Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
  1. Sydney Roosters featured article candidate (May 2006)

Contents

[edit] Sydney Roosters

This article previously had previously been nominated for featured status earlier this year, but failed because of a number of shortcomings relatingly mostly to references and the structure of the article. However, in the past few weeks I've put some work into it to get it to what I believe is of featured article status. The article appears to be well-written, well-referenced and only includes information that is relevant and essential. It recently went through a peer review and all suggestions to improve the article have been done. --mdmanser 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Looks good to me! But one question: why are Eastern Suburbs and Sydney City Roosters bolded in the second paragaph? It seems unncessary to me. Never Mystic (tc) 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I used the featured article Arsenal F.C. as a model for this article. I noticed under their history section the names of both the former and current clubs were bolded, perhaps as an identification of an important name in the overall context of the article. I naturally did the same with the former club names of the Sydney Roosters as well. As you said, it was probably unnecessary in the first place and I'm on your on the issue. --mdmanser 01:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
That's cool. You've done a good job on this article! Never Mystic (tc) 02:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't see any reason why this article is not featured content. Todd661 12:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wholly good article, but I personally don't think that there are enough references for an article of its size, and the lead section could do with an extra paragraph, to be honest. SergeantBolt (t,c) 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, which parts of the article do you believe need to be cited further? I'll put them in you suggest any.--mdmanser 22:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Object' Neutral—1a. For example, the second para in the lead is a real problem.
Eastern Suburbs were founded in Paddington, Sydney, in 1908, but in 1994 changed their name to the Sydney City Roosters. In 2000 they again changed their playing name to their current name, the Sydney Roosters. The Bondi Junction-based Roosters have a long-standing and fierce rivalry with neighbours the South Sydney Rabbitohs located in Redfern, who are the only other remaining foundation club.
    • You've referred to the Eastern Suburbs as a location in the first para, and now it's assumed that the same words refer to, or used to refer, to the club. You shouldn't have to reread it to work it out. You do, in fact, spell it out at the start of History, but that's too late.
    • "Roosters" occurs three times in four lines; remove the middle reference.
    • "with neighbours the" is ungainly.

And further:

    • No hyphen after -ly.
    • "Eastern Suburbs, as they were more commonly known as, were also donned the unofficial nickname the "Tricolours" due to the use of the club's red, white and blue playing strip." Riddled with mistakes and ungainly prose.
    • Trust me, an en dash is better than a hyphen (32-16 --> 32–16).
    • "kicked off their existence"—No way.

These are just a few examples at the top. You need to locate copy-editors who are interested in this topic and who are relatively unfamiliar with the text of this article. Major clean-up required. Tony 15:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've located and made ammendments to some areas which I felt were a little weak in grammar. Hopefully you feel the article is closer to being featured now. --mdmanser 08:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well structured, well written, very informative. There is no reason why it should not be.Sbryce858 13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very light on references imho. There is only one in the colours section, and few in the history and so on. (non free use) images lack fair use reasonings. Also, how many players in the current squad really deserve an article of their own? In all honesty? People seem to just create players so that the squad looks pretty without red links, I mean, some of those guys have not even made a first grade debut! That needs to be looked at. Good article, but not yet ready imo.Narrasawa 06:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Narrasawa could you please highlight areas that need references. All sufficient information has the footnotes required, plus the history of the club has an entire reference of the entire article from another source. Also I'd like to correct you, the fact being that all players listed have made their first grade debut and also raise the fact that the Sydney Roosters article itself is the one being analysed here, no other article. I fail to see any relevance to how other articles linked to the Sydney Roosters one bears any relevance at all. IMO you've objected on biased view and have stated things that are incorrect.124.186.243.153 09:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to go through and reference whatever you'd like. A previous person commented on the same issue but didn't offer any advice. I just feel that it is in most cases unnecessary to reference every single sentence. Each of the players in the article have made their First Grade (top grade) debut, which definitely contitutes an article. However, because of two requests for more citations, I will do just that right now. --mdmanser 10:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just added another half a dozen references to reinforce what's been said so far. I can't find anywhere else in the article that requires citing attention now. --mdmanser 07:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy with the changes Mdmanser made in response to my post. Thanks!-Narrasawa 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It shouldn't still be easy to find problems in the writing if this is a serious nomination. For example:
    • "The club was founded in Paddington, Sydney, in 1908 under the name Eastern Suburbs, but in 1994 changed their name to the Sydney City Roosters." We have "was", then "their". Which is it, singular or plural? "In 1908" would be neater after "founded". Please consider using quotes for "Eastern Suburbs" rather than bolding it. The "but" is a little uncomfortable—which part of the previous clause are you going to contradict? Why not: "The club was founded in Paddington, Sydney, in 1908 under the name "Eastern Suburbs"; in 1994, the name was changed to "The Sydney City Roosters", and in 2000 to just "The Sydney Roosters".
    • "... who are, along with the Sydney Roosters, the only other remaining foundation club in the National Rugby League." What's "other" doing here?

Not only does the writing throughout fail 1a; the lead fails 2a—See WP:LS Tony 07:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - as pointed out by Tony, the prose problems are extensive and the article needs a thorough copyedit. The article is also undercited, and some of the references need to be expanded to contain full bibliographic info (for example, newspapers should include publication date and author, where available). I fixed the footnotes to comply with WP:FN. Sandy (Talk) 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I just expanded one of the footnotes as a sample of the work still needed on the others: when citing a newspaper, the footnote should include information like author and publication date, so that future readers can find the sources in a library or online should the reference links go dead. Please correct all notes. There are still numerous facts throughout the article without cites. Sandy (Talk) 14:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree with Sandy. The main problem here is making sure you cite sources multiple times; you may have the same source cited 5-10 times in the course of the article. That's fine, as long as people can be assured that the information is contained in the source. — Deckiller 15:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The -ly + hyphen is still there; perhaps I shouldn't bother pointing out specific issues.
    • "An major reason for this success"—nope.
    • "eighteen", yet "19".

These are entirely at random. Very easy to find. Tony 11:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Deckiller has kindly helped to copyedit the article thoroughly, and from looking at the article now, I can see major improvements in the prose and grammar. I will definitely go through and add dates and authors to footnotes one last time, but in terms of the main body of text, I think we're pretty much done. --mdmanser 22:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — the references are pretty much on the money for a 30-35 KB article (and a sports article to boot), the prose has improved (while not 100 percent yet, it's getting good), etc. — Deckiller 11:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Business information — would it be possible to get some info on the ownership/off field info and that sort of thing? That might look good integrated with the history section. — Deckiller 11:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • What do you mean in regards to business info Deckiller? There is a sub-article on Eastern Suburbs Leagues Club (Eastern_Suburbs_Leagues_Club) which is the main financial backer of the football club. Other than that the CEO is listed. If you could give some guidiance of what exactly to write about, Im sure either myself or mdmanser could do the research and provide, but I'm a little lost with what exactly you feel is needed? Thanks 124.187.59.19 07:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah okay, never mind. — Deckiller 15:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I was asked to revisit the article in the light of more recent work on it. It's better, so I'll change to "neutral" on the understanding that you fix at least points one and three below.
    • "Eastern Suburbs, as they were more commonly known as," ... ahem.
    • "Dave Brown set several point scoring records that remain unbroken." Hyphenate "point-scoring" and it will be easier to read. A double adjective is better announced earlier than later in the sentence. (Small point, but worth fixing.)
    • There are em dashes (32—16) separating the scores: this is wrong. Use eN dashes (32–16). Even hyphens would be better than thse huge em dashes, but you may as well just change the m to an n in the code. You know that you can use just a single key stroke for these? On Windows, I think it's bottom-left and top-right keys together, if you have a numeric keypad at the right. Tony 01:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well Deckiller beat me to fixing those changes! But earlier on I fixed the suggestions on references that Sandy made, and right now I think they're all done. Thanks to all who made suggestions as to how to improve the article and get it to this status. Thanks, --mdmanser 02:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What would Jesus do?

A terrific article. Displays clear, unconfusing, and accurate information.Chipka 19:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • About which book? Object - complete lack of references. It also seems rather thin, but I don't know how much it's possible to write encyclopedically about a phrase... —Whouk (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - It is a wonderful article. Very well done! To Whouk, What are you talking about? Lorty 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: See WP:WIAFA; specifically it fails criterion 1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, possibly 3c, and 4. Image:WWJD.jpg needs a fair use rationale- see WP:FUC. The lead should be expanded to meet WP:LEAD. The article lacks references, and also doesn't have WP:FOOTNOTEs or other inline citations. Thanks, AndyZ t 20:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose no references. It is as it always was T | @ | C 20:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral please provide references and inline citations, correct the above deficiencies, and I'll be glad to have another look. If you need an example of how to cite references, you can see Tourette syndrome. Sandy 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC),

[edit] Three Mile Island accident

Well written, well everything. Truly a masterpiece article. The topic is interesting as well 11kowrom 14:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support Very well done! Clearly some of Wikipedia's best work. Lorty 14:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. Well done, but perhaps you could explain how many it would have impacted had it melted down, what cities the radiation would have impacted, e.t.c. But, that could be easily fixed
  • Object; not enough inline citations. Where is all this information coming from? Please give page numbers, etc. at the very least every few paragraphs. Writing quality is shaky ("Note that the two shortest nuclear power plant construction projects", "It should be noted that the operators and emergency operating procedures", "It is noteworthy that", "...have been improved. Improved surveillance..."). Organization needs work—the aftermath section isn't very cohesive (talks about lessons learned, then the effect on the industry, then the effect on the country, then more on the effect on the industry, and finally the actual cleanup). The section on The China Syndrome seems out of place; perhaps just a link to it would be sufficient, or passing reference in the aftermath section. Image:Btmi3.jpg has questionable copyright status. Also, maybe a more recent image of the island would be appropriate to include? --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've changed the wikilink so it accurately reflects the title of the article - at first, I was wondering why the article on Three Mile Island was only about the accident. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 16:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Good article, but needs better organization 69.40.243.98 19:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. One picture should be moved to Commons and another doesn't have any copyright information. Poppypetty 21:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak object:
  • Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Specifically, Image:Btmi3.jpg need(s) proper fair use rationales.
  • I also agree with Spangineer. Thanks, AndyZ t 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - the article is about the Three Mile Island accident, yet the opening sentence describes Three Mile Island (the location) which happened to be home to a nuclear reactor that suffered a meltdown. I'd suggest reworking the opening to directly describe the accident itself. For example: "The Three Mile Island accident was..." Alexthe5th 17:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, issues with the tone and verifiability.--Peta 06:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Gettysburg

An astonishing article, it presents the history of the Battle of Gettysburg in a clear manner. (The maps of how the army was positioned are pretty cool, check it out!) Chipka 20:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support I can't find anything wrong with the article. If someone else does and i realize it, i will cross this out Lorty 20:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The lead section is too short and there aren't enough in-line references. RyanGerbil10 20:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral: As one of the principal authors of this article and its many subarticles, I will admit that it is very light on the requirements for footnotes. In my early days of writing Wikipedia articles, I operated under the assumption that if all assertions could be found in one of the References, that was adequate, because that is, after all, the style of printed encyclopedias. I have been including more and more footnotes in my newer articles, particularly for quotations and for controversial details. Although it would be possible for me to sprinkle a few dozen footnotes into this article, I have prioritized my time more toward the creation of new articles and the expansion of stubs about the American Civil War. Hal Jespersen 20:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Chipka and Lorty, It's a very informative and thorogh article. Scienceman123 00:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Lack of references, virtually no discussion of the repercussions of the battle, and "Battleground and movement of battle" has choppy and imperfect prose. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 02:02 UTC
  • Object mainly per WP:WIAFA 2(c) and 3(a) as of now:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 14:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No inline citations, and looks rather short for one of the most important battles in the US history.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If you follow links to the subarticles and to its parent Campaign article, you will find that it's over 200K of material. Hal Jespersen 17:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • So? Let's nominate them if they are more comprehensive, but this article is too short. Expand it with info from subarticles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
        • No, that's not fair. They've properly followed the criteria and done a good job of summary style. You can't fault them for that. - Taxman Talk 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I am not faulting them for things they did right, but for the things they didn't. The article should have dozens of inline cits, which it doesn't, and also most of the FA battle articles are longer. I would like to see more details in that article. But to clarify, I am objecting on the reference grounds, the shortness is more subjective and although it may prevent me from supporting, I will not object once inline references are added.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per LortyHezzy 18:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Mainly 2a, 2b, 2c (inline refs pls) plus some infelicitous writing and the new to me interpretation of the Gettysburg Address. Of these, lack of context is the key problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Per Piotrus and others. One of the most significant battles in American military history has only one footnote (and an explanatory one at that, not referential)? That doesn't seem right. The lead is also a big problem. On the positive side, the maps are awesome.UberCryxic 19:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William H. Seward

This article should be chosen because it is easy to read, has enough citations and references, has decent images, and is well written. 11kowrom 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. The lead section is inadequate, and several of the sections are short, only one or two sentences in length. RyanGerbil10 17:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Lead section needs to be expanded to properly summarize the topic. No Inline citations Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, it is a start, but some more work needs to be done:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 14:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slavic mythology

What a fantastic article, definately one of the best we have on mythology on Wikipedia. A good length, with appropriate images. Only downside is no inline citation, but for a mythology article, is that really appropriate? There do not appear to be any disputes on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 13:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Yes, inline citations are appropriate in ANY Featured Article. Otherwise people would be required to hunt down every last work mentioned in the references to find out where any spesific factoid comes from. WegianWarrior 14:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but Object. Here are some of my suggestions:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Images need proper image copyright tags and source information. Specifically, Image:Svetovid.jpg need(s) proper image copyright tags.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 15:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Inline citations are a must, especially if we have sections like 'Unauthentic sources'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, per above remarks. Also, see various comments on the Slavic mythology discussion page, e.g. regarding the periodization and supposed ubiquity of the mythological phenomena. Anatopism 17:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object--Molobo 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby union at the Summer Olympics

I have done a lot of work on this article in the past month or so. It recently went on peer review as well. I feel everything has been covered and that it is ready to be an FA. Thanks. Cvene64 06:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support. The lead section needs to be a tad bit longer, but ev'rything else is fine. RyanGerbil10 07:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I included that it was at 4 of the first 7 games, and that the 7s game is played at the Commonwealth games. Is that alright? Let me know if anythig else can be improved. Thanks for your help. Cvene64 07:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe expand on other countries' performances. --Osbus 15:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a little more about Romania getting Bronze in 1924, is ther anything else you think I could expand on? Thanks. Cvene64 22:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; the writing is not "compelling, even brilliant". The lead, for example, has many problems.
    • The "four times" thing is stated twice in the opening sentence.
Removed first mention.Cvene64 22:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Many readers will not immediately realise that summer olympics began in the 20th century (not in ancient times), and must piece this together during the remainder of the first paragraph.
I added 'modern' before the Summer Olympics, is this kind of what you mean? Cvene64 22:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "most recent attempts being in regards to" - this is a little clumsy. "the Rugby sevens version of the sport"; if "the sport" is rugby, isn't this repetitious? Should there be a link for "sevens"? Or quote marks? Avoid "events" in this context, since this also refers to individual matches/heats/races.
Now read The most recent attempts have been for the inclusion of the sevens version of the sport, which is played at similar competitions such as the Commonwealth Games. There is a link for sevens, and I don't think quote marks would be appropriate. Events->Competitions. Cvene64 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The removal of the sport "after the 1924 games" is mentioned twice in two paragraphs.
I deleted the second mention of it being removed. Cvene64 23:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please edit the whole article closely, with particular attention to repetitions such as these. Tony 15:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I will now go through the rest of the article and look for similar mistakes/things that can be improved. Thanks. Cvene64 23:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I think I havae rid the article of these problems. Multiple refernces to the nation/games/olympics/year have all been removed. I edited the rest of the article with the examples you gave above. Thanks. Cvene64 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made further edits using your How to guide. Cvene64 03:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Object Does not seem to be comprehensive. E.g. revival attempts should be described in much more details: when, how and by whom conctretely (NOC/IOC representative/etc.) were 1980 and 1988 attempts made? Why and how (voting of the IOC? other means?) did they fail? Cmapm 12:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have slightly expanded this information but I cannot make it anymore comprehensive than it already is right now, I emphasized that requests were made in 1980 and 1988, and added that the 1988 "requeset" was backed by the IRB, as well as adding a few more references. Cvene64 13:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I note a lot of omissions and errors, which will attempt to correct myself. I have some other (better) references than just the internet as well. Jeronimo 16:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I have now made several edits, but I think the article's still not ready. The structure may need to be revised a bit (a separate section per Olympics?), and some statements need to be checked/cited. The 1920/1924 sections are currently very US-heavy (although they won both tournaments, of course), and there is not a lot of information about the matches themselves. Another image would be great as well, but I've not been able to find anything. Let me know if you need any further help. Jeronimo 18:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, thanks a lot for your help! I'm going to post a message on it's talk. Thanks again! Cvene64 10:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pericles

