specific.
    • All-time table and all-time scorers table both need references.
    • Trim "See also" section. The gulf/Curse of Christmas arguably deserve to be described in their own paragraph on how far the PL has pulled away from lower divisions. Remove all links without the phrase 'Premier League' in them, and if any of the remaining ones have been already linked to in the article, drop them too.
    • Web citations need 'Retrieved on' need dates on all of them.
  • There are also some minor content issues but I will probably edit them myself in due course. Qwghlm 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • All of the above have been solved, but I have one final additional objection - the percentages of foreign players in squads is not referenced, nor the methodology explained; how is it measured consistently across different teams with different sized squads. For example, do you count youth or reserve players or not? Or loaned-out players? (Arsenal's figure goes down if you take them into account, though I won't deny it's still quite high:) ). I would recommend deleting it unless a satisfactory source and methodology can be supplied. Qwghlm 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Last objection has now been resolved, so changing vote to full-hearted Support. Qwghlm 07:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I couldn't find a source so I just removed those lines; it wasn't real important anyway. - Pal 02:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Why dont FIFA and UEFA need to be in full at the first instance not everybody is familiar with these acronyms. to quote WP:ABBR Acronym usage in article body The full name should always be the first reference in an article, and thereafter acronyms are acceptable. There is no consistent rule about periods—in general, avoid them, unless the preferred usage is otherwise (for example, U.S., but UK). Gnangarra 17:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that the Wikipedia article on FIFA is entitled FIFA and not Fédération Internationale de Football Association. It is known worldwide by its acronym FIFA. I'm a well educated English football fan of 26 years, and although I understood exactly what FIFA was, I didn't know what the letters stood for before clicking a link on Wikipedia. No-one calls it by it's full French name. The same is true of the Union of European Football Associations.
Quoting from WP:ABBR:
  • Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, SETI, and radar are good examples).
If one truely doesn't know what the acronym stands for from general knowledge or the context it is used in, one can click through to its main page. I don't see how including a long French phrase helps either article flow or anyone's understanding. There are certain times when the rules you state are not needed, and I would argue strongly that FIFA and UEFA are two of these cases. aLii 23:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay, this is really a request for comment. As I see it, there are several issues where there is some dispute as to what should be done to improve this article to FA status. Feel free to post comments immediately after each item (or even add more). Thanks. - Pal 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The "Origins" section - Some say this shouldn't include any info (or just a very brief mention) of the PL's predacessor, others say there is not enough.
  • Only the immediate past where events affected the formation of the PL. Gnangarra
  • The current members section. If most feel that there is too much info about the current clubs (and in fact, the info is already contained here), perhaps a simple table (like this one) would be more suitable?
  • Whats there is the maximum you would want. Gnangarra
  • Do you mean on the FAPL page or the sandbox page? - Pal 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • FAPL article Gnangarra 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether to use the fullnames of FIFA and UEFA still seems to be an issue.
  • I come from a country where the only game we here about is the cup final so the acronyms are meaning less. Gnangarra 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What if, instead of the full names (which still might not be entirely clear since FIFA's is in French), we instead gave a brief description. I.e. in the first reference to UEFA, the sentence would read "UEFA, European football's governing body, lifted the ban on English clubs playing in European competitions in 1990..." - Pal 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be a fair compromise Gnangarra 05:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • FIne by me too.
  • Support, good well written article, though I dont know if it has already been included somewhere else, if so, just tell me where, but a reference to what seem to be known as the "Premier League Parachute Payments" I dont know where to put it myself, I thought maybe Premiership-Football League gulf but then its relevant to all clubs not just newly promoted and relegated ones. Philc TECI 12:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that "parachute payments" refer only to the payments made to relegated teams in their first two seasons out of the PL (here's an article for reference). These payments come out of the PL's television revenue, but it doesn't seen they are directly relevant to other clubs, so I'd say it could be included in the "Premiership-Football League gulf" section. - Pal 13:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeh I know, but the gulf section is about how newly promoted teams are relegated often straight away, whereas any clubs recieve parachute payments, not just those who are relegated in their first season, they could have never been relegated from the Premier league before in which case the gulf would be somewhat irrelavent to them.Philc TECI 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support An excellent article. --Kitch 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Article meets FA criteria; content is stable in terms of value, not in terms of vandalism (i.e., GA-related edit-wars, etc.) Peer reviewed and Passed GA with vast consensus. —Rob (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose Poor lead, and too many one sentence paragraphs abound in the article. Generally does not flow like a FA should. --Wisden17 15:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not impressed with the writing (which strikes me as merely decent) but a bigger issue is the continual edit warring over the article. I don't think this article meets the "stability" requirement for an FA. As evidence of this, I should note that editors are arguing on the article's talk page about whether the article even deserves to be listed as a "good article" (with some editors listing it as such and others removing the listing).--Alabamaboy 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The article does not satisfy the FA criteria 2(b), since it neglects major factors which contributed to this controversy. (See: [14]). And btw. the article did not pass GA. Raphael1 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It passed several times and was vetoed several times to be exact. Homestarmy 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Article is poorly-constructed, heavily biased and full of basic errors of sense, spelling mistakes, incorrectly identified references etc. (see the outstanding problems listed on its talk page). It has been delisted from GA twice, and yet the critiques of those delisting it have not been addressed in anything but the most cursory and dismissive manner. (Incidentally, the FA nomination above is quite misleading: vandalism has played no part in the GA-related "edit wars", the article has not been peer reviewed, and it did not "[pass] GA with a vast consensus" but rather it was promoted to GA by a single user, HighwayCello, twice — perhaps what Rob means is that its advocates achieved a supermajority in a GA Disputes page discussion.) — JEREMY 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "non-content-related editing" would have been a better term. Nonetheless, if a supermajority (or, as I read it, consensus) works for featured articles, I fail to see, even granting that WP:GA doesn't have very many set standards, how consensus doesn't apply to GA. As for the article itself, I would help with the flow but I'm a poor copyeditor. —Rob (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I take back the "no vandalism" comment, given I have in fact accused those promoting the article to GA against its rules of vandalism. I'd ask that you change your "peer review" claim and clarify the "passed GA with vast consensus" wording, above. — JEREMY 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Could we please keep the GA war out of this nomination? Let's try keeping this nomination relevant and only comment on the content of the article. --Maitch 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article has real a problem with the flow.