After the first failed nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pericles/Archive1) many things happened. The article was rewritten once again by Druworos and me, but it faced a failed GA nomination. Me and Konstable, who was the one who did not pass the article, initiated further improvements and about a week ago the article easily passed GA nomination. Pericles in now rated as an A-Class article by three Wikiprojects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography) and remains, of caurse, a GA. The article has until now gone through four peer-reviews: 2 thorough peer-reviews (Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles and Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles/Archive 1), 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Military history (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Pericles) and 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Biography (Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Pericles). I thought it was the right time for this second nomination.--Yannismarou 11:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This article had 43KB of prose as of 22 August 2006
  • Strong support. This is an outstanding article! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I like the combined use of Cite.php and the conventional reference label approach to separate footnotes and references. However, just scanning, I did find what looked like the work of a gremlin ("literary" was misspelt "literally"). Does anyone have time to independently copyedit this article? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This was obviously a typo. Although I've gone through the article again and again for such typos, it is inevitable to miss something.--Yannismarou 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The article has been twice copy-edited during this candidacy from Robth and Konstable. I hope these copy-edits are sufficient.--Yannismarou 11:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Rlevse 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done, --Riurik 03:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, all the issues from the previous nomination and the various peer reviews look to have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a great read! Gaius Cornelius 09:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The timeline is too wide and takes a lot of space. Could you fix it? CG 11:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought to hide the timeline with a navbar and remove it to "See also section", as Kirill had proposed in a previous peer-review. Do you thing that's better? If you think so, listen to that: The problem is that I probably do something wrong with the navbar and, when I do hide the timeline (replacing: div class="NavContent" style="display:none"; font-size:normal; style=text-align:center" with: div class="NavContent" style="display:none; font-size:normal; text-align:left"), I then have to hit twice on "hide" (and not on "show") in order to see the timeline. That is why I haven't yet made the edit. What I may do wrong? Am I typing something wrong?--Yannismarou 15:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Object. This is tremendously well researched, and that alone almost brings me to support it. There are, however, a variety of problems that need to be addressed here. A list of issues I spotted follows; in several cases, I've just picked out examples of things that need to be fixed throughout:
    1. Odd cause-effect statements. From the lead: "Eager to reinforce Athenian intellectual prowess, he prompted an ambitious building project"; I don't understand how Pericles's desire to "reinforce intellectual prowess" led to the public works program, which is most commonly cited as an example of a progam intended to boost civic pride and increase employment. Several of Pericles's actions are attributed to his intrinsic characteristics, which strikes me as a little overly speculative. Someone needs to go through and make sure that all the cause-effect statements in the article are accurately describing the relationship in question.
    2. Balance of historical opinions: The arguments of critics of Athenian democracy is well presented, particularly in the case of Paparrigopoulos. There is, however, an equally active body of historians defending the Athenian radical democracy and its creators; Donald Kagan, used here as a source, certainly ranks high among that group, and others can be found easily.
    3. Accuracy issues: Some of these are just omissions of relevant events. The Peace of Callias, for instance, ambiguous and tricky issue though it is, should be discussed; the events in the Aegean in the late 450s (revolts in the empire, the Egyptian disaster, etc.) Pericles's leadership during the turmoilsome period from the Athenian defeat in Egypt to the mid 440s seems to have played a critical role in the establishment of the Athenian Empire as it existed in the 430s, so a fuller discussion of the events of that period seems appropriate.
About the peace of Callias a few comments: We do not even know if it really existed. Wade-Gray is the first historian of our century who believed in its existence and Badian has published a study as well. But most researchers do not recognize it. And if it existed indeed what was Pericles' role? Why have no clue! All I can write is mere speculations and Badian's hypothesis that Pericles broke the Peace in 450, although it was agreed in 463. You're right about the Egyptian disaster. It is a serious omission. My only fear is that the article is becoming gigantic! More and more and more information. I'll try to do my best.--Yannismarou 08:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. I'm also puzzled by the claim that "Even after fining him, the Athenians remained true to the Periclean strategy and did not depart from it until long after his death."; this would be an unusual assessment of Athenian strategy in the 428-425 period, which was marked by the rise of aggressive leaders who broke with Pericles's strategy in a number of cases.
These aggressive leaders did not radically alter the Periclean Grand Strategy and they avoided over-extension. That is what Platias-Coliopoulos point out. This happened later after 415 BC. I quote from Platias-Coliopoulos:"It therefore becomes evident that the Atheniasn lost the war only when they dramatically reversed the Periclean grand strategy that explicitely disdained further conquests". And I quote from C. Gray: "For Sparta to succeed, Athens had to be weakened by plague, had to suffer lossed in men and prestige in the expedition to Sicily (415-413 BC) and ... then had to commit major errors in lack of vigilance in the naval campaign for control of the Dardanelles". Hence, the emphasis is in the period after 415 BC. After all, until the end of the Archidamian War Athens had the upper hand. Some modifications of the Periclean Strategy until then donot constitute a radical change. The Athenians did not attempt conquests in foreign countries, for istance. I think this is a weel-argued a citated claim, based on researchers' argumentations and I donot see why it is unusual or why it should be changed.--Yannismarou 07:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Language. Odd and awkward word choice at a number of points: "an ambivalent symbolism", "defalcation", "Thucydides predicates that..." and a number of other odd word or phrasing choices are scattered throughout. Awkward or incorrect word order is also a significant issue. Someone needs to go through this and pick all these out.
So that's what jumps out at me. This is very good as a whole, and I'm confident that these issues can be addressed. --RobthTalk 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to Robth. I've already made some comments on Robth's remarks. After having implemented some of his suggestions, I'd like to give a more thorough answer point by point:
    1. You mention the cause-effect statement of the lead; hence I'll comment on that. I donot know what other speculative statements you find, but I donot think I attribute Pericles' actions to his intrinsic characteristics. As far as the lead is concerned, I rephrased and citated it, although I'm not absolutely right with you. Pericles did not promote art only for the reasons you mention. There was a real interest to further reinforce the intellectual brilliance of his city.
    2. I added Kagan's comments concernig Pericles' reforms and also Samons' reasoning for his actions. I want just to point out that, even as it was, the comments were not one-sided. One paragraph was devoted to Pericles' arguments and one to Cimon's (-oligarchs') point of view. Paparrigopoulos is critical towards Pericles only there. Hence, only two sentences ("According to Paparrigopoulos, history vindicated Cimon, since Athens, after Pericles' death, sunk in the abyss of political turmoil and demagogy. Paparrigopoulos maintains that an unprecedented regression descended upon the city, whose glory perished due to the anterior populist policies of Pericles.") consist a criticism of Pericles on behalf of Paparrigopoulos. All his other comments give an explanation of his actions, just like Samons. Anyway, I hope the relevant section seems now more balanced. I also mentioned Kagan's belief that Cimon adapted himself to the new conditions and promoted a political marriage between Periclean liberals and Cimonian conservatives.I just want to mention that during the previous nomination I faced the opposite criticism: That I am POV in favor of Pericles! I feel confused!
      • It's sometimes possible to overcompensate and present too much of an opposing view while trying to achieve balance; in any event, the current presentation strikes me as well balanced, so this issue appears to be resolved. Thanks for clearing that up. --RobthTalk
    3. I've said a few things about the peace of Callias. I just want to insist on the fact that we donot even now if such a thing existed and what was Pericles role. Grote, Wade-Gery, Gomme, Badian say it existed. Vlachos, Walker, Wilamowitz, Pohlman, Mayer and Schwartz say it did not exist! Ancient writers contemporary to Pericles do not mention it. Isocrates mentions it but Demosthenes doubts about it! Where is the historical reality?! We donot know! Anyway, I mentioned Badian's disputed claims and his reference to Pericles and I also mentioned Kagan's claim that Pericles used Callias as a symbol of Athenian unity.
      I also mentioned (in the section "First Peloponnesian War") the Egyptian disaster and its result as well as the debated role of Pericles. Kagan and Aird believe that Pericles initiated the excursion both in Cyprus and Egypt, while Beloch hold Cimon responsible for both decisions. In the section "Military achievements" I added Kagan's belief that Pericles' vehement insistence that there should be no diversionary expeditions during the Peloponnesian War may well have resulted from the bitter memory of the Egyptian campaign, which he allegedly had supported. Thereby, I connect the devestation in Egypt with the later policies of Pericles.
      During the late 450s I do not have in mind any important revolt in the League. The revolts in Euboea, Thebes, Samos and Byzantium are all mentioned. I am not aware of any other arousal in the Aegean against the Athenians during this period. After all, I created an article about the First Peloponnesian War and all the events of this war are in detail mentioned there. I think Pericles' role is adequately developped and more details will harm the whole article. I also added (in section "Prelude of the Wr") Ehrenberg's opinion that another fact that may well have influenced Pericles' stance just before the eruption of the Peloponnesian War was the fear that revolts in the empire might spread if Athens showed herself weak. The coinage decree is also mentiones and, hence, I think there is a clear image of the Athenian empire in the 430s.
      I also clarified the events concerning the revolt of Byzantium and the Pontic Excursion (Section "Samian War"). I think that the wording is also better now.
      • You're quite right about the doubts about the Peace of Callias, but its massive significance if it did exist would seem to me to justify mentioning the possibility. Events of this time period are all but impossible to pin down, and it's best to just acknowledge that. I would mention the possibility of the peace, note that there are scholars on both sides of the question of its existence, and devote a sentence or two to explaining how it would fit in to the overall picture of this period.
      As far as revolts in the empire, I was referring to the revolts of Miletus and Erythrae in 454/3, which continued down to 452/1 or thereabouts. These aren't mentioned in the ancient sources, but have been established based on fragmentary inscriptions and the Athenian tribute-quota lists. These, along with the Egyptian disaster, have been cited as possible pretexts for withdrawing the treasury from Delos, and should probably be mentioned. Keeping the article short is a good goal, but it's important not to omit significant details of this critical period of Pericles's leadership.
      The treatment of this period is coming along, but it isn't quite there yet. The magnitude of the Egyptian disaster is far from clear in the current text, and the crisis of the empire in the early 440s isn't readily apparent. --RobthTalk
    4. I've already explained why I regard Platias-Coliopoulos' position as basically correct. Nevertheless, I made clear that this is their opinion and I also referenced the altera pars, stating Ehrenberg's remark that the Athenians engaged in several aggressive actions soon after Pericles' death. I hope that now this topic is clarified.
      • That looks good now; my opinions on the subject have been largely shaped by Kagan, who considers the Aetolian campaign and Pylos/Sphacteria to be departures from the Periclean strategy, so I was initially surprised to see that statement; but, as I said, looks good now.
    5. I rephrased all the mentioned "awkward word choice". "Defalcation" was really wrong-"embezzlement" or "misappropriation" are the right legal terms. I also tried to make better a few other points in terms of prose. I hope it's now better!

I hope I have resolved most of the things that obliged Robth to Reluctantly Object. I hope he can now, at least, Reluctantly support! - I'm just kidding!--Yannismarou 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm still not quite ready to support, as my interspersed comments above indicate. I still have some qualms about the prose, but this may be a classic case of {{sofixit}}; I think I'll have time to copyedit it myself tonight. This is definitely coming along, so keep up the good work. --RobthTalk 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • OK! In terms of content I think I now fully understand your concerns. These are my comments:
1. I made clear Athens' disaster in Egypt and citated these remarks( Section:"First Peloponnesian War"). I also mentioned the possible connection of this defeat with the transfer of the treasury (Section:"Athens' rule over its alliance"). I think this topic is covered now.
2. I mentioned and citated the revolts in Miletus and Erythrae. I subsequently emphasized on the turmoil in the empire after the defeat in Egypt and the tension in the Aegean, using Kagan and Sealey as a source. I also mentioned the possible connection of these revolts with the transfer of the treasury (Section:"Athens' rule over its alliance"). I hope that this topic is also covered now.
3. As far as the prose is concerned, I'd just like to mention that most users agree that the article is "outstanding" and "a great read". My point is that I believe we've already achieved a very good level of prose. Nevertheless, I donot argue that I'm infallible and, hence, I'm sure that your contribution in terms of prose improvements would be valuable; especially, from a person who has already nominated 3 FA, among which one of my favorites and a source of inspiration, Epaminondas. After all, I think that it would be better for the arrticle to attempt these minor additional improvements instead of turning it down as a FA. That is why I feel convinced that you will indeed choose the first solution and you'll make the prose improvements you regard as necessary, so as to express your support.--Yannismarou 18:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I just gave the article a run-through, focusing mostly on prose issues but also clarifying a few things and tweaking the presentation of the First Peloponnesian War a bit. This was a very good article at the start of this review and has improved even further during the review; I'm very pleased to give it my enthusiastic support. Superb work. --RobthTalk 06:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, pal!--Yannismarou 06:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article. --mav 01:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly ObjectSupport While quoting from Thucydides' orations is a neat idea, they should not be described as Pericles' without qualification. Septentrionalis 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • English usage should be followed in the use of names; for example, Josiah Ober should be spelled out.
    • Similarly, Areopagus should be so spelled; this is the English Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
How should the quotes be described? Your proposition? I describe them as Pericles', but in parenthesis I point out that they come from Thucydides' work. After all, the whole story about the authorship of Pericles' orations in Thucydides is described in the section "Oratorical Skill".
Thanks a lot for informing me this is the English Wikipedia. This was a valuable information. Realising that I may avoid exile to the Βικιπαιδεία. In the article Areopagus of the English Wikipedia, first line, it says Areopagus or Areios Pagos. Isn't this the English Wikipedia as well?
I'll correct the names and Areios Pagos as well (which redirects to Areopagus by the way) tomorrow morning. But are these issues so important to justify an absolute objection with no further qualification of the article?! I'm astonished. I respect the well-grounded and creative criticism, like this of Robth, but this one no!
Anyway ... As far as the quotes are concerned? What exactly would satisfy you?--Yannismarou 21:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
If I had an obvious solution, I might have imposed it. The present text is actively misleading. Perhaps you should unwind a little and let other people think on it; and do read WP:OWN. I'm sure this will be a featured article; it's not quite there yet. Septentrionalis 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I have implemented a possible solution to the attribution issue, and have changed Areios Pagos to Areopagus (Sepentrionalis is right that this the common English usage). Does this way of solving the attribution problem look good to everyone? --RobthTalk 04:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, Yannismarou has done most of the work on the article, but there have been other people working on this article - including me a couple of weeks ago when I did some major work on POV-language and balance issues (which caused it to fail the first FAC). I never had a feeling that Yannismarou was ever trying to own the article.--Konstable 04:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Septentrionalis' issue with "spelling out" names, I have went through them all and have expanded first names in all the first time a person is cited, and just left last names for any subsequent citations of the same person. What do you think of that?--Konstable 05:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried to further clarify the attribution issue, by rephrasing the ends of the quotes like that: "Pericles' Funeral Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)" or "Pericles' Third Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)". Is Robth and everybody else happy with this suggestion? By the way, what Robth and Konstable did, it could easily be done by Septentrionalis, instead of objecting. I read WP:OWN. Now I suggest you also read {{sofixit}}. I strongly believe that all the concerns of Septentrionalis mentioned are now addressed:
1. The quotes of Thucydides are described as Pericles' with qualification: A further note is added by Robth in all the quotes and clarifies that "Thucydides records several speeches which he attributes to Pericles; whether the exact words are Pericles' is uncertain." Robth and I rephrased the end of the quotes as I already mentioned ("Pericles' Funeral Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)" or "Pericles' Third Oration as recorded by Thucydides, (II, 37)"). This solution conforms also with the title of the Wikipedia article about the Funeral Oration, which is Pericles' Funeral Oration.
2. Areios Pagos is replaced by Areopagus by Robth.
3. Konstable did all the spelling out of all the names throughout the article.
Thereby, unless Septentrionalis is going to make some other suggestions then his objection is otherwise inactionable.--Yannismarou 07:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The use of "record" in this context is an improvement, but it is still misleading; Thucydides himself disclaims the stenographic accuracy which this will suggest to a modern reader. (Pericles' Funeral Oration is English usage, even by those authors who argue that it is not Pericles' words, and that Thucydides indulged his habit of making the speakers say what was in his opinion demanded of them by the various occasions even more than usual to make the case for the war. Isn't Kagan one of these?) But I think in the interval I have come up with a solution. Septentrionalis 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The article, especially the notes, could still use a thorough proof-read. I think I know what note β means to say about Agariste, for example; but I'd be guessing. I corrected note δ, which ascribed a statement from Plutarch to Aristotle. This sort of thing should be fixed before articles are brought here; however, I would not be dealing with this sort of thing if the article had major flaws. Septentrionalis 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't be unfair! Most things were fixed before the article was brought here! And you should recognize that! I think the meaning of the note β is clear for the common mind and well-citated. The note you say is not ascribing a statement of Plutarch to Aristotle. The first ref concerning Aristotle was just transferred to the end of the sentence so that it does not interrupt the reader. The ref of Plutarch comes exactly to the next sentence. Thus, checking both refs the reader does not get confused and learns what both writers exactly say. I'm happy however you decided to contribute! Keep up the good work, pal!--Yannismarou 17:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Sarcasm, and attacking the people who are trying to improve the article, is not helpful. The note reads: "β. According to Plutarch, Agariste was Cleisthenes' granddaughter, but she was his niece, rather. " [1]"; This is not English; and this article will not be our best work until it is written in the language of this Wikipedia. Nor should the reader have to click on references to see what the article has failed to say. Septentrionalis 23:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No it does not say that! I have changed the wording long before you made this comment. I don't see it as making any sense on your part to quote old versions of the article and changing your comment from "Object" to "Strongly Object" after everything you have pointed out has been tended to. If you want a personal qualm with Yannismarou, go ahead and have it, but the article is not Yannismarou's regarding on what you may think. I have put a lot work into it too, so have some others. If you have any more concerns about the article please point them out - we have been trying to improve this article, help us do that rather than brand it with clean-up tags with no explanation - this tag will not help and I will not let it stay up there unless you point some major flaws out.--Konstable 06:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Support I would, however, like to see the Legacy subsection expanded somewhat.UberCryxic 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I enriched a bit this section with a few more assessments. But I wouldn't like to overexpand it. I think that it is OK as a closure of the article.--Yannismarou 18:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment people will probably yell at me but... there are too many references cited inline. The text is almost unreadable because there are so many. Can they be moved to the end of sentences where possible. Its[1] tough[1] to[1] read[1] when[1] they[1] are[1] everywhere.[1] -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as I am concerned, I'll not yell at you! You're right! I'll move the refs at the end of the sentences wherever possible.--Yannismarou 07:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I placed almost all the refs at the end of the sentences. In the very few cases (4 or 5) I kept them within the sentence, I thought this was necessary for the accuracy of the article and the right emphasis. By the way I thought Christine for your baby!--Yannismarou 08:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Much improved since the last nomination. Well done. My one quibble is with the timeline at the end of the article. I'm not sure if it's customary to list events on timelines in the present tense; all those present participles are throwing me off. Other than that, great job. The Disco King 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Wow. Mithridates 15:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a good article; with some polishing, it could be a great one. I seriously regret seeing Yannismarou react to suggestions that it needs that polishing with defensiveness and claims that his vast improvements are being ignored. I don't know how much the article has improved; I haven't seen it before.
Remember, the purpose of this department is to put articles on the Main Page, where they will seen by people who have never seen Wikipedia before, and don't know or care who did what. They will judge the article they see as a finished product, and compare it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's.
  • I donot speak about my improvements. I speak about the improvements made by me, Konstable, Robth and Wandalstouring. It is not your obligation to have seen the article before the nomination. But you're definitely obliged to watch all the improvemnets done during the FA candidacy. Something you're obviously not doing. Otherwise, you'd have seen, for instance, that Konstable rephrased note β according to your suggestions and you wouldn't have turned your Objection to Strong Objection.--Yannismarou 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand how nervewracking this must be, but I earnestly recommend that Yannismarou take a break and walk away from Pericles. I predict that if he does, he will find the proof-reading done, and the article, with substance largely unchanged, wearing a gold star.
  • Your argumentation is is lame. In order to have a proof-reading, you must point out which points need proof-reeding. By not providing such an explanation, you're contradicting yourself and you are demolishing your own arguments.--Yannismarou 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My comment stands, until Pericles is polished; but I may set him an example. Septentrionalis 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to comment:Further to what I already remarked I must point out that I wasn't sarcastic. I really was happy you contributed and I really think you did a good job, clarifying note δ. And I really want you to contribute. Sincerely, my only intention was to thank you. If my wording was wrong or misleading, please accept my apologies. But where is the sarcasm? Hence, I donot understand why you turned object to strongly object. The problem is you took it personal and because of that (misinterpeting a comment of mine that you regarded it as sarcastic) you decided to fight against this article with all your nerve.
But, pal, this is not personal! So many users contributed to this article! Opposing it, you're not opposing me, you're opposing a great job made mainly by them. Because without them this article wouldn't be GA or A-Class. Without them, this article wouldn't have 11, if I'm right, supports.
You speak again and again and again for a proof-reading. So, do it! Instead of attacking me, dedicate your time in doing it! But you'll find nothing wrong. I bet on that.
During all these months in Wikipedia, I've never insulted anybody in Wikipedia. Neither you. And the remarks which could be regarded as offensive towards you (though they weren't), I erased them as you can see. Despite that, you keep this offensive agains me, telling I must abstain. Well, I won't. I'll keep improving this article and I expect you to do the same thing, because when I say I want you to contribute, I mean it and I am not sarcastic.
After all these, I repeat what Kontsable said: All your concerns have been addressed, "If you have any more concerns about the article please point them out - we have been trying to improve this article, help us do that rather than brand it with clean-up tags with no explanation - this tag will not help and I will not let it stay up there unless you point some major flaws out." Your proof-reading argument is groundless and based on no actual examples from the article.
Your vindictive and groundless strong objection cannot be typically erased. Nevertheless, unless you are going to make some other suggestions, then this strong objection is otherwise inactionable.--Yannismarou 08:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I correct: 13 supports, Septentrionalis.--Yannismarou 18:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am glad to see that Yannismarou's post was not intended as sarcasm, and remove the strongly. I will remove my objection when the article is polished; but I do not intend to do all of that myself. Septentrionalis 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean that you accept you'd added the strongly because you thought I was sarcastic? But I had the impression that we are evaluating articles here not the level of sarcasm of the X or the Z user! Probably I'm wrong. You tell me that "we're writing for the readers" and you are right. I tell you that we are also evaluating for the readers. The readers "compare it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's". I donot think that sarcasm is the right criterion for the evaluation of an article. We are not adding or removing the strongly, according to the sarcasm of the X or the Z user.--Yannismarou 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I have spent some time on the article. I have fixed several solecisms and one downright error. (We do not know when Pericles was born, as a note admits; to say, as the text used to,[2] that he was born in 495, is therefore wrong.) All these are minor, but Yannismarou is rash to bet there are no more; what are his stakes? Septentrionalis 17:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
What I know for sure is that the messing up of the citations is no polishing. When I checked the article I saw you had turned a (ref name="Pl3"/) to (ref name="P13"/) for no reason and an important citation was lost because of your negligence. And since you were lecturing me that this is an English wikipedia why you placed "engonos" next to "granddaughter"? I'm Greek you know and I know that Engonos=grandson-granddaughter, so "engonos" is redundant. And one more thing; most of the polishing you did was already copy-edited by Robth. The fact that you did not like the previous version, it does not mean that it necessarily needed polishing! You have confused the personal taste with the polishing!--Yannismarou 18:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
When you demand a polishing, you must be the first one who is careful and avoids mistakes, which, by the way, I had to polish!--Yannismarou 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't telling you; articles are addressed to the readers. We're not writing for ourselves; we're writing for the readers, many of whom aren't Hellenists. I apologize for the Plutarch footnote; but wouldn't Plutarch, Pericles [[3]] be just as useful anyway? Septentrionalis 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is useful, you unintentionally removed it and I restored it. This is the story!--Yannismarou 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If we're writing for the readers, we are also evaluating for the readers. For instance, we are not adding or removing the strongly according to the level of sarcasm of another user! This is obviously a wrong criterion. As you told, the reader of an article "compares it to paid encyclopedists, beginnning with Britannica's". If we want to attract him we cannot judge an article and modify our assessments based on the sarcasm of the X or the Z user. This is obviously a wrong criterion. I am afraid you want the others to write for the readers, while you donot follow the same rule, when you evaluate or reassess an evaluation of an article.--Yannismarou 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, I have proofread the whole article several times in the past, including once yesterday when I found no errors apart from some minor one-word grammatical mistakes. Apart from me and Yannismarou who haven't voted on this page, there are 13 other people here - all who have read critically through this article. You yourself admitedly don't see any errors right now, and the one you found and corrected was a minor omission that was clarified in a note anyway. Then there are the people who have been working on this article over the past week - me, Yannismarou, Druworos, Wandalstouring, and a whole bunch of minor editors. How is it even possible to get even more people to review this article? What reason do you have to think that there are more errors serious enough that this does not qualify as a featured article, when so many people have read through this article and either found no errors, or minor errors that have been fixed?--Konstable 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong; we now have 16 supports.--Yannismarou 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Telex 08:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Some P. Erson 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly better than many of the current FA selections. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: I've adapted this article's use of quote boxes into the FA Joan of Arc. The editors of this article should feel proud of their work. Durova 04:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your nice words. I also feel obliged to thank you on behalf of Druworos, Konstable and Robth who have done such a great work for this article during the past months.--Yannismarou 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Kyriakos 05:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been reluctant to speak so far because of my minor contributions to this article. I'm not about to stand here and say it doesnt have minor language issues. Yannismarou is not a native speaker, and neither am I at that. But I'd like to urge anyone that feels confident enough with the English language to go in there and fix them, rather than complain about it. I'd do that myself (in fact I did for the first couple of paragraphs a few days ago), but I simply dont have the time to deal with the enormity that this article has become. And dont feel bitter towards Yannismarou if he gets a bit defensive. He has put so much work in to this, he should be entitled to sign his name under it. Druworos 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Druworos, Konstable and Robth (and Septentrionalis as well-he also contributed) are native English speakers, they went in and fixed any remaining issues and I think the article has no minor language issues now.--Yannismarou 06:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've given this another copyediting run-through, and cleaned up a number of small errors, particularly in the last few sections, that I'd missed on my first go-round. I also implemented a slightly different solution to the Pericles-Thucydides-attribution issue, since I don't believe that had been resolved just yet. Do these changes address all the concerns raised? --RobthTalk 21:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I gave the article another detailed proof-reading according to Septentrionalis' suggestion and I clarified a series of issues:
1. I clarified: a) the circumstances under which the Samian War took place, b) the circumstunces under which Cimon returned to Athens in 451 BC and the assessments of modern scholars, which contradict Plutarch's biography.
2. I added: a) the assessments of modern scholars concerning the rivalry Cimon-Pericles, which contradict Aristotle, b) more inline citations in slightly under-citated parts of the article ("Samian War", "First Peloponnesian War", "First year of the war (431 BC)", "Last military operations and death", c) more references.
After this proof-reading and since Robth has copy-edited once again and has taken care of all the minor language issues, I hope that Septentrionalis' concerns are finally addressed.--Yannismarou 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate Yannismarou's comments on my talk page; [4] and I think my comments are duly addressed. Thank you. Septentrionalis 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support and strongly recommend closure. This is a great article, which has passed an exhausting review. All issues have been addressed. :NikoSilver: 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support My issues have already been solved. Wandalstouring 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Having re-read the article and fixed any language issues I could find, I can safely say that the single thing I can think of that may have made this article unfit for FA has been adressed. Druworos 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, quite heartedly too. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard III (1955 film)