    • Merge the overview section with the timeline. The lead should be the only overview section.
    • The "Danish Imams tour the Middle East" section needs to be shortened. It already has a sub article, so we will not waste any information.
    • The timeline should include the massive demonstrations around the world, which right now are mysteriously omitted.
    • There are three really short sections, which only purpose seems to be to lead the reader towards a sub article. Something needs to be done with those. These are "Descriptions of the drawings", "International reactions" and "Economic and human costs".
    • Rewrite the section "Comparable references" into prose. --Maitch 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. In addition to all the above, the article has too much 'back-and-forth' in the line of "this side says X, that side says Y". Although a degree of that is necessary in an article of this nature, in this case it overwhelms the content and disrupts the flow of the text. The intro in particular needs to be rewritten to focus more on the basic facts and less on vague opinions by "supporters" and "critics". --Aquillion 20:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article is slightly biased. The recent edit warring as well as the issues mentioned to the above don't make it a quealified Featured Article (yet! - be bold and keep improving it! - there's always hope!). --HolyRomanEmperor 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; prose still seems as choppy as a current event article ("In Muslim societies, for a Muslim to insult the prophet Muhammad is one of the most serious crimes anyone could commit." reads like a school project on Islam), article is not consistant on Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohammed etc. and masses of white space is occuring in some bits of the article, such as "Reprinting in other newspapers". Plus, listing an article for FA because it failed GA seems too "Pointy". smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
A big part of the problem is at this point, I have no idea if it passed GA or not. I do know that in my opinion it's not a huge leap to FA status from where it's at right now; refinement just needs to occur, and maybe at some point in the near-term or far-term, it might be stable. Just because an issue is unusually controversial doesn't mean it can't be FA, though. —Rob (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon etc. discussions

  • Oppose, simply because I believe the image should be hidden behind a link and not appear immediately and involuntarily to the reader. I feel pretty strongly about that and I doubt I could ever feel comfortable supporting this article unless the presentation of that image is done in a less provocative way. Everyking 11:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • This ridiculous objection can be safely ignored. Raul654 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I suppose you are the one best in a position to ignore it, Raul, but I don't like having my objection called ridiculous. There is a serious controversy about the presentation of this image, and a good many Wikipedians feel it is quite inappropriate to present the image to the reader without giving him or her a choice about viewing it. I will concede that it would not be possible to implement my suggestion, due to the apparent majority in favor of having the image as it is, but I maintain that the controversy is simply too deep, serious and ongoing for this article to be featured now. Everyking 08:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Your objection can be ignored because it goes flatly against policy - eg, that Wikipedia is not censored. Moreover, it's not as if the image is gratitious - if we want to inform readers about the controversy surrounding the cartoons, it would be extremely remiss of us not to actually show the cartoons. Raul654 00:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
          • You're simplifying an issue that is much more complex. Wikipedia is full of censorship in a loose sense: tactful, considered choice and placement of images. That's not the same thing as deleting the image outright, which would be censorship. I would not in a million years want for us to not present the image—my concern is about how it is presented, with an eye towards cultural sensitivity without eliminating the information. Everyking 03:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm essentially in accord with this, although I feel a slightly better solution would be to spin-off a "cartoon" article with the images and descriptions, then replace the image of the cartoon in the main article with an image showing an aspect of the controversy itself (ie. the actual subject of the article) such as a burning embassy or a mob of protesters. Failing that, the image should be moved down the article to a place more appropriate to its relevance to the article subject. (Of course, if you attempt to convince the article's champions of either your or my solution, they will refer triumphantly to their straw polls, which reject anything less than placing the cartoon images at the head of the article as prominently as possible to demonstrate their solidarity with the Free Speech position adopted by Jyllands-Posten.) — JEREMY 12:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Totally ridiculous idea to move the cartoons to another article, the cartoons are at the heart of what the article is about. As far as the motivations for why the cartoons are as prominently displayed as they are why not conduct a survey of the 200+ individuals who expressed their view about where the cartoons should be shown rather than make an attempt at blanket referring to the sum of their motivations as being in accord with a desire to, "demonstrate their solidarity with the Free Speech position adopted by Jyllands-Posten". Such conjecture really strikes me as mean spirited. Netscott 13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the images are a problem where they are. It is important to remember that context is important; when they were originally published, most of the Islamic world saw them as a deliberate insult to Muhammad and Islam. On the other hand, simply reporting on them is not a deliberate insult; many papers in the Islamic world (such as El Fagr in Egypt) reprinted them