Archive 1

Peer Review | 2

Article has been expanded, much larger than before, more depth. This article now covers everything that is known about this film, seeing as though information is scarce. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak ObjectSupport : though broad and well-written. It lacks in accessibility of the article (nothing links to it). Plus there are too many lists. The award section should really be dumped into another section like the reception one. Lincher 19:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, well, I've made the awards section a subsection of reception, and added a note of intrest to the "Other Awards" section, you know, just a few stats and things. As for the lists, well, the cast section is moddeled on Casablanca (film) and Revenge of the Sith, both FAs themselves. As for accesibility, you can access this article from each of the principle cast's pages, each of it's award pages, each of Olivier's other films, and from each of the pages that sort films, like 1955 in film. Any suggestions on as to where I should place new links? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, looking at other Film articles that are FA status...this one's not too bad, considering that there are no real themes in the film, and that it's a very obscure and not well documented film. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and in terms of too many lists...there are two. Is that too many? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Everything has been modified toward the comments. Lincher 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How Delightful. In that case, I'll... Self-nom ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - Broad, comprehensive, covers all that is known about the film. Easy to follow. Well Done. MAGIC...POOO! 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Added some music, might help. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment-Not bad, but could use some citations in the direction, cinematography, and music subsections. Also, perhaps direction and cinematography could simply be merged and expanded a little under a Production section, while music could be a subsection or its own section. Tombseye 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Support-Hmm true enough. Casablanca is a damn good article. Okay, I have no other complaints as I was looking over the article and comparing it to Casablanca and it looks good. My other criticisms may be just subjective at this point, so I'm backing it. Hope it makes it. Tombseye 10:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Support-Great movie starring Laurence Olivier, and also a great direction. L. Olivier had plenty of Oscar Nominations, but only one award (1948). This film is someting that represents him.
  • This FAC escaped my attention, and I posted the following under the peer review. Since it is at FAC, however, I must oppose it.

Smaller sections and subsections should be merged. The sub-sectioning of "Produciton" is really uneven.

  • How in particular do you think I should fix it? Your'e pretty vague

Perhaps make the "Cast" and "Awards" sections into prose?

  • For awards, would make life difficult. Cast Based on other FA Film articles. Actually, so is awards, and there's no real problem there.

There are, as you point out only two lists, but what lists they are!

  • Cast list is large due to fact that most principle players are billed on same tier. Take it up with the ghost of Laurence Olivier

Logically, shouldn't "Awards" come before "Influence?"

  • Done

The excessive block-quotes are unnecessary and disruptive to they eye, even in scanning the page.

  • Done

The long introductory quote in the "Plot summary" has got to go, or be significantly condensed.

  • Done

--Monocrat 22:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still unsure as to the value of the introductory quote. Perhaps it can just be rewritten?
  • That would defeat the purpose of it. It's an abridged (now) version of the prologue text, which gives good context to the story

Regarding the listy awards section: the subsection headings are unnecessary for such brief discussions, and there's no need to have Olivier's Best Actor nom as its own bullet, which is duplicated in the following text. You could also move the text at the end up, merging it with the Best Actor nom, then following with "Other awards and nominations include:". Considering that most of the awards were won by Olivier, I doubt it would be exceptionally difficult to make that section completely into prose.

  • Done...sort of. Prose just isn't wise for Awards.

And I don't really care how Olivier billed them or how many you include, what is wrong with a simple table with the characters, actors, and maybe how they relate to other characters.

  • It doesn't conform with other FAs. Besides, it's messy, and you can't fit in as much info. This film doesn't have character relations, it's about one guy killing everyone to get the crown. Sort of a lite Macbeth.

I would prefer that discussion of what Olivier wanted from actors, and follow-ups (like for Paul Hudson) to take place in a paragraph, not in a list or table.

  • Once again, conforming with other FAs.

I just don't like the subsectioning in "Production." "Adapting the play" could arguably be moved to the section's lead, and paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 could be reorganized into "Casting and filming" or some such.

  • Done

Furthermore, there are a host of problems with the copy, mechanically and stylistically, keeping it from being "compelling:" e.g., "The cast was entirely made up of British Actors. All of the actors were on the same billing tier in the film, though in reality, Olivier has the lead role;" "Otto Heller did the cinematography for the film." There's more, but it's midnight here, my mind's getting foggy, and I have a busy day tomorrow. Sorry to cop out like this, but I might be back.--Monocrat 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Done until you cite more examples.
I can't believe I missed this: per the MOS, if you link to an article in the text, don't put it in "See also."
  • Done

What's worse, there's a link to Cast and Crew of Richard III, which quite nicely lists everyone. There's now no reason to list the whole cast in the main article, unless you want to change the Cast article to a redirect.

  • Whole cast is not listed in main article, only stars. I know, it's confusing, due to the large amount of actors given top billing in the film, but if you look a bit harder, the complete cast and crew lists a lot more people than the main article.

In which case, the above comments stand.

  • Most have been adressed

Otherwise, simply summarize the most important roles and actors, and use Template:Main. That frees up space for discussion of character relations and the rest.--Monocrat 04:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • That other article is meant to be a bare bones reference, with complete listing. Not meant to have descriptions and other such stuff.
You cite ealier FAs. In response I'll say that Casablanca was FA'ed almost two years ago, and the more recent V for Vendetta, Ran, Tenebre, November, and even Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith simply blow this article out of the water in terms of formatting, and possibly content insofar as they are comparable.
  • Getting this article to this point has been a mammoth task, due to the fact that it's a poorly documented film, in that, there are no making-of books, no press coverage, no interviews, so length wise it's always going to look skimpy next to the other films you mentioned.
  • Apart from blaming it on Olivier's ghost, give me a compelling reason why we need bits like "Lately adherent to the Houes of York" breaking up the flow of the list of cast? I don't see why you can't do "Cast" like Ran (film): doing so would fit summary style, and would surpass Characters in Ran. Nevertheless, character/cast lists do seem common practice for film FAs, but the formatting needs work.

That's the way that the cast is mentioned in the film. Why don't I do it like Ran? Quite frankly, I hate what they've done for that section of Ran. I want to find out who's in the film, and quick, and that certainly doesn't help. What I've done is also akin to Revenge of the Sith, the exception being that Sith gives a description of the character, rather than the star. Which is useless in my case. And possible on Sith too.

  • Why is prose unwise for awards? I really don't get it, but if there's been substantial debate about the issue, I'll withdraw the point. Also, is it necessary to have the list of awards above what prose there is?

Why are lists unwise for awards? I don't get it! The information is there, and it's easy to access at a glance, once again, unlike Ran.

  • What I meant by "relations" is stuff like whether the character was a son/adherent of Edward IV or what have you.
  • Well....that is already stated.

I also think that the critical reception could use more material and citations.

  • Reception? The things got about 5 reviews on rt.com, most of which are commenting on how well Criterion did with the DVD. I don't see what I could add there without making stuff up, honestly.
  • Regarding the copy: there are too many instances to fully list here. Broadly, clean up the text in and around your citations (unles I'm wrong, they should be flush to the text employing them);
  • resolved

work on capitalization;

  • well...apart from the prologue text...it's fine, isn't it? And the Prologue text may have some bad grammar because it is a direct copy from the film's opening. DIRECT.

Template:Details if not Template:Main should be used to note "Cast..."

  • Done

These take care of the major mechanical problems, but the stylistic one remain: Consider the entries for Hardwicke, Gielguld, and Olivier in "Cast:" There are uncited assertions of fact and (e.g., Olivier's interpretation of Richard) and interpretations ("can be interpreted as a combination of Olivier's quest for an all-star cast..."), and the prose is plain at best.

Done for Gielgud, and Olivier, but Hardwicke? What's wrong with that? Why would I cite that he came to Hollywood and did supporting roles? That's like citing that the Dinosaurs are extinct
  • Re "Criterion": surely there have been other video releases. I don't see the harm in simply mentioning them.
  • Done.

Secondly, Criterion provides you with the commentary track the documentary —prime secondary sources—but I don't see any citation of either.

  • Because, to my shame, I don't own the Criterion version. Yet. But the commentary is only for insight on the play, not really into the production of the film. According to Criteion.

If you have access to a library database, see what JSTOR and the linke can pull up for film criticism.

  • No dice in that department. As I said, few documentations, review or otherwise, survive.
  • Looking at the more recent FAs, I notice that there's no section on themes. The article on the play seems rather wimpy, so I don't know what to suggest in that department. I understand that it's about a guy who kills for power, but surely Shakespeare and hence Olivier dealt with more than that.
  • Suprisingly, no, this film doesn't really have any themes, which would go against the grain of Shakespeare. Perhaps the bard put in some themes, but Olivier's film is really just for entertainment. It's really just watching a guy pulling of some nefarious plots, and reaping the rewards. I know that description doesn't really do the film justice, it's a great film, but it's not an especially deep and thoughtful film.

--Monocrat 12:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really hard to tell where my comments end and yours begin! :) One, I don't really about Olivier's preferences on the presentation. The list now is unattractive and disruptive to a reading of the article. I don't see anything to prevent you from adopting and modifying the style of Revenge of the Sith.
  • It's a list, just like Revenge of the Sith, however, it is divided up into who's who, and instead gives a short note of interest for each actor. It's not that different from ROTS. I based this thing on Casablanca, and wether or not it was an FA long ago or recently, it's still one of the best FA film articles around.

Two, you're the one who initially said that prose doesn't work for the awards, and I asked why. I feel that prose would be better, especially since most of the nominations and awards are Olivier's.

  • Done. The things I do for a "support".

Three, I disagree as to the availability of online reviews. Google Scholar came up with two promising articles from JSTOR alone when searching for ""richard III" olivier": C.A. Brown (Film Quarterly, summer 1967) and S.P. Cerasano (Shakespeare Quarterly, 1985).

  • That's amusing, due to the fact that one of the articles you mention states that there's not too much critical material available on the film. At any rate, I don't have access to JSTOR from my current location, so it only gives me the first page. I personally can't do it.

All of this said, we seem to be at loggerheads about a good many points. :) --Monocrat 03:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if my comments were long-winded for your tastes. I hope you stick to the cleaner discussion format. In any case, while this is not the Simple English Wikipedia, this project is aimed at a generalist readership, mixing cineasts, Shakespeareans, academics, rednecks, dropouts, and schoolchildren. I don't have a problem with large words per se, but there seems no encyclopedic value to either employing Olivier's format, nor does there seem much reason to needlessly alienate sections of the readership for whom the article would be most beneficial as an introduction. And as for nitpicky reasons to oppose, scroll down to see what Tony and TigranTheGreat put Azerbaijani people through. Regarding research and JSTOR, I suggest you contact an editor with access or that you find some method of access. Sources are there. --Monocrat 14:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's gone through a bit of re-tooling now. I'm making a stand on the Cast thing, but I've given in, as you shall see, on all the other points. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 04:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I has improved, but not to where I can support it. Things like "The King" and "His brothers" really should be in the bulletted text. However, I'll remove my objection in consideration of your efforts. Good luck. :) --Monocrat 04:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The article needs to be copyedited and polished up. Try to get an experienced copyediter to go over it for you.
  2. The Cast and Crew of Richard III (1955 film), what encyclopedic value does this article provide, that an IMDB link wouldn't? (I don't think there is an awful lot).
  3. The reception and criticism section is a little weird. There is a 100% tomatoes rating, yet there is mostly negative comments against the film. (You may want to consider merging those two sections as well).
  4. "It is the most famous adaptation of the play, though in recent times another popular adaptation has been produced, starring Ian McKellen." I know this is nitpicky, but is the Ian McKellen one actually popular?
  5. "Lately adherent to the House of York" Do you have to use the term "Lately adherant"? It's a little cumbersome and I think it would be a bit of a speedbump for some readers.

--P-Chan 06:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (Please be neat when replying to my comments. The conversation you had with Monocrat is very hard to follow).

I'll be neater in response, becuase you are neater in statement.

  1. I don't think that it's really that bad, but do you know any good copyediters?
  2. Well, It's neater than IMDb, and it gives links to the actual historical figures.
  3. Yes, it has a 100% tomatoes rating, however, as I stated in my comments with Monocrat, Critical reception on this film is not well documented. Anyway, the major praise of the film seems to be directed at Olivier's performance, which I've now mentioned. The two sections are now merged.
  4. The McKellen version is the only other prominent adaptataion. Its fairly popular yes, certainly not in comparison to and Hollywood blockbusters, no, but in it's own right, yes.
  5. That's actually the wording from the film. If they don't know what it means, well, there going to learn, aren't they, therefore expanding their knowledge, and then the encyclopedia has fulfilled it's task: It's taught someone something new. Plus, this isn't the simple english Wikipedia.

....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are fairly nit-picky reasons to oppose. Oh well. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 11:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the FA process!! :)--P-Chan 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Try here: Wikipedia:Cleanup (submit early, as it takes a while to get any results!). For a do-it-yourself try here: User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_2a. Of course, you could just ask something you know who has contributed at an FA level. But you know, the article is so short that it should be easy to fix everything quickly.
  2. I'm sure people had some nice things to say about the film itself outside of Oliver.
  3. Yeah it's neater I'll give you that... but stuff like "Jack Curran - Horse Master" may be better for just the IMDB, as it really seems unnecessary to have an article dedicated to listing every single role. Besides you already captured all of the notable elements in the cast section of the main article.
  4. I think your response just highlighted why it may not be appropriate. (It sounds a little bit on the original research side.) "Notable" is a little more neutral, so let's try that.
  5. Dude. That's like... totally poppycock.  :) The articles should be written in a way that is clear and accessible. Maybe just "House of York" would be more appropriate?

In any case, don't take the criticism that harshly. Yes, it's nitpicky, but you know when advice gets to this micro-stage, it probably means that all the really major probelms have already been taken care of!--P-Chan 04:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.
  1. I've got someone on it, I don't trust my grammatical skills, as highly lauded as they are by English teacher, enough.
  2. Actually, Olivier's performance is so damn good that that's all the crtical praise it needs to be a success. The film, pretty much, is Olivier. If you see the film, you'll know what I mean.
  3. Well, if that article is innapropriate, that's too bad. It's not up for FA at any rate, so if it gets deleted, that's too bad. I just thought it might be useful. It can go, and it won't be missed.
  4. Fine. Done. Hang on...yes...it has been done. Nice.
  5. Well, I've added a little (Members of) into it, for those who find it hard to grapple with "Lately Adherent". Oh, wait. Also done.

And yes, that was poppycock. Sorry. At any rate, it seems that in the 2 days that I've been away, the article has gone under quite a bit of polishing. Nice. Thanks, P-Chan, for being someone who opposes, but also helps out. Thou art truly a prince amongst...Wikipedians. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 04:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Support: It still has some minor copyediting and format issues, but at this point, I can't seem to think of anything major that would sink this FA. Thefourdotelipsis, I encourage you to still get your friend to copyedit this article. But right now, it's ok.--P-Chan 00:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
HEY PEOPLE! CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Support: Image:Flo-dali.jpg is cutting a paragraph of text in half. I tried to rearrange the image so this didn't happen but failed miserably :) Any chance you can fix this up please? Cheers --darkliight[πalk] 12:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou
  • Object—2a. Here are examples.
    • "It is the most famous adaptation of the play, though in 1995 another notable adaptation by the same name had been produced, starring Sir Ian McKellen." Strictly speaking, "though" should introduce a contradiction with the previous statement. I'm not sure this is the case here. And I wonder whether there's a POV problem here, in the absence of references. Is this relative fame just a matter of opinion? <--- This has been addressed, as it now corresponds to a later quote in the body.--P-Chan 03:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Out of the three Shakespeare films directed by Olivier, Richard III garnered the least critical praise. It is also the only film out of the three not to have been nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, though Olivier's performance was nominated. In later years, the film gained popularity and, through a re-release in 1966, it is the highest grossing of Olivier's three Shakespeare films." Remove both occurrences of "out". Do you like "Shakespeare films"? Isn't there a better wording? "Garnered" implies too active a role; what you want is "received". Olivier's performance refers to his acting, I suppose, not his direction; it's not crystal clear. "It is the highest grossing"—should present tense be used? <--- The problems have been addressed. --P-Chan 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Richard's evil eventually leads to his downfall." Spot the redundant word. <--- Fixed.--P-Chan 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "The prologue of the film states that history without its legends would be "a dry matter indeed", so the film does indeed admit that it is not portraying the actual events of the time, rather it is portraying and adapting the legend." Why "indeed" twice in six words? The word is not encyclopedic (OK in quotes, of course). A semicolon after "time" is required to make the sentence grammatical.<--- This has been addressed.--P-Chan 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thorough surgery required throughout before considering nomination for FA. Let me know if you want other examples, but you shouldn't need further evidence of the need to find another WPian to assist—preferably one who's distant from the text. Tony 09:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. It's relative fame. What can one cite for such a thing?
  2. Present tense should be used, I suppose, because all films are suceptible to a re-release that may alter their gross. Altered "Garnered", Put "performance" in context, altered to "Shakespearean films", removed "out" twice.
  3. Spotted and removed
  4. Fixed

More examples, please. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 10:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • You ask for more examples. OK, a few, but reviewers here are under no obligation to show you how to fix an entire article. Our function, in relation to Criterion 2a, is to provide sufficient examples of the density of problems in the writing to show that either (1) it should not be promoted, or (2) you should network, and fast, to find copy-editors to assist you. First place to look is similar articles (look at the history pages for good editors). I have a secret list of good editors, but I won't share it; you should be compiling one too.

I'm picking out bits at random to show you that the whole text needs thorough treatment. The problems are everywhere, I'm afraid.

    • "The result was that the film was released in cinemas and on television simultaneously, which in turn resulted in a poor box-office gross." Why not: "Consequently, the film was simultaneously released in cinemas and on television, which resulted in poor box-office returns." Now, this is partly a matter of style, but let's face it, "compelling, even brilliant" prose has to have style. In the end, style can be reduced to technical matters. You need to get better at them, but this won't happen suddenly.
    • "added an extra element"—sure this isn't excessive? (Can we do without "extra"?)
    • "After obtaining both John Gielgud and Cedric Hardwicke,"—"engaging"?
    • "in order to film"—spot the two redundant words.
    • "Olivier took several sittings for the famed painter Salvador Dali, to have a portrait painted." Unclear and awkward.

So, finding collaborators who are interested in this topic is your immediate goal. Fortunately, WP makes it easy for you to identify them; express knowledge of and interest in their work, and they're more likely to be flattered into helping. Tony 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Altered, as per request
  • Yes, we can, and will
  • Done
  • Spotted and removed
  • Changed ever so slightly

I know you're under no obligation to spot more problems, but you did say I should let you know if I needed more. I will find more WPians per your request. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Several Copyediters are now polishing the article like crazy. Your objections have been adressed. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No they haven't! We've just started!  :) --P-Chan 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
That scares me. But, to tell the truth, it's in pretty good shape. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't, as this is totally normal stuff. Anyways, I've left a set of questions on the article talk that you might want to look at. They aren't objections, but questions.--P-Chan 04:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I should say that I highly encourage you to answer the questions on the talk. The reference checking has not been too fun, as I'm finding factual errors, which is bad. It's ok for now, as long as you answer the questions on the article talk.--P-Chan 07:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Questions have been answered. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess when I said "mission accomplished" earlier... I must have spoke too soon. Right now, all the problems that have been explicitly identified by Tony, have been addressed. I'm certain, more copyediting can be done, but, I believe, the major issues have been dealt with. In terms of the issues with accuracy in sourcing, I'll just say that I found some errors and fixed them. Are there anymore comments or objections?--P-Chan 07:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Support - So much effort went into bringing the article to the current state. All the minor and major corrections have been addressed. Lincher 12:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Weak Object for now; Support
  • contains an impressive set of cast members is POV
  • until he had to sell it to pay for his children's school fees. cite this
  • What dates/how long was filming for?
  • The rest looks prettty good, though minor things need to be fixed up, such as Laurence Olivier being wikified at least six times.Cvene64 02:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Navy

I first came upon this article a few weeks ago and was impressed by its comprehensiveness, accuracy, and prose. After some copyediting today, I feel that the article is up to standards. Referenced and inline cited, along with descriptive and illustrative charts and pictures, this article epitomizes the magnificent work of Wikipedia. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment/grammatical question - I know that "United States Navy" is the way that the organization refers to itself, but isn't this somewhat grammatically incorrect? You wouldn't, for instance, say "Canada Navy" or "India Navy" or "Japan Navy." You would say "Canadian/Indian/Japanese Navy." So why is it "United States Navy" and not "American Navy"? User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC) (P.S. - I'll give the article a read and see what I think.)
I've responded to this below; the official title is "United States Navy", and per the Manual of Style, that's where the article should be. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Some comments -
  • The "History of the Navy" section focusses extensively on the Revolutionary period of American history, and on WWII onward, but there's very little in between. Did the Navy do nothing for the 19th century? Compare one small paragraph on the 19th century to two extensive paragraphs on the last three decades of the 18th century.
    I'll see what I can do to expand the section. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    The section has been expanded now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Some people don't like red links in FAs. (United States 4th Fleet). I personally don't have a problem with it, but it's likely a concern that will be brought up.
    I don't see a problem with red links, as long as there are not a great number of them. In addition, I've placed the article on requested articles in the hidden queue in the RC header, so it should be created soon. Alternatively, I could create a stub right now but would prefer someone more knowledgeable in the field write it. If not, I'm willing to do some research and write a basic article. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Similarly, a lot of people dislike lists. Could the "Fleets" section and the "Major naval bases" section be converted to "compelling, even brilliant prose"? Or spun off to List of Fleets of the United States Navy and List of major United States naval bases? I'm sure that "Historically Significant Vessels" can be converted to prose as well.
    The fleet section isn't really a list, as it comprises more prose rather than straight numerical/ordinate listing. I'll see what I can do, though. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Some claims need to be cited. For instance:
    • Aircraft carriers are considered the most important and most powerful warships in the United States Navy. - By whom? Is this position unanimous? Ditto for Aircraft are a critical component of the United States Navy’s fighting capacity.
    • The entire sections on Amphibious Assault Ships, Amphibious Transport Docks, Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, Dock Landing Ships, Historically Significant Vessels, Shipboard Systems, Aircraft Systems, Coastal Warfare, Personnel, Uniforms, Naval Culture, and Notable U.S. Navy People are uncited.
      Will take a look and see what I can do. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
All in all, there's a lot of solid information in this article. Focus on making it less list-heavy and citing your sources; before you do this, I don't think it could be promoted to FA. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The first one has been reffed now; I'll work on rewording this section and adding more refs as soon as the database issues clear up. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment not bad, the following minor issues should be addressed though:
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • I'll take a look and see what I can do. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of the sections are now prose. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not extraneously bold items outside of the bolding in the lead.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 22:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hi all, I've been the major contributor to this article since March. About the comments raised by DiscoKing:
    • I thought long and hard about making lists, particularly the Fleets, major naval bases, and historical vessels sections, and eventually came to the conclusion that a list with details accompanying it was the best way to present the information. If, however, someone out there can write prose well enough (i.e. better than I) so that the info is easy to find and understand, then by all means knock yourself out.
    • I'll add a sentence or two on the U.S. Navy after the War of 1812 and before the Civil War, but it did not do a whole lot that was particularly notable.
    • I'm going to delete the whole reference to 4th fleet. That part has bothered me as well. I think the emphasis should be on active fleets and the fact that many incorrectly believe that 1st fleet is the Coast Guard.
    • I'll look over the article and add inline references where they are needed.Arcimpulse 22:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the responses, and thanks for your efforts, Arcimpulse. The article is under "United States Navy" because that is the name of the organization; many such names may be considered not grammatically correct, but the article's fine where it is. I'll also take another look at the history section and see if I can expand it, and will also see what I can do in regards to the cites. I don't see a problem with the red link - occasional red links (and that's only one of two red links in the article) are okay, and I've already placed the link in requested articles (right now in the hidden queue) in the RC header. The article should be written sometime soon. Thanks for the other suggestions as well; I'll do what I can right now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nicely written and a great overview. A few notes:
  1. 19th century activities need to be written into the lead section (currently it jumps from 1790's to 20th century).
  2. I would be interested in knowing the names of some notable detractors and supporters of Navy formation.
  3. The command structure flowchart is rather oversize.
  4. I wonder if the order of sections should be rearranged -- command structure, then people, then bases, then ships. After all, a navy is only as good as its sailors. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment! I'll see what I can do to improve the overall structure and adding some more material per your suggestion. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: see also is long. 1) incorporate all links in that section into mainbody 2) remove all links which are in mainbody from see also section 3) delete empty see also section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Very nice article. I do have some concerns with the writting style, however, in that it makes frequent use of very large, very dense paragraphs which can be difficult to read. The history section is the primary example of this, although the problem exists to some extent throughout. In most cases, these large paragraphs are in fact grammatically correct, but even if technically correct as such in structure, usage does make them difficult to read. I would request a little rewritting to enable these very large paragraphs to be split into multiple smaller ones. Fieari 05:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment! I'll see what I can do to improve the overall writing style, especially in the history section. I'll take a look at it now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The history section has now been slightly reworded and broken into sections, hopefully improving the flow. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; poorly written. It needs several hours' work by a skilled copy-editor to satisfy Criterion 2a. Here are examples from the lead.
    • "The United States Navy (USN) is the branch of the United States armed forces responsible for conducting naval operations around the globe." Why abbreviate the title of the organisation and then fail to use the abbreviation throughout the article? I'd get rid of the USN at the top, and use a consistent term for the organisation, not the hotch-potch of terms that are scattered through the text. With respect to the remainder of this opening sentence, is the USN's major stated role to conduct operations "around the globe"? Many of us wish that it would keep its bib out of everywhere else and just concentrate on defending the US. This assertion is not explicit in the mission statement that follows.
      • I've removed that phrase. However, I disagree with your opinion on the inclusion of USN. It's an accepted style to have alternate names or abbreviations that have come to be accepted of the subject in bold as well, even if they aren't used throughout the article. For example, see Xiangqi - even though the phrase "Chinese Chess" is never used except in the lead, it's still included. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "over 4,000"—most US style manuals insist on "more than" rather than "over".
    • Does "Currently" serve a purpose at the start of the third para?
    • There's lots of redundancy: "in the year 1790"—why "the year"? There's a redundant "also" and "In addition".
    • "... U.S. navy. The U.S. Navy"—avoid close repetition.
      • The first case refers to the creation of a general navy for the United States, not referring to the specific U.S. Navy the article discusses. The second term (capitalized) refers to the U.S. Navy. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "It was a part of the conflict from the very beginning of American involvement to the very end of the war and proved to be a vital element in the success of the Allies." Can you avoid "very" twice here? Replace "proved to be" with just "was".
    • "it participated in Vietnam War operations"—Why not just "it participated in the Vietnam War"?
    • The Navy "roamed the seas"? Ships may do that, but it's awkward to say it of a whole navy; reword. And it did this "in support of allies"? US taxpayers might hope that before this, the roaming was to protect their own country. The wording doesn't suggest this. The final comma brings into question whether it was just the submarines that suppported allies.
    • "Its ability to project force is considered a key asset for U.S. leaders." Yes, throwing its weight around is a political tool for garnering votes, but I don't think you mean to say that here. It's fine if you retain this statement, but it will bring smiles to many readers.
    • "the number of ships and personnel"—Should that be "numbers", or are the ships each operated by a single person?
    • "... the Navy has ... a high degree of spending relative to other nations." Having spending is awkward—reword. False comparison: insert "that of" before "other".