while reporting on them without attracting anyone's ire. Likewise, republications intended to 'take a stand for free speech' (and therefore, implictly, against an Islamic anti-free speech movement) were seen as an insult to Islam, while republications commenting more neutrally on the controversy generally weren't. As long as the article is NPOV, in other words, any images used within its context will be, too. --Aquillion 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The way the events were unfolding regarding this controversy does not support your thesis, that republications weren't perceived as insult. In fact there have been more violent protests as the cartoons were republished in various newspapers. Raphael1 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - While I personally support free speech and the right of newspapers to print whatever cartoons they like, I am a bit concerned that by placing the image right there on the page with no warning, it actually pushes one POV. We would appear to clearly support the free speech camp. On the other hand, not showing the cartoon at all would put us firmly on the side of the protesters. Therefore I feel that putting the image on a separate page is an effective NPOV compromise (although perhaps not perfect). By not compromising, I worry that Wikipedia might become part of the controversy rather than just reporting on it. The reaction of different segments of the Muslim public to reprinting the cartoon in other media is irrelevant either way. We shouldn't care what people think. It's impossible to please everyone. I will support any decision as long as it sticks to what in my mind is the #1 goal of Wikipedia: neutrality. A newspaper is not obliged to stay neutral on its editorial page. We are.Sheep81 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is truly like déjà vu. My only recommendation to those who don't agree with the display characteristics is to do like was repetitively done previously and conduct a straw poll. User:Aquillion's comments above couldn't be more eloquent in explaining that it is about context. The most strident agitator for censorship of the cartoons User:Raphael1 himself said that he'd be fine to see the cartoons displayed on the islamophobia article... his reason? I'll paraphrase here, "Because Wikipedia would be making a statement against the cartoons by doing so." Wikipedia is not in the making statements business (not a soap box). Regardless, corresponding to his view they'd be fine there for informational purposes, well excuse me but why are they on this very article? Netscott 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Aquillion's comments could in fact be more eloquent... for instance, if they were factually accurate. Sheep81 08:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Comment withdrawn, inappropriate tone... must get more sleep. Sheep81 08:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe that there's people in earnest suggesting to move the cartoons to another page than the one that they're on, beliving that it will make the article more NPOV - That's like suggesting that a mathematical formula should be listed on another page than the page describing the formula, because some oddball religion thinks mathematical formulas is an affront to all that is holy and therefore the formula should be placed on another page for greater "NPOV". It's simply ridiculus; Without the cartoons, no controversy. Finally, anybody searching for "Muhammed cartoons controversy" or clicking a link saying that should expect to see the Muhammed cartoons that created the controversy. Now, this article might have some problems with it's flow, may need to have some sections shortened and others (like the timeline) elaborated; These are valid problems with the article. But please, the cartoons are right where they need to be and any and all criticism of the cartoons are therefore invalid and only serves to distract the editors from the real improvements the article needs. The.valiant.paladin 14:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Your analogy is off the mark. But you are right, there are other problems with the article that need attention and the placement of the image is clearly a done deal anyway.Sheep81 08:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a "done deal" so long as the short-term one-cause wikipedians defending it so vehemently continue to hang around here. Once they've gotten bored and left, sanity and good sense can and will be restored. I give it a year or so. — JEREMY 08:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy, you've done well to make a foolish statement that is excellent in a capacity to mischaracterize Wikipedians but lacking otherwise. You've falied to mention one key aspect here and that is that the display characteristics of the cartoons are not going to change until general consensus about them changes. As well you've called those who've endeavored to maintain respect of the current consensus "fanatics" which is a personal attack against such individuals and is very poor form to say the least. We mustn't forget Jeremy that it is policy to not personally attack other editors on Wikipedia. Netscott 10:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't really a personal attack in my view... (maybe WP:CIVIL). Ian¹³/t 14:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Seeking Consensus Rob, as the only person supporting the article's FA nomination in the discussions above, are you prepared to withdraw your nomination at this point? Is there anyone else who'd like to add a support vote, lest this be recorded as a unanimous rejection? — JEREMY 07:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe I can have a vote as the nominator (at least, in my head, that's how it should work)... plus I think an administrator usually does that sort of process-related thing. It'll take care of itself. —Rob (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rob, good idea.. to let the process complete itself. Jeremy's the only one asking for you to withdraw your nomination. One wonders if he might be looking for a little satisfaction from an early close. Cheers. Netscott 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Am the Greatest: The Adventures of Muhammad Ali

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Archived_nominations_July_2006_50ea.html"