These are basic technical matters that pervade the article. I suspect that some readers will sniff POV, too. Tony 08:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I've replied to each point individually. Can you point out where you feel the article is POV, or places that require more improvement? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


      • The history section has now been slightly reworded and broken into sections, hopefully improving the flow. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


The captions in this article have been reviewed and meet the criteria for good captions. - Epolk 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC) - (Writing Captions WikiProject)

  • Comments -- It needs to be summarised, it has a huge ToC which needs to be cut down, the gallery causes a horizontal scrollbar to appear in standard web resolution (800x600) =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Not completely. The subsections in the history can be eliminated, the NCO table still spills out, (the last column is faulty), the naval bases could do with a map of the locations, =Ships= could do with an additional summary as a lot of information is about the ships themselves and less on the navy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    I fiddled around some more with the tables and I think I fixed the problem (it doesn't go off the screen when I set my own resolution to 800x600). I'll remove the headings in the history, and the map sounds like a great idea. Regarding the Ships section, the whole purpose of the section is to describe the capabilities that a ship gives to the navy and and show how that all fits into U.S. naval strategy as a whole. I'll read over it to try to eliminate some sentences that deviate from this. Arcimpulse 07:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hate to do this on an article that I work on, but until the personnel section is improved, the article won't be ready for primetime. Arcimpulse 18:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Everywhere I look there are problems in the prose. And you say that you've fixed the redundant "also" and "in addition" in the lead, but they're still sitting around lazily. The last sentence in the lead is a bombsite:
    • the U.S. Navy remains the world’s largest navy with a tonnage greater than that of the next 17 largest navies combined.[3] In addition, the Navy has focused on developing advanced technological capabilities, spending a high amount of funds relative to the spending of other nations.

Remove the second and third occurrences of "navy" and insert a comma after first "largest". Why not something more useful thatn "in addition"? Perhaps "Over the past three decades"? "Amount of funds" is awkward, if not ungrammatical. Try "spending more than any other nation"?

Then I stray down into the opening of the first section (History) and I see "heavily discussed"; this is not idiomatic English.

I haven't got time to go through the whole article, but it needs a copy-editor to give it a thorough massage. Someone who's distant from the text is required. Convince me then that it passes the stringent demands of 2a. Tony 16:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Anthropoid

reason for nominating the article: very important and interesting event —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prague Fuser (talk • contribs).

  • Object for the following reasons:
    • "Trivia" and "The operation in popular culture" sections should be made into prose and merged elsewhere.
    • Short, choppy paragraphs and one-paragraph sections proliferate. These should be fixed.
    • The referencing is inadequate. External hyperlinks should be changed over to footnotes using the cite web template, etc., etc. Citations to printed material would also be nice.
    • The copyright status of Image:Assassins hiding place.jpg should be resolved, and if it survives speedy deletion, the file should be renamed. Assassins have hidden in lots of places. . .
    • The prose needs a thorough copy edit and style shakedown. Anville 14:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object not quite ready yet:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "The operation in popular culture".
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gmail

The peer review has been archived, that means this article should gain featured status. <p border="1" style="outset">cheung1303</p> 01:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No? Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Its not ready with referencing still in a mess. Closing of Peer Review does not amount to featured status. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, article is not up to scratch in terms of content, layout or verifiability. For example the article lacks a consistent referencing system; parts of the article aren't prose - and should be; makes no mention of ads; headings in features add little to the text with such short sections and a lot to the TOC - the same is true for the criticism section; article cites speculation on a number of points; what purpose does the help section serve? Are people still selling gmail accounts? Two links to wikibooks, and so on.--Peta 06:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, are you serious? Just because it was peer reviewed doesn't mean it's featured material. Phoenix2 16:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the following reasons:
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Awards and support is/are a bit short.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). For example, see "Google Mail".
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • many others still wish there was a way to view the size of included attachments from the message-list view
    • Many believed that this meant that Google would intentionally archive copies of deleted mail forever
    • is/are weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 20:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong OBJECT - the article needs condensing, focussing and restructuring, not to mention all the WP guidelines mentioned above. I honestly think it would be near impossible to get an article on such a frequently changing service up to Featured quality, ever, since (for example) before the dust settles on Calendar integration there are images in Quick Contacts, next there will be a free toaster or something, plus non-US interfaces catch up from time to time and all these points start life being tagged on the end of a paragraph. Sadly, quality articles tend to for be quite static subject areas (IMHO). Skewer 07:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time

A wonderful article. It has clear, non-confusing info. Decent images, decent references, etc. FA quality for sure. 11kowrom 20:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC) %

Weak Support Great article, but weak on the references. Surely more than one was used! Lorty 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but object for the following reasons:
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • Quotes need footnotes also.
  • There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.
  • About half of the article is simply the last 4 sections, see if the "see also" and "external links" sections can be shorterned a bit.
And more minor issues:
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 21:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Some room for improvement:
  • the language is a little informal in places: "He said that time was basically what a clock read", "A famous analogy was one...".
  • The See Also list is far too long.
  • I think the opening sentence should endeavour to sxplain what time is, rather than open with how it has been studied.
  • The text and formatting need reviewing: "Hours are expressed using... but is commonly..."; 'main article' formatting at Philosophy of time has gone awry.
  • I think it's rather short, particularly if the 'See Also' section is reduced. The 'Chronology' section in particular could do with significant expansion. --BillC 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object
  1. Needs to cite sources with in-line citations
  2. Lead needs to be rewritten -- too abstract, does not summarize the article, starting with the second paragraph would make a better opening.
  3. I would prefer consistent section names: Physics of time, philosophy of time, units of time, etc.
  4. The See Also section needs to be considerably compacted -- it spans half the length of the article.
  5. The External Links section needs to be considerably trimmed -- Wikipedia is not a link farm. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Per nom. Hezzy 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UEFA Cup

A highly entertaining, solid article summarising the best of Europe's secondary cup competition. The amount of writing is balanced with the amount of tables and charts - all of which are relevent and well constructed. At least enough for "good" article, I feel enough for featured. Kingfisherswift 11:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Sorry, but it's not there yet. The article is heavy on lists. The "trivia" section shouldn't be there; take the information there and convert it into brilliant prose elsewhere. Inline citations are now a must for featured articles. Also, in a lot of places, the article is informal in its tone and assumes that the reader knows a good deal about European football clubs. I would suggest a peer review. Good luck! User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 12:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for various reasons... see WP:WIAFA.
    • Lacks the depth needed for an FA (2b). Looks like a good start, but half the article is lists, and it is a bit light on actual prose.
    • Lacks any references whatsoever. (2c)
    • The lead is insufficient (3a). This needs to summarize the article, not merely introduce it.
    • Contains only one image and it is fair use. Perhaps a free image from the competition could be found? That's not really a requirement but it helps. --W.marsh 14:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, lead is insufficient. Phoenix2 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The captions in this article have been reviewed and meet the criteria for good captions. -Epolk 16:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Writing Captions WikiProject
  • Oppose For the subject the article is quite small, there needs to be a bigger more detailed history which is cited and referenced.--Childzy 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • Lacks Pictures
    • It should not have the trivia section
    • It is too short

Leidiot 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely wrong

This article is completely wrong, the Fairs Cup and the UEFA Cup are completely different, check UEFA's official website to see this (http://www.uefa.com/Competitions/uefacup/History/index.html). As an example, check Barcelona's official trophy count (http://www.uefa.com/footballEurope/Club=50080/competition=1/index.html). As you can see, there are no UEFA Cups, nor Fairs Cup, as this was an unofficial competition. I think the article should be completely changed and only talk about the UEFA Cup. Then another one on the Fairs Cup could be done. Robert King.

  • While I do not agree entirely with the above, I think the Fairs Cup deserves an article on its own. This competition had a different trophy and was run by differet organization. In the conclusion of this article it could then be made clear that the UEFA Cup was a successor competition. This would also allow this article to be expanded in size and atay within Wikipedias recommended limits on article size. I think the current article while reasonably good could still do with improving. Djln--Djln 23:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

Extremely well written, many links and refences, very deserving of becoming featured. Hezzy 00:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object -- the WP:LEAD is not a summary of the article. Jkelly 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It is an accurate deffintion of "Atheism". I really see no other way to summarize an article about Atheism.Hezzy 01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The lead is what would need to appear on the main page, so it needs to be improved to a considerably higher quality for that. --W.marsh 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The lead needs to summarize the article, not just introduce it. Per WP:LEAD. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Object
Per above, per WP:WEASEL. Wrong section order (should open with history). - Emt147 Burninate! 01:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose above comment. Articles about words open with etymology, not history; history was in the correct placement originally. In fact, if the etymology section wasn't so learge, it would be in the lead. -Silence 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. On several grounds:
    • The lead section is inadequate.
    • The sections are not ordered properly.
    • The quotes are formatted awkwardly.
    • There are too many one-sentence paragraphs.
There is still a lot of work to be done, but this article in its current state is a very good start. RyanGerbil10 02:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. For similar reasons to above comments, though I have made some edits. Also, could someone more familiar with the article look at the "Atheism in India" section? Something isn't right there, but I'm not sure what. --Danaman5 23:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. "History" section should not come before "etymology", and very probably shouldn't come before "types and typologies" (which clarifies the definition(s) of atheism) either. It should also be expanded to at least three decent-sized paragraphs in length, and I see no reason not to add an image. A common problem I see is that articles have sections that are too bloated when there's no daughter article, and too short when there is a daughter article (as is the case for the "history" and "criticisms" section). Striking a balance is key: expand the "history" and "criticisms" section so they're informative and meaningful sections in their own right, not just brief introductions to a distinct article. Otherwise the article won't function as a self-contained piece, and will come across as unbalanced.
  • Also: a giant section on ignosticism in this article is clearly unnecessary. Ignosticism is a quasi-noteworthy neologism that clearly only takes up such a large portion of the article because of Wikipedia's Internet-community-bias; there's no reason for a 7-paragraph section on ignosticism when there's no section on apatheism, for example, especially considering that ignosticism arguably isn't even a type of atheism, but of agnosticism—which brings us to the most serious bias in this article: the clear bias in favor of the definition of atheism as "lack of theism", accompanied by a bias against the more common definition of atheism as "denial of theism". This bias is reflected in the very article structure: it plain-facedly covers many different topics in great depth regardless of whether they are clearly related to every common definition of atheism or not, without acknowledging any possibility of dissent. Its terminology choice is also biased.
  • One more recommendation: remove "atheism in philosophical naturalism" from the "types and typologies" section, and create a new section instead. This new section should cover the widespread philophies which are noted for being atheistic, such as nihilism, and the philosophical naturalism stuff can be a subsection thereof. If we cover atheism in various religions, we should do the same for various philosophies (and a section for atheism in politics wouldn't go amiss either, perhaps with a link to the atheist left and atheist right articles; though that could simply be mentioned in the "United States" regional section). Also, please, please deal with the stub sections. The only reason the TOC is currently so bloated is because of the overuse of sectioning where simple paragraph divisions would suffice. Also, the "see also" section is a bit bloated, and some of the entries seem strange (why babel fish?). I recommend stripping the "see also" section of all but the most important entries, and simply let people use Category:Atheism for the others. You may also want to consider focusing on linking to entries that aren't included in {{atheism}}. Lastly, this article is clearly a massive link farm: it has almost 70 external links (closer to 100 if you count the links in the "notes" and etc. sections, when I don't). You should probably cut it down to 15 at most; I've seen plenty of featured article candidates rejected for having even that many external links. -Silence 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. For many of the reasons above, but also for the format of the article in general. My feeling is that many of the pieces could be compressed, joined or presented in different ways. For example, there is a lot of data about the current state of atheism in different nations and regions (most of Distribution of Atheists and Atheism Studies, for example) that should be split off into a daughter subject (Distribution of Atheists) and/or compressed into something like a table so that things can be compared more easily. This is a complicated subject; don't be afraid to summarize and direct to a separate page - keeping all the data here just makes the page difficult to navigate (the TOC scares me, too!).Matt Deres 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy

I nominated this article because it is bigger than most featured articles and it has a huge variety of links and info. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (History of War) 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd recommend a peer review here - no references, lots of trivia, etc. RN 19:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RN. Lists of trivia should be converted into brilliant prose, statements should be sourced, lists should be spun off into daughter articles or converted into prose, audience reaction should be taken into consideration more so than is done, etc. Peer review would be very good for this article. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 20:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Most of the article is trivia and list. No references at all. Please go for a Peer Review first. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Its a good start. Improvements can be made to this article. You can start by adding references to it. I'll change my vote to Support if there's referencing. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 13:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose- A nice article but needs much help to be feaures article. Refrencing is a very good idea.

[edit] Naruto

Well written, no fancruft (unlike some), and rather accurate. I rest my case. The Gerg 01:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Comments
  1. "hyperactive" in the intro seems subjective to me
  2. It says it "has been compared to those of Akira Toriyama's Dragon Ball Z," - but who is comparing it, wikipedia :p?
  3. Second paragraph in "Growth and popularity" seems totally needless - I'd say just link to the two sites it references
  4. "Although many such groups stop once a series has been licensed" borders on original research without a source - also, it is very general much like the second paragraph in "Growth and popularity"
  5. Numbers cited in "Manga and anime details" probably need to have at least one reference
  6. "many" is used as a quantifier in "Toonami and YTV broadcast" - try using something more concrete, such as "most" or at least "some"
  7. "It also appears that Cartoon Network made some extra edits in addition to those done by Viz Media, since some of the episodes that aired on the Canadian YTV network had fewer alterations" another thing that seems to be original research, perhaps you can source this as well
  8. "Naruto has a large and colorful cast of characters, running a gamut of detailed histories and complex personalities " this seems POV to me...
  9. The writing is kind of awkward towards the end of "Plot overview" - suggest tweaking

Well, erm, thats enough for me for right now I guess. Basically more references for the ending sections as well and the "story arcs" section is awfully listy. RN 02:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, something wikilinked in the article doesn't go in see also - I tried to clean up that but got reverted... RN 05:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Is that really a rule? I have found nothing about it in the MOS. Even the MOS itself does this. Jeltz talk 14:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Way too many lists, too few references. RyanGerbil10 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Could use more references. Also focuses too much on the fictional details. I'd like to see an anime as a FA, but the Naruto article just doesn't cut it yet. --Antrophica 05:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Also Object. Needs more citations, has too many lists, and not enough on the historical details as Antrophica mentioned. Don't worry though, almost nothing is featured on the first nomination.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 12:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too many lists and too few references per RyanGerbil10. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • ...
  1. But the show is about a loud, hyperactive, adolescent Ninja named Naruto, who has the same name as the series. I think it's fine.
  2. Fixed it. It now says "is compareable to" rather than "has been compared".
  3. Agreed.
  4. No comment (if we need a source, then let's search. If we absolutely can't find one, then should we just delete it?).
  5. This is pretty much verifiable if someone counts the manga pages and episodes (time-consuming, I know).
  6. Fixed. Only one mention at the beggining of paragraph 2. Replaced first mention with "a number of" and deleted the third entirely.
  7. I reworded it, but I'm not sure if that's sufficient...
  8. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to fix this. To me, it looks fine, as the statement is, in fact, true.
  9. Tweaked.

Be sure to look at the article and decide whether or not the changes I made work. If you oppose the above, speak now, or forever hold you peace (I love ripping off lines, lol).

The Wretched


Learn how to spell please Wretch ;)


> #"hyperactive" in the intro seems subjective to me

The description "loud, hyperactive, adolescent Ninja" is taken directly from the anime, so I think it's fine

[edit] Embrun, Ontario

Embrun, Ontario is a quality article about the town of Embrun in Ontario, Canada. This article is self-nominated. It is notable and provides content suitable for Wikipedia rather then useless blabber and has backing proof for facts and follows Wikipedia formatting. FruitsAndVegetables133 22:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Very Strong Support. I never heard of Embrun, Ontario before. I read this article and now I know as much about the town as the town's residents. I can't see anything wrong with this article. In my opinion, it is 100% featured article material. --SallySplit1492 22:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • probably a sockpuppet. blocked. --BRIAN0918 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose a ton of one-sentence, ultra-mini paragraphs RN 22:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No references. Also, do I detect sockpuppetry judging by SallySplit1492's contributions and similar name to that of FruitsAndVegetables133's? 64.231.152.254 22:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Insufficient lead, insufficient prose, insufficient referencing, insufficient images, insufficient organization... in general, insufficient. Fieari 22:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. While this article could use changes, can't every article use changes? I think this article is worth being featured. --RichyHillyIsMyTown 22:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • probably a sockpuppet. blocked. --BRIAN0918 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate Support. I don't like the way this article doesn't have images, but I still like it and I think it is worth being featured. Don't get the impression that I adore this article, though. --Chinaism 22:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • probably a sockpuppet. blocked. --BRIAN0918 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. In my opinion, Featured Articles shouldn't follow a universal standard, but instead should follow a standard for its general subject. While there are many articles better than this, I think this article is as good as it could possibly be, and that is what matters (sorry if I took too much room).--LeGrisChat 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • probably a sockpuppet. blocked. --BRIAN0918 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The above 3 users have a total of 8 contributions, all today. Sockpuppetry seems to be a reasonable claim; where does one go to report it? - The Catfish 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Please expand the lead (see WP:LEAD. Also, no images or references. Clearly not FA material. PDXblazers 00:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is some good stuff here, but it's just not FA material yet. I'd suggest going through a peer review first to get improvement opinions; I'd also strongly suggest not self-nominating. Furthermore, I'm a bit leery of the fact that every single keep vote so far has come from a user with no prior edit history. Puppet city. Bearcat 00:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The lead itself is is very small. No inline citations. A two sentence long external link inside text. Section organization (especially history) is poor. "Location" has just two paragraphs, both one sentence long. Even a lot of other paragraphs are single sentences that need to be fixed. Go for Peer Review per Bearcat. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Ambuj Saxena. Ardenn 01:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westboro Baptist Church

I nominated this page because I believe that it meets the criteria for a featured article. It is truthful, neutral (considering the circumstances,) and extensive. It is a fine example of what Wikipedia can achieve. Scienceman123 00:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object style inconsistancies, but more importantly, article seems to have some ulterior motives (see closing paragraph)
    • Do we really need a link to the website in the lead? This part would appear on the main page, I think, and seems awkward
    • Article is very long (74k)
    • Provides an external link to a google maps of the compound in the body of article. Is this really necessary? We don't tend to do this with other articles mentioning buildings where the street adress is widely known.
    • Meticulous detail, including uncited speculation about whether they bought a new Ford F-150 or merely gave it a paint job... again, is that really necessary?
    • Inconsistant citation style usage. WP:FN would be best but is by no means required. The problem is that some citations are just [url] style that don't appear in the references section. Should really be adapted to the citation style of the rest of the article.
    • Uncited paragraph about the composition of the congregation, claims to debunk the claim that only 80% are related to Phelps by pointing out that there are "about 100" members, and Phelps has 90 relatives. Yet it fails to establish that all of his 90 relatives are members (in fact some aren't). Seems quite problematic.
    • More uncited claims... like "played a large role in getting Phelps Sr.'s children accepted there.", "WBC theology resembles Hyper-Calvinism, but pushes the doctrine even further than Hyper-Calvinists."
    • Uncited claim "some of which appear to be inherently contradictory". Seems to be original research. If not OR it's definently pointed and POV, rather than using the "purpose" section to explain their purpose, it just tries to slyly critisize it.
    • Selected quotes seem pointed towards making Phelps sound crazy and whatnot. I realize he probably is, but still, choosing the worst quotes you can find is not really good.
    • The Hockenbargers are allegedly members of Christian Identity one paragraph, then a few sections later they are declared to be members for sure. Huh?
    • And that's just 1/3 of the article. You get the idea. The whole thing seems to be A) an attack against WBC by chronicling as much bad press as possible and B) meticulous, extreme collection of minute information about them. Instead of explaining WBC to the reader, it is laid out and written more in the spirit of "Okay, here's the dirt on these wackos..." This simply doesn't strike me as a very encyclopedic approach. --W.marsh 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but object:
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Council of Nicaea

Since the last time this article was nominated, it has been improved and cleaned-up (I've done much of the recent work myself). There is now more information and it complies with the featured article crieria. --Coemgenus 14:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment- a few simple minor issues: first, external links located in the References section should be cited according to WP:CITE (see also WP:CITE/ES) - {{Cite web}} may come in useful here. Additionally, headings generally do not start with the word "The" whenever possible. Thanks, AndyZ t 22:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed the subject headings. I left "The Nicene Creed," since that's how everyone refers to it, but I changed the other ones. I'll work on those cites next. --Coemgenus 14:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The web cites are now fixed, using {{Cite web}}. Handy tool, that thing. --Coemgenus 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As AndyZ indicated, some cleanup of citations is needed in the references section. In addition, the citations from Schaff (i.e. the links to ccel.org in the body) should be converted into proper references, in general leaving out the title of the work, unless it is of particular relevance (this is why one has citations after all). Finally, the text could use some superficial clean-up. iggytalk 19:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh? Anyone? Coemgenus 23:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment See also section contain items already linked-to in text. Jkelly 04:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right - they were all linked above, except for the one about the Da Vinci Code, with is just irrelevant. I erased 'em all. Coemgenus 13:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I like the level of focus and comprehensiveness, and the summary of the Arianism page, for example, is quiet strong. However, there is a general lack of in-line citation in many sections. Generally reads well, except for some places where there are lengthy lists of names.

From WP:WIAFA:

  1. It exemplifies our very best work.
  2. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. Read Great writing and The perfect article to see how high the standards are set. In this respect:
    • (a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant; I don't think it is compelling yet
    • (b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details; OK
    • (c) "factually accurate" includes supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged; Needs to be standardized (perhaps we could choose to not include the full title in the citation. The full details should perhaps be in the Reference section?)
    • (d) "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view); and OK
    • (e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. OK. No edit war as far as I know.
  3. It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having:
    • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections; Could be improved
    • (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and OK
    • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section). OK
  4. It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article. OK. All of them are ancient works of art.
  5. It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles. OK
  • Object; this is a good article, but are there citations for the sections called "Arian controversy" and "The Nicene Creed"? Also, I'm not a fan of using quotes to tell the story—better to summarize their content and cite the source, unless for some reason the quote itself is particularly significant (like something actually said at the council, not something a researcher has written). --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 23:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condoleezza Rice

Now that this article is listed as a good article, let's go one step further - make it featured. This article is very well-written and there are references. Although I cannot prove that there is no objection, I think most people will support it. --Cheung1303 06:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Inadequate lead, which does not properly summarise the article. Many one- and two-sentence paragraphs, and even a single-sentence section. The succession boxes for NSA and Secretary of State are duplicated by the templates below them. HenryFlower 10:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm always happy to see a reasonable length, for readability. It should be easy to clean up the objections raised by Henry Flower. I'd be happy to take a deeper look at the article after those issues are addressed. Sandy 11:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. External link in the core of the article instead of being in the references section. There is also a serious lack of critics about someone who is quite controversial. Poppypetty 14:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral/Weak Support It's informative and well written, but yes, lacking a 'criticism' section. It doesn't quite feel like NPOV yet, watch out for weasel words - such as Rice attended a memorial service...for Rosa Parks, an inspiration for the American Civil Rights Movement. I'd say you're pretty close though. Nuge talk 18:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose almost total blackout of any criticism about someone who is extremely controversial. Quite good besides that, but that one thing means a lot of work still needs to be done :(. It is as it always was T | @ | C 20:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As to above comments it is not simply a criticism section that is missing - there needs to inline criticism of individual actions as well. We've got a few featured articles on subjects like this already, so I would recommend looking at those. One example is
it was Rice who wrote an editorial for The New York Times entitled Why We Know Iraq Is Lying.

I.E. I think perhaps you need to show the reception of that editorial? It is as it always was T | @ | C 21:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose not npov. refer to peer review. Zzzzz 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Medved

An incredible article. It perfectly states his accomplishments, his history, and it meets all the criteria (I think)

  • Weak Support An well written article, but the lead sentances could be a tad stronger. 11kowrom 17:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs inline citations, not external links in the text. Lead needs to be expanded. Simpsons info should be integrated into text, trivia sections are never really that great. Getting there though. Cvene64 17:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I second Cvene64's objections, in that there needs to be inline citations and that the trivia section needs to be integrated into the main article.--P-Chan 06:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Lead section needs to be more selective and detailed. Sections and sub sections to be slightly more organised - the 'Early life' section features information on what Medved is currently up to. Too many redlinks towards the end - the article for celebrity bastard parents should be created (or don't make it a link). The article generally needs to feel more like a whole article, and less like lots of fragmented information. Nuge talk 17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiev

Being one of the oldest and most historical cities in the World, Kiev at least deserves to be a good article, but i believe it deserves more; to be a FA. Troy667 00:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Object
  • No inline citations.
  • Very small number of references.
  • History section needs to be expanded.
  • No section about the Demographics of Kiev.
  • No real emphasis about Kiev being the economic engine of Ukraine so it needs an Economic section.
  • No section about the distinct culture of Kiev so it needs a culture section.

Its a good start but there is major information missing which needs to be filled in and needs inline citations. --Mercenary2k 9:00pm May 19, 2006 Query—Why are trivial chronological items linked, e.g., years and centuries. Please delink unless a date is included. Tony 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  2. Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Specifically, Image:Kiev Mikhail Arhangel modern square.jpg need(s) proper fair use rationales.
  3. There may be an applicable WikiProject guideline to follow: see WP:CITY
  4. Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  5. Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  6. There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, "Local government" is/are a bit short.
  7. Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  8. Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15, 2006 this and that happened.
  9. Additionally, after a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all.
  10. Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  11. Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  12. Thanks, AndyZ t 23:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support, I think shall that criticisement be adressed, the article will stand full chance of being the FA. --Kuban Cossack 17:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support, fully agree with Kuban Cossack.AlexPU 13:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Mercenary2k and AndyZ, and agree with Kuban Cossack - once the objections are addressed, this should be relisted. The addressing of the objections however will require a major effort. One note: I'd like to see modern, English academic references used, especially for history section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian architecture

This article is fascinating, is well laid out, concise, beautifully illustrated, comprehensive, and adheres to all Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. It represents important cultural themes that will broaden the awareness of most readers. I feel that this article is representative of the quality and diversity that Wikipedia stands for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acooley (talk • contribs).

  • Oppose no references. Sandy 13:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose no references, inadequate lead. Please check the featured article criteria before nominating articles. HenryFlower 13:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. No references+Disproportional weightage to certain topics. Too many more issues. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose No references. IMO, move to PR.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As above. Anwar 20:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to no references and an inadequate lead. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons stated above. Should we move it to PR per Dwaipayan? DVD+ R/W 22:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose no chance for FA I don't think, so perhaps this should simply become a Peer Review like Dwaipayanc said. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. I had looked up this article a few months back and I was as disappointed with it as I am disappointed with architecture in India. A lot needs to be done, and I don't think a peer review will help for the most important one, which is that it says just three sentences about modern Indian architecture. That cannot be rectified by a copyedit. An expert Indian architect needs to fix this. — Ravikiran 09:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As a matter of principle I would oppose any unsigned nomination by an anon. But this article does mark a first of sorts ... an FAC on India or something related to it that is nowhere near ready for prime time (Was the nominator a mischief-making Pakistani?) Daniel Case 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at first glance uncited and too short. Not comprehensive. That's without going into the details.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 03:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The biggest showstopper for me are the references. Without references, I can't pledge my support, no matter how good the article. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 10:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine Psychology

Reason: This article is well-written, it is self-sufficient, it features a new field of study which may further enhance the readers' curiosity, and most of all, it meets all the criteria of a Featured Article.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • It lacks images, which though is not a prerequisite for FA status, it should still have if possible. Suggest peer review first. Thanks, AndyZ t 23:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Should be at Philippine psychology, as psychology is not a proper noun. Section headings should also use normal capitalization (first letter and proper nouns only). Tuf-Kat 04:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Orthodox Church

Great article. Has good lead, has good images, factual information, and has references. FA Criteria. Tr5asd 20:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Fixed wikilink to accurately reflect title. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 20:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are no in-line citations, and first sentence needs to be fixed for clarity. --Osbus 21:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15, 2006 this and that happened.
  • Additionally, after a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Oppose. No in-line citations. Pepsidrinka 00:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Just a remark on AndyZ's long objections. While I appreciate the thoroughness with which you are making suggestions, and the many useful comments, the sheer size of your post is a little off-putting. Perhaps if it was laid out in some other way? Exploding Boy 06:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I don't know. I originally designed a list of user templates at User:AndyZ/PR to save time from typing on WP:PR, but then I found that most could be applicable on WP:FAC. I don't mean to bite anyone, but am trying to list out the actionable objections that should be fixed to reach featured status. In any case, I'll see if I can think of a way to re-lay it out. AndyZ t 15:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) No inline citations; the current references are just two external links - more should be added, preferably from academic publications. 2) The history could be expanded (for example, why is Union of Brest not mentioned?). 3) Not comprehensive: where is the section about structure and organization? I'd like to know how independent is the Church from the Russian government. Also, does it have any missionaries? 4) The 'Russian Orthodox churches' section desperatly needs photos. See also should be incorporated into main body if possible.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clown

This article is a really good one. I learned a lot about clowns. I think it is a very comprehensive article. dq 19:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. No inline citations, but lots and lots of "Suggested reading" and the bottom half of the article is random lists. Jkelly 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL. (specifically "Quotes")
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Per WP:MOS, the first letters of words in heading should not be capitalized unless: 1) it is a proper noun or 2) it is the first word of the heading.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Oppose. No references and move all those lists to List of clowns or something similar. Pepsidrinka 00:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tobyk777 21:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Storm of 1998

I think this is an incredibly well written article, that is worthy of being a featured article. Ardenn 18:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose fails criteria 2c, 3a. The WP:LEAD needs to be expanded and references need to improved. See {{Cite web}}. Also the article needs some in-line citations. Sentences such as "Prior to the 1998 storm, the last major ice storm to hit Montreal (1986) deposited around 30 to 60 millimetres (1½ to 2¼) of ice." should be cited. Joelito (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above (lack of a proper lead, among other things the lead would appear on the main page if featured) as well as 3c, lacks a reference section let alone inline citations. I didn't see any real POV issues so inline cites might not be so critical, but references are certainly needed for an FA. Also noticed various inconsistancies:
    • Inconsistant measurements style. Says 'mm' in some places, says millimeters (unlinked) in others, says millimeters (linked) later on.
    • got the nickname of "the triangle of darkness" this is mentioned twice in the body of the text and feels rather redundant. Also it doesn't say who gave it that nickname.
    • It first says 25 people died do the storm, then further down it says 25 to 44 people died. --W.marsh 19:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, at Units of measurement, numbers with SI units of measure should have conversions in US customary units and vice versa. These conversions should keep to similar values of precision. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth". Note that the converted unit of measure uses a standard abbreviation, while the source unit is spelled out in the text.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While it is definitely a good article, there are still some problems with it that need to be worked out. Some more detail, especially from a meteorological point of view, should be added. CrazyC83 22:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon and Garfunkel

A outstanding article about an outstanding groupLorty 18:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Lack of references. Poppypetty 21:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The link to the citation in the lead needs to be replaced with a proper citation. --Osbus 21:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readibility of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
  • Dates should use either 0 or 2 commas, depending upon the subject of the article; American-related articles should use 2 commas, while British-related articles generally used 0 commas. For example, for two commas: In January 15, 2006, this and that happened, while for zero commas, use: In January 15, 2006 this and that happened.
  • Additionally, after a year, for consistency, a comma should either be used throughout the entire article or not used at all.
  • This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 23:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this article currently is in need of references. Yamaguchi先生 23:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miranda Otto

Self-nomination: After finding this article to be very short and a mess a while ago, I did a massive re-write and put it through a peer review. It is currently recognized as a good article and I feel it is both well written and stable. -- Underneath-it-All 03:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment WP:LEAD is a little on the brief side. Jkelly 04:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. Let's look at the top.
    • "is an Australian theatre and Australian Film Institute-nominated film actress. She began her career in the Australian film Emma's War in 1986 and gained critical recognition in 1991's The Girl Who Came Late."—Over-repetition: "Australian" occurs four times in the first two and a half lines (I'm unsure how to fix this, though); "film" occurs three times in the same text. As well, "1991's The girl who came late" is clumsy—the year would be better in parentheses after the title of the film. Many readers, especially women, will prefer "actor" to "actress" as non-sexist, and I note that it's a piped link to "actor" anyway.
    • "She performs predominantly in minor roles in a wide variety of low-budget and major studio films"—remove "a wide variety of".
    • "Otto was born in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia."—You've told us umpteen times that she's Australian (the word has already been linked, too), so the triple bunger could be reduced to a double.
    • "She was raised in Newcastle and Brisbane, but briefly resided in Hong Kong ..."—The HK thing does not contradict the previous clause, so make it "and", not "but".
    • "Her parents remain married, but they live with other partners."—Is this really important to the topic? Right at the top, it verges on a breach of privacy and raises questions of relevance.
    • "Growing up she excelled academically and in ballet, even considering it as a career option before realizing that she could not become a soloist due to having a slight scoliosis as many ballet soloists had to be physically perfect." The odd comma would make for easier reading (here, after "up"). But why not something more specific, such as "In her teens,.. "? Consider removing "even". It's a rather long, complex sentence; consider a semicolon after "soloist" and a rewording of the most unsatisfactory final clause (problems with "having", "slight", "many" and "had").

Not "compelling, even brilliant" prose. Needs a good copy-edit throughout, not just a fixing of these examples. Tony 04:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have acted on your suggestions and have worked them into the article. Thank you. -- Underneath-it-All 14:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response. OK, thanks, but lots more to do. In particular, there's a tendency to assert the inner emotions of the subject, without referential support and inviting POV problems. Like these:
    • "The film was hard to do for Otto as it required multiple sex scenes, which made her uncomfortable." "Otto began to doubt her career choice as she was not getting the parts she auditioned for and underwent a loss in self confidence. The feeling lifted partially when she was offered a part she loved in Love Serenade (1996), but, even then, she was not wholly convinced that acting was what she wanted to do with her life."
    • Clumsy and ungrammatical on a number of counts: "At the audition she was able to get into her characters head and how she thought, landing the part."
    • Early life—three one-sentence paragraphs in a row.
    • "When Otto first read the script she did not want to audition for the part, for fear that she would not get it." Last three words are ambiguous. How do you know that she didn't want to audition? Reference?
    • "which caused a sensation, being labelled as "Australian Gothic"—the cause and effect is unclear: was it a sensation becuase of the label?

You clearly know the subject, but do we need personal details such as: "She and O'Brien are determined to raise their daughter on their own and rotate their working life, with one parent always around to babysit." in an encyclopedia article?

I've tidied the writing, somewhat. Underneath-it-All, would you be capable of correcting some of the other issues while I continue to rewrite portions? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I will start to address the issues as soon as possible. Thanks for your help. -- Underneath-it-All 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't strike out my text—I'll do that, thanks; allow me to judge whether you've addressed those problems. Sometimes, contributors put a brief note underneath a reviewer's points, saying that they've been attended to. Tony 09:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the nomination until all the issues have been addressed. I currently do not have the time to dedicate the attention this articles needs to elevate it to featured article status as of now, but I will work on it in the future and re-nominate it then. Thank you Tony for all your suggestions on how to improve the article. -- Underneath-it-All 15:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photoresistor

This article is a good article. It does not seem too technical, or too sparsely-written. Should be on the Main Page soon. --Sunfazer | Talk 12:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • No references... I'd suggest peer review first. It is as it always was T | @ | C 12:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • FAC seems a bit premature, sorry. No references, article lacks the depth needed for an FA, also seems to lack enough context for non-science people to follow it. This would probably be a good article for the Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week. --W.marsh 12:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Where's the rest of it? Tony 15:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just to be official. No refs and far too short, as everyone has said. Staxringold 19:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Collegiate Athletic Association (Philippines)

I believe this can be an FA. After a peer review, where a subheading was objected upon (and amended), it looks good enough for me. It has been stable, has references, well-written, follows the style manual, the images are tagged. Also, a daughter article is now a featured list. Circa 1900 14:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:Object. The lead section is too short, the usual for a lead section is three well-fleshed out paragraphs covering the topic in a brief summary. Also, some of the subsection headings, especially those regarding certain rivalries, are not written using an encyclopedic tone. There are also a few one sentence paragraphs which should either be expanded upon or merged into other paragraphs.

Weak Support. Circa 1900 and I, but mostly Circa, have worked together to bring this article up to standard, and beseide a bit of more vigorous referencing, I think it is now qualified. RyanGerbil10 02:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I've already added a third paragraph to the lead. I've also copyedited the rivalries section. Circa 1900 23:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Better, but the lead paragraphs need to be longer. The rivalry section looks much better now. However, I'm going out for the night, so we'll have to continue this discussion tomorrow. Keep up the good work, we can get to FA status within nomination time. RyanGerbil10 23:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I've amended the lead in the Rivalries section and made other minor adjustments. Circa 1900 01:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Getting closer, but the history section needs to be expanded and contains some unencyclopedic tone, with phrases such as "...was the brains behind the collegiate league." Try not to use idiomatic expressions, they tend to make the articles harder to understand, especially for those who don't speak English as their native language. RyanGerbil10 17:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. Also, I've expanded the history section. Circa 1900 02:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I would say that one needs to avoid referrieng to schools as acronyms, especially in serial lists, like in parts of the history section. Also, the rivalries section seems a bit light on citations. RyanGerbil10 03:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is a list of everything else in the article I think needs fixing before it reaches FA status:
  • The lead section needs to be longer. The three paragraphs are very short, and taken together, do not give an accurate summary of the information contained in the article. The lead should be rewritten to reflect the overall organiztion and total content of the article better.
    • Expanded the lead.
  • The tone of some of the section, especially the "Structure" and "The league today" sections is overly colloquial and should be rewritten to be more formal and encyclopedic. Also, according to the WP:MOS, the word "the" should not be used in subsection headings, which should be reworded.
    • Done.
  • The table in the "The early years" section is confusing and needs to be explained better, or reformatted.
    • Changed "#" to "No. of schools on the league". It illustrates that membership during tose years was liquid (hence confusing), especially when several schools were members for a very short time.
  • I am confused about the difference between the Junior Division and Senior division mentioned in the article, it should be explained better. If it is an organiztion of colleges, why are high school athletes included? Do high school athletes attend the member colleges or do they attend local high schools? If so, which high schools and where?
    • Clarified on the Sports section.
  • The article in general needs a copyedit to search carefully for spelling, grammar, and punctutation mistakes.
    • Done.
I hope I'm not being too harsh; I'm just trying to be thorough. I like seeing articles become featured and there;s no reason why this one can't be someday. RyanGerbil10 04:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
That's fine with me. PR did not give the article the proper review, and I am happy that someone is taking a close look from the view of an outsider. Thanks. I'd be doing those that needs to be fixed. About some rivalries being light on citations, most of the Ateneo's rivals were not cited properly. I do not have the sources, although they've been cited at the references section. Circa 1900 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The only issues I have remaining are minor. All that remains to be done is to consolidate a few short paragraphs into longer ones, and then to have somebody thoroughly copyedit it. I'll do the copyedit myself later. RyanGerbil10 23:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the article needs a more detailed explanation of how the scoring system works, and maybe an example. I finshed copyediting the first half of the article, I won't be able to finish for another few hours. RyanGerbil10 00:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's on the NCAA Philippines General Championship article. But since it is important, I'd add a short explantation. And btw, thanks for your patience on the article! Circa 1900 00:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Support as per RyanGerbil10 --Howard the Duck | talk, 06:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Full and Total support Though it must still be updated and revised. Justox dizaola 03:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object due to referencing issues. The article contains numerous statements of opinion and weasel-wording that doesn't appear to be referenced; this is particularly an issue in the "Rivalries" section. Some obvious examples: "Arguably the most storied rivalry in Filipino sports...", "The most memorable battle...", "It was rumored that aside from the students from both schools, Danding Cojuangco's (a La Salle alumnus) personnel were present at the Coliseum and actually led the riot", "the Stags were poised for basketball supremacy", and so forth. Kirill Lokshin 04:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Removed unsourced statements and added more references. Circa 1900 06:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Nice work; no more objections from me. Kirill Lokshin 06:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild Object - There are a few minor issues such as use of contractions (which should be avoided per the Manual of Style) and some spelling errors. I'm also a little unsettled by the fact that much of the information in the article is in table form, but I can deal with that. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 6 May 2006 @ 01:23 UTC
    Done. I've used MS Word spell and grammar checker and it should have fleshed out the undesirables. The table form is just a summary, if it was in prose it will be more confusing. Circa 1900 03:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    Support —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Saturday, 6 May 2006 @ 11:59 UTC
  • Object—2a. Let's look at just the lead. Much redundancy and disorganisation.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, is an athletic association of eight colleges and universities in the Philippines. The NCAA, which was established in 1924, is the oldest existing athletic association in the Philippines. The NCAA in the Philippines is not connected to the NCAA of the United States, for they are independent of each other.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an athletics association of eight colleges and universities in the Philippines. Established in 1924, the NCAA is the oldest athletic association in the country; it is not connected with the NCAA of the United States.

Both the Policy Board and the Management Committee handle the affairs of the league. These two bodies are composed of representatives of the eight member schools, and determine the acceptance or suspension of member schools, reversal or replay of games, and other such official actions.

The Policy Board and the Management Committee handle the affairs of the league. The Board and the Committee are composed of representatives of the eight member schools, and determine the acceptance and suspension of member schools, game reversals and replays, and other official actions.

During the nearly year-long season, which begins in June and ends in March, schools participate in 11 sports, which are further divided into two divisions: the Juniors division, for male high school student athletes, and the Seniors division for collegiate student athletes. In some events, the Seniors division is further divided based on gender.

During the nearly year-long season from June to March, each school participates in 11 sports; each sport is conducted in two divisions: the Juniors for male high-school students, and the Seniors for college students. There are male and female Seniors divisions for some events.

Also, ... [get rid of 'also']

Are the representatives elected? By whom? We need a brief explanation of how the powers of the two bodies are delineated.

Needs a proper copy-edit throughout.

Tony 07:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already replaced the red text with the olive text. Also, I've edited the structure and hosting section, for the explanation on how the members are selected are there. Circa 1900 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but these were only examples; the whole text needs proper editing to be 'compelling, even brilliant', as required of FAs. Can you let us know when that has been done, so it can be reviewed? Tony 06:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
RyanGerbil10 copyedited the article already: [5], [6] and [7]. Circa 1900 06:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, he may have, but all of my comments here refer to the article as it is now. It needs considerable work to bring it to FA standard. Tony 07:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
User:TheCoffee copyedited the article already. Take a look if it good enough already. Circa 1900 13:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It's better than it was, but still not good enough. I've left a few inline queries. Plus things like:
    • "The rivalry was revived"—phonological jingle;
    • "led to both Ateneo and San Beda withdrawing from the NCAA"—ungrammatical (try "led to the withdrawl from the NCAA of both Ateneo and San Beda";
    • "a stone throw away from"—no, it's "a stone's throw";
    • "in one occasion"—no, it's "on"

Now, if I can pick these out at random in a small section, it indicates that there's a high density of micro-problems in the prose throughout (although the top is pretty good now). I don't know how this could have been edited thoroughly by several people, as you say it has. Try another WPian; to be a FA, the prose must be "compelling, even brilliant". Tony 04:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Howard the Duck | talk, 09:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Howard the Duck and User:Rmcsamson did the copyedit and changed/removed the suspect words already. Circa 1900 03:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object All those logos need a Fair use rationale. Jkelly 04:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Re: Okay, I'm helping out here, but I see that this doesn't have a fair use rationale yet it is a part of a featured article. --Howard the Duck | talk, 09:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you give an example? Circa 1900 11:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Example:

== Fair use for [[ARTICLE NAME]] ==
This image, picture-fair-use.jpg, is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I (~~~) feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
# it is a low resolution copy of an athletic team logo;
# it does not limit the copyright owner's rights to profit from merchandising;
# copies could not be used to make illegal merchandising;
# the image on the cover is significant because it is the recognised symbol of the sports team

Jkelly 17:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, done them already. Circa 1900 00:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reinforced object. I'm sorry to be like a dog at a bone, but WP's basic standards are at issue. When I see a sentence such as this in the lead, I really wonder whether any care at all has been taken in fixing up the prose:
"Some rivalries have lead to members withdrawing from the league as some games escalated into full-blown brawls. "
    • "Some" occurs twice in the same clause; remove the first instance, in any case, because it's redundant.
    • Lead is a metal.
    • "members withdrawing from the league" is ungrammatical and awkward; either an apostrophe is required, which is nowadays a rather old-fashioned construction ("members' withdrawing from the league"), or the phrase should be reworded simply as "the withdrawal of members from the league" (much better).
    • "as" is ambiguous (= while and because); use a comma after "league", then "because".
    • There's tension between "have led" and "escalated" (two types of past tense).

Then the next sentence:

"The NCAA took measures to prevent major brawls from happening again, including the admission of several new members into the league." It would be nice to remove "from happening again" as redundant. But more serious is the unexplained logic—why would the admission of new members prevent brawls?

These types of problem are scattered throughout the whole article. Now, if you think that it's good enough, WP is doomed to mediocrity.

If you wish, please ask and I'll specify a number of ways in which you can improve your writing skills, co-opt others to help in the editing, and employ techniques for improving the editing process.

You're asking for a promotion to "among the best that we offer". Not yet, I'm afraid. Tony 12:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Since Circa 1900 seems to be gone, and I want a Philippine article to be featured, I;d want to help him/her, so don't bite me.
I've copied the article into Word and saw several verbs in passive voice. Is that a problem? Also, I think I've resolved the problem in the lead. --Howard the Duck | talk, 02:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Active is often preferable to passive. Why is a whole table given over to comings and goings in the early years, including a column that shows the total number of schools at any one point (the significance of which is not mentioned in the text)? The introductory sentence is not good:

"Since then several schools came and left, as summarized by the table below:" Try: "During the NCAA's first 11 years, several schools entered and left, as set out in the table." (Or just list the entries and departures (+ year) in another sentence.

The sentence immediately after the table is, like much of the article, unclear and uninspiring: "In 1932, National University, which had withdrawn earlier, the University of the Philippines and the University of Santo Tomas established their own ”Big Three League.” The “Big Three” were still a part of the NCAA, but they conducted their own league, separate from the NCAA."

Tony 15:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, since the coordinator seems to have vanished, and there always a next time, It'll be better if we fail it. --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramones

This article is very well written, and the topic is very clear. The Ramones are a band whom many people know and quality of this article, i feel makes it worthy of being a featured article. The previous unsigned comment was left by GBVrallyCI at 01:11 UTC, 14 May, 2006

  • Object. Several issues need to be addressed before this can become an FA:
    • The lead section does not accurately summarize the topic, and could also be expanded.
    • The article lacks references, chart positions, sales figures, and any controversial statements need to be sourced.
    • Once references are added to the article, they need to be properly cited using inline references.
    • The article contains too many lists. Some should be converted to prose or removed entirely from the article.
    • The tone of the article is not consistent, and could be rewritten to be more encyclopedic in places.
    • The article is not very balanced, some of the history sections are much longer than others.
There's a lot of work to be done before this could become an FA, perhaps it should be referred to Peer review. RyanGerbil10 01:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering the subject is The Ramones, the article is a little short, since a lot is discography and graphs. MAybe expand a bit? --Osbus 15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per RyanGerbil -- this has quite a long ways to go. Jkelly 19:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I don't feel it's well written, and quite obviously it cannot be promoted without references. --kingboyk 14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been doing quite a lot of work on this article over the past couple months, and certainly look forward to helping it get Featured status. There are definitely problem sections--"Intra band tensions," too much listing of various band members at the beginning, maybe a little more bio material--that I'm ready to work on. Willerror 15:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Ryan. As a side question, should this article be at Ramones or at The Ramones? Staxringold 20:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Judging by the album covers, it should be "Ramones". --kingboyk 10:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • no its "The", the band's official name was "The Ramones" not "Ramones" --GBVrallyCI 17:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, let me be brutally frank: the article you nominated for FA status is named "Ramones" and you the nominator are now saying it's "The Ramones". Such basic issues as this should be resolved before an article is nominated for Featured Article status. I don't know if you're an admin or not, but if you aren't and you need it moved over a redirect (i.e. you're adamant it's "The") let me know on my talk page and I'll delete the redirect and move the page for you. --kingboyk 19:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • well after reading stuff over, you guys are right, its "Ramones." --GBVrallyCI 00:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoophilia

Interesting article. Well cited and referenced for a controversial topic and quite neutral. Good FAC candidate. --Mercenary2k 3:54AM May 7, 2006

  • Support. Nice and easy to read. I would add information on places where it is acceptable and the law doesn't condone it. I would also add more inline citations but in all it was interesting to read. Lincher 13:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Law is often very hard to track down, especially as many countries prosecute such things creatively. For example, I gather one place that didn't have a law against zoophilia, and where they couldn't prove cruelty, attempted to prosecute it under "sex with a minor" - medium breed dogs typically living to 9 - 14 years. (Presumably that would make horse stud breeders be 'encouraging delinquency in minors'?) Others define all such activity as "cruelty", "sodomy", "immoral conduct", or "against religious law" and prosecute it that way. So it's risky to say where it's legal. Its much safer just to list where it is illegal, because then we can definitively be sure we aren't misleading readers. FT2 (Talk) 17:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
If no reliable sources can be found, then wikipedia shouldn't make a statement either way. Wikipedia does not provide advice. Andjam 12:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Correct... which is why the article only states when it is clearly illegal, and does not offer a view on places where it isnt clear or may be legal or illegal. FT2 (Talk) 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Unsure. Problem is, an article on a subject like this inevitably has to be _above_ average, due to its nature. It's well cited and referenced, and stable, but even so is it really ready for something like FAC. (I'm one of the editors on it). FT2 (Talk) 17:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Zoosexuality" should not be used to describe an act. JayW 23:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
(a) The "FAC" is for zoophilia not zoosexuality, (b) zoosexuality isnt a word to describe an act anyhow, read the article, (c) This seems a complaint about something other than article quality, relevance to FAC? FT2 (Talk) 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
"Zoosexuality" is misleadingly used to describe human-animal sexual relations (i.e. an act) throughout this article. JayW 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
One would talk about a "homosexual act between two men" (googled), and UK as well as US legislation plus US Airforce law speak of a "homosexual act" in this manner. A "zoosexual act", performed by "zoosexuals" exploring their "zoosexuality" is correct usage of the term. Would you advise clarifying this in the article then? And, comments on the rest of the article? FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Object for the following reasons:

  1. Social community section seems to be largely original research - or at least written in a tone that suggests that it is, this section is also very long considering it is discussing a subculture which may or may not exist
    Clarification: what is not clear is whether it should be termed as a "community". That there is a subculture is confirmed. FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    It is still not clear to me why this needs to be elaborated on at length.--nixie 05:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    I think I anticipated this in my comment on #8 below. The whole of the community, and its subculture, and its main features and history, is basically this one section. Compare the dozens and hundreds of complete articles which together perform the analogous description for homosexuality/LGBT. For this reason, the comparative for length of this section is the total of a large part of the content of:
    FT2 (Talk) 07:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. "Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexuality" needs to be summarised, lists of quotes are not a replacement for good prose, same goes for "Religious perspectives", "Other popular references",
    Editors have discussed prosing "arguments" - sensible idea. Not sure how you mean about religious section, thats mostly prose already. Have you got a better example article to point us to? FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. What are the items listed in "Books, articles and documentaries", are they references for the article or something else, this needs to be made clear
    Title change "Books, articles, and documentaries about zoophilia" any better? FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Leagal status only covers selected countries from the first world, what about elsewhere? This section would be a good one to split off into another article, leaving a summary in this article.
    Split-off has been discussed, sensible idea. Research not yet undertaken by anyone. FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Quotes should not be in italics, see the MoS
  6. The "Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia" section is empty - comprehensiveness problem, shouldn't myth and fantasy follow from here?
    Empty section except for "main article" link. Isnt that the norm in other pages (eg WP:ABOUT#How_Wikipedia_differs_from_a_paper_encyclopedia) too? FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    No, see Wikipedia:Summary style--nixie 05:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, I've been trying to research content, I'm not to familiar with Wikipedia style guides except by example on other pages I've seen. Much appreciated, I'll read it and try to incorporate it in other articles I work on too. FT2 (Talk) 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Although some refs are use cite.php there is an assortment of html links in text that I assume are references, that should be converted so one system is used throughout the article.
  8. The ordering of the sections seems slightly odd - you might want to try and make the flow between sections more logical.
    Part of the problem is an unusal conflict in the article. Because it is socially deemed negative, fully reporting whats important gets strongly seen as "promotion" by some readers, and splitting to multiple articles is seen as promotion (eg "you're making a minor sick perversion bigger than it should be") too. We've had that one on the talk page already recently (see talk page). So we're trying to keep most of it in one article and balance it fairly for readers too. So the flow has suffered somewhat as a result. A good idea to review it though -- will probably benefit the article. FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
--nixie 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
As said above, I too am "unsure". Some good suggestions here that'll help. Some I think I can answer so answers added where available. FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • The Legal status and Religious perspectives lists should be split off.
    • Consider putting a paragraph or two summary under all empty section headings, such as "Zoophiles".
    • I see at least two external links that are not formatted consistently with the footnotes
    • Not enough citations. None under "Zoophiles and other groups" for example.
    • The list of Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexuality should be turned into prose
  • Tuf-Kat 02:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
nixie suggested several of the same points too. But one you mention catches my eye. We've tried to avoid adding articles. You reckon we should be splitting off more? "Zoophilia and religion" for example? Should we be doing that more? FT2 (Talk) 08:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, my primary concern is that the religious section in this article is both a list and uncited (both major problems). I think fixing it will necessitate a subarticle. Tuf-Kat 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because featured articles act as ads, and the sexual exploitation of animals shouldn't be promoted. -Barry- 18:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This objection is inactionable. Raul654 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Relevant on opinion websites and blogs. Not here. Wikipedia article handling isn't about personal opinions. if we can take a controversial subject and editors collaboratively can still make a balanced article of it, so much the better "advert". On this basis we wouldn't consider putting articles such as abortion, communism, Al_Qaeda, pornography, intelligent design, on featured articles either, since these are all highly objectionable as subjects to a large number of individuals who would not want them "advertized". Wikipedia is showcased by its full range, and debate on this page is about whether they meet Wikipedia criteria or not. FT2 (Talk) 00:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written, impressively well-referenced. A fine example for sexuality-related articles (which are often poorly written and unreferenced). And it's even illustrated! Exploding Boy 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose lack of inline citations is a definite problem. I'm also worried that the article is not encyclopedic in tone - for example lists are used. A good job has been done considering the topic matter, but FAs should be based on article quality, not effort involved. Andjam 12:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fair. can you point me to a style guide which discusses when lists should and shouldn't be used, and what to use in their place, or examples? I would have thought some places, lists would be the logical way to document something. be useful to learn. Thanks FT2 (Talk) 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The presence of lists should not be an immediate disqualification. Sometimes lists are the best way to present information. As long as the bulk of the article is not in list form, there should be no objection. Exploding Boy 02:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A list is a degenerate form of prose for people who are incapable of forming sentences and coherently stringing them together. A number of sections in this article are lists which should not be, including the sections on "legal status", "Sciences studying zoophilia", "Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations", "Psychological and research perspectives", and "Other popular references". Furthermore, it has a trivia section (!), which is *very* poor form and should be terminated post-haste. Raul654 02:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well meeyow. Exploding Boy 03:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking at those, Raul, and it seems to me a list is by far the clearest way to present at least some of these. Others could probably be put into prose paragraphs. But prosing for prosing's sake is not in any obvious way, in and of itself, an improvement and to some of these it seems simply, would add text and remove ease of reading, without any commensurate gain. Also it seems some of them the material more naturally falls into list form. For example, what exactly is the gain in taking the legal status by country and allocating a paragraph to each rather than a bullet in a list? Would it change the clarity of communication at all? And the "sciences studying" section, which lists some 4 sciences and their interest, and then discusses other areas, what exactly would be gained in clarity terms in another format? Last, can you explain what is the "poor taste" with a trivia section? It seems to me that's not an unreasonable title or section for a subject. How exactly is that "poor form"? As you see, I am somewhat unsure what exactly is "degenerate" in this. Similar to tables, sometimes prose paragraphs are not the best form for some forms of information. I am unaware that the editors on this article are "incapable of forming sentences and stringing them together" either. Can you point me to the page of the style guide where I can read more on where lists are, and are not, best used? Thanks. FT2 (Talk) 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't take my lists are comment personally - it wasn't directed at the authors of this article in particular. I was simply attempting to explain why lists are so very bad. Long story short - lists are sloppy presentation in that they do not allow for a proper sequential line of thought, or allow items of that list to be given a proper relationship to one-another. (Which is what I meant by degenerate: "Having fallen to an inferior or undesirable state").
As far as the trivia section - trivia sections are evil because they are a common violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If some factoid is so important (non-trivial) as to merit a mention, say it in the article. If it's so minor that the only place it deserves to me mentioned is a trivia section, it's probably not important enough to merit a mention. Raul654 05:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I disagree. The presence of a list should not, in and of itself, be grounds to reject a FA candidate. Sometimes lists are the best way to present information. Exploding Boy 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right that occassionaly a list is not the best way of conveying information. However, in this case, it's not the presence of *a* list - it's the presence of a dozen or more of them Raul654 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made a number of fixes to this article and I think it is looking good now. I have unresolved three issues with this article though:

  • Historical and cultural perspectives section: This is an empty section pointing to the article on Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia. It should have at least a couple of sentencing summarizing that article
  • Other popular references section - this section (entirely an evil list) is redundant with the "Media discussion" section and should be merged into it (in prose form)
  • "Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations" section should be converted into prose

Beyond that, I think think it's a pretty good article. Raul654 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment As well as being worried about lists, I'd like to reiterate that I'm worried about the lack of inline citations - for example, I'm curious about the claim that bestiality is not explicitly outlawed in the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay. Andjam 00:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The legal section's now been split out and summarized, and there's now a footnote and cite someone kindly added on this. See Zoosexuality and the law. FT2 (Talk) 11:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose There isn't enough inline citations. In addition, the article is much too long and could be confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.40.243.98 (talk • contribs).
  • Support - Interesting Read, well referenced. Jordy 21:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I resent the zoophilia (or rather zoosexuality) category for being a subcategory category:Sexual orientation and identity, seems unfounded/inappropriate. GilliamJF 07:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Note for other readers - You raised this on Category_talk:Zoosexuality (March 2006), and it was discussed there. WP:FAC isn't a place to bring personal opinions or conspiracy theories really. The purpose of this page is to discuss quality for FAC. Your comment was that it had been put there by "some American members of the far-right us[ing] the topic of zoophilia in their uphill battle to justify limiting the rights of same-sex couples to marry", and was therefore "a maneuver to justify LGBT rights opposition." Information was given to confirm this wasn't the case. FT2 (Talk) 10:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Article will be edited to address above suggestions. MArked as FAC-failed by Bunchofgrapes May 21 2006 for the time being. FT2 (Talk) 10:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birmingham

This article seems well-written and is a good article so far! --Sunfazer | Talk 13:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - several sections lack any inline citations at all. —Whouk (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- lots of issues including unbalanced sections, unnecessary information (article should be a summary and detail moved to daughter articles), geography is sparse, demographics missing etc. The number of sections can be trimmed by merging with other sections and summarising. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
    • More WP:FOOTNOTEs would definitely be helpful. They should be cited in accordance with WP:CITE (see also WP:CITE/ES, {{Cite web}})
    • Please alphabetize the interwiki links (minor issue)
    • The population statistics in the WP:LEAD belong in a Demographics section.
    • Several sections are too short, like Famous residents and Literature. I suggest either merging or expanding them.
    • It is a bit too list-weighty; for example Places of interest and Twinning should be prosified.
    • Image:BlackSabbath.jpg needs a fair use rationale (see WP:FUC). I would suggest replacing it, as replacements should be able to be found.
    • Image:Birm 1977 arms.png will also need a fair use rationale
    • Change The main article is at History of Birmingham; the following is a summary. to {{mainarticle|Birmingham}}
    • Generally, years without full dates aren't linked - see WP:MOSDATE

Thanks, AndyZ t 15:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object This article needs more references, everything covered in the lead needs to be covered in the main article, and lists in sections like "Nearby places" and "Places of interest" need prettier formatting. Staxringold 19:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European Union

This article is very well written. Old division (2004): [8]. To shape up. LUCPOL 11:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree. Lucpol 11:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. It's less than a month since it was removed as a featured article (see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/European Union). I don't see any improvements on the objections since then. --Maitch 12:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is the change since it was de-featured. I suggest also that more references and WP:FOOTNOTEs are added and that the ToC is shortened a bit. AndyZ t 15:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There are several reasons this article is not ready to be featured:
    • The article does not have enough references.
    • Many sections lack footnotes.
    • There are too many lists which need to be converted back into prose.
    • Many of the diagrams included in the article are confusing and overly complicated.
It's simply too little too soon be be re-featured. RyanGerbil10 18:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—I don't care about the "too soon", but I do care about the "too little". Why hasn't the article been thoroughly scrutinised by fresh eyes? It's full of redundancies and inconsistencies. New Caledonia is still not listed as part of France. Here are some examples:
"The Schengen Agreement abolished passport control, and customs checks were also abolished at many of the EU's internal borders, creating a single space of mobility for EU citizens to live, travel, work and invest"—The wording still suggests that passport controls have been abolished between all EU member states. Which states were signatories to the Schengen Agreeement, in any case? (Worth specifying.)
"and has plans to accept"—quizz question: which word is redundant?
"Greece, Portugal and Spain were all dictatorships"—same question.
"In more recent times"—same question.
"outside of"—same question.
Sometimes EU is spelt out, sometimes not; sometimes numbers ≥ 10 are spelt out, sometimes not.
"represent the world's largest economy by GDP, larger than the USA, the People's Republic of China, and Japan"—why bother specifying the other economies after the first statment?

The striped map of the original member states is lewd, to put it mildly. The alignment of countries on the x axis of the graphs is sometimes askew. Why is the GDP per capita (PPP) $28K in the table and $23K in the graph to the right? Tony 10:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose There are two extrnal links sections, one of which does't make any sense. Also, I'm sure that there are more EU subarticles which are nnot linked to by this one. In a genral article like this one, there needs to be a lot of links. Tobyk777 03:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pikachu

This is the third nomination. The issues of the second nomination have been resolved. It is comparable in quality to the other two Pokémon-related featured articles: Bulbasaur and Torchic. Considering the notoriety of Pikachu, this should have had an FA-quality article long ago IMHO. I think it's finally ready now.

  • Of course, I Support this nomination. --Kitch 17:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What happened to citation #31? And please move citations so that they consistently follow punctuation,[1] like this.[2] --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've fixed that; it's an error that happens if the first appearance of a named citation tries to refer to an earlier citation by that name (in this case, the first was <.ref name=movie/> and the second <.ref name=movie>Reference</ref>). The latter is overridden by the blank in the former. —Cuiviénen 23:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object fair amount to do, see Peer Review script I left on talk page.Rlevse 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: Well-written and well-referenced, but you have a problem with the placement of the references. They should be placed after commas and periods; you have several problems of this in the early sections. Example: "Pikachu is the most popular and notable Pokémon, and is generally regarded as the mascot of the Pokémon franchise, in the same way Link is the mascot of the Legend of Zelda series, or Mario[4] is the mascot for the Super Mario franchise and Nintendo [5]." The [4] is pretty distracting, and the [5] should go after the period. Check the whole article for stuff like this. Also, I'm not sure if you need all these references. In the video games section, you have references (in the middle of the text) directing to the games' amazon.com profiles. I checked the Bulbasaur and Torchic articles, and they only have 1 or 2 references to Amazon. If people want to learn about the game, they can click on the wikilinks.

The whole article should have a spelling and grammar run-through, as I noticed some glaring mistakes in the anime section. -Dark Kubrick 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that I have fixed the ref placement issue now. Jeltz talk 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that there is also repeated information in some of the sections. An example would be Pikachu evolving into Raichu via the Thunderstone; this is in both video games and characteristics. I would also remove the got milk? ad, and try to find a picture of Pikachu in one of the parodies. -Dark Kubrick 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with that the referencing is a bit over-zealous at times in this article but I could be biased since I went through all of them to correct the style. :) Jeltz talk 22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Support. A comprehensive article that only needs a few minor touch-ups. --Gray Porpoise 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose One article on one Pokemon could be FA. Two, maybe. I think this is getting just a shade ridiculous, however. The FA is the best example of Wiki work possible - just because there is a dedicated fanbase doesn't mean each Pokemon article that is ruthlessly edited should make FA. That said, Pikachu is the obvious choice among the pokemon articles for FA, but there are too many already. --24.11.220.107 07:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think that is a valid criteria to object. Judge the article on its own merits, not on whether there are already enough pokemon FAs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That isn't valid reasoning for an objection. 24.11.220.107, please refer to Wikipedia:What is a featured article? If the objection isn't based on something there, then it's invalid. Ryu Kaze 13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: "That said, Pikachu is the obvious choice among the pokemon articles for FA..." Wouldn't Pokémon be the most obvious choice for FA? Just asking. Andrew Levine 14:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -
    • Does not satisfy 2(a). Compare this sentence from the lead: Pikachu is among the most recognizable of the Pokémon... with this from the next paragraph: Pikachu is the most popular and notable Pokémon. Also compare this sentence in the lead: In the Pokémon universe Pikachu are ground-dwelling mammals... (missing a comma and we have already established that Pikachu exist only in the Pokemon universe) with this from the body: Pikachu are oftenly mistaken for rabbits, but are really mice. (oftenly?) Why not call it a mouse in the lead instead of saying "ground-dwelling mammal"? Another problem sentence from the lead: Coincidentally, there also is a mouse-like lagomorph that makes its habitat in North America, known as a pika which may have affected the North American name, Pikachu. First, this is weasel text ("may have affected"). Secondly, if it did in fact affect the name, it's not a coincidence. Here's a comma splice from the lead: Pikachu often travel in packs, and are rarely territorial, however, when threatened, a group can generate... The rest of the text has similar problems.
    • Has reference problems. I picked this sentence at random from the lead for a reference check: Pikachu is the most popular and notable Pokémon, and is generally regarded as the mascot of the Pokémon franchise, in the same way Link is the mascot of the Legend of Zelda series, or Mario[4] is the mascot for the Super Mario franchise and Nintendo.[5] These two footnotes do not support the claim made in the sentence. I didn't bother checking any other refs. I also see a lot of footnotes after game names, such as "Players playing Pokémon Yellow[15]..." What is supposed to be referenced here? That players play Pokemon Yellow? The footnote links to an amazon.com page about the game; I don't see the relevance. Also, the references are inconsistenly formatted. I suggest using templates like {{cite web}} to standardize them, like this. Other references, such as "Pokémon Adventures ISBN 1569315078" need critical information such as an author.
    • Fair use problems. You can't use both Image:Pikachu.png and Image:Pikachu 18.gif in the same article and realistically claim fair use for both; they're too similar.

Pagrashtak 16:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Problems with references, e.g. what sort of reference is "All-Pokémon dialogue" (no further details given), and [http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=m-Game-0000-127 either has one bracket too much or too little. More attention to detail needed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Poor prose, fannish stuff, lack of referneces, I can go on. I won't. Highway Return to Oz... 17:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreal Tournament 2004

I am an avid player of this game (though I suck at it lol) and I feel that the article is now very well written after what I have done to expand it. It is quite a popular and well-made PC game and it would definitely benefit its community to make featured status. --NicAgent 23:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. FAs should not have stub sections and there is no reference section. I suggest moving to peer review first. Pepsidrinka 23:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This article has a lot of issues which need to be addressed before it can become an FA:
    • The article doesn't have any references, nor is anything cited in-line in the article.
    • The article contain too many lists. Over half of the article is lists. Most, if not all, of these lists should be converted into prose if possible.
    • The tone of the article is not encyclopedic in many places, and in some places could even be considered POV.
    • The quality of the prose is not "Wikipedia's best," there are errors in punctuation and spelling in the article. It needs a complete copyedit first.
    • Not all of the images used in the article have appropriate copyright status.
I agree with Pepsidrinka, this should be referred to Peer review first. RyanGerbil10 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object No refs, inline or otherwise. Huge lists of bulletpoints that are anything but prose. Even a quotation right in the lead that is not cited by anything. This article needs heavy, heavy work. Staxringold 19:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Alligator

  • This an extremely well written article containing a high level of scientific and factual accuracy.
  • It covers an interesting topic, which is particularly relevant in these troubled times
  • It contains several outstanding images Ben Payton
  • Object. No references. --Maitch 19:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - no references, inline citations (WP:FOOTNOTEs), short sections (Anatomy can be expanded), years without full dates should not be linked per WP:MOSDATE; suggest peer review. AndyZ t 22:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. You expose yourself by writing "extremely" in the nomination text. It's not badly written, but needs a little cleaning up:
    • Why the "However" and the "In addition" in the lead? Just remove them.
    • Weed out the redundant "alsos".
    • Delink the year-links, as per WP policy.
    • A few one-sentence paragraphs could easily be merged with their larger neighbours.
    • "Although the American alligator is secure, some related animals — such as several species of crocodiles and caimans — are still in trouble." "secure" needs a qualifier, and "endangered" is the usual term for "in trouble", isn't it?
    • "alligators face ambient temperature patterns unlike elsewhere in their range." Bad clause.
    • Provide metric equivalents for the 95% of the human race that doesn't use US measures.
    • One subsection hangs without a final stop.

It needs a 40-minute run-through by a copy-editor—preferably someone who's distant from the text. Don't fix just the points I've raised. Tony 02:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object a worthwhile subject, but it needs to use summary style and a read through of the manual of style would be beneficial to the major editors. There are no in text references, and I see that the article has not been to peer review, which is IMO an important first step.--MONGO 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - As above, especially with regards to referencing. Additionally, sections of it are written as a "How to" guide, which wikipedia is not... in this case, "How not to get eaten", which as valuble as such advice can be, should not be written in this fashion. Rewrite it academically, not with a mind towards instructing a reader on what to do, but rather on informing a reader of what facts are. We wouldn't want to get in trouble because someone followed all the advice we wrote here and yet got eaten by an alligator anyway, would we? Fieari 05:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idaho

It fulfills all information needed about Idaho's history, geography, politcs, e.t.c.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.40.243.98 (talk • contribs).

  • Remove nomination or move to Peer Review honestly doesn't have a WP:SNOWBALL chance. Joelito (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)\
  • Object as per Joelr. Where's the lead? Far too listy. Insufficient history. Stubby paragraphs and sections. Copy-edit required. Tony 01:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Joelito. Staxringold 19:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, per Joelito, also no refs. Rlevse 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Erie

An incredible article: lots of info. I cant believe it wasnt nominated before!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.40.243.98 (talk • contribs).

  • Needs some work. Definently a good article but doesn't seem to meet the current critera for a featured article.
    • Intro needs work, doesn't summarize the article well enough, see WP:LEAD.
    • The history section is woefully short, and doesn't cover anything before 1969! It does link to some related articles though. So I guess that's something.
    • Ecology section looks nice but contains some uncited claims bordering on weasel words, describing opinions of people and controversies. A citation or two for these would really help.
    • Geology section needs some actual prose. Surely there must be some geological information on the lake - perhaps its formation, age, etc. - that would be good here. --W.marsh 20:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Peer review I recommend this article be move to peer review since it fails most of the criteria for FA (WP:SNOW). Joelito (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I agree with Joelito that this should spend some time in peer review before being seriously considered. I suspect this article could rapidly be brought up to FA status with a little work. --NormanEinstein 20:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object One inline citation does not an article make. Needs more references which are cited inline and the lists of info at the end could use better formatting. Staxringold 19:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dog

Dogs clearly have an important role in society, and the article is pretty good as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.40.243.98 (talk • contribs).

  • Object - Unfortunately, standards are a little higher than "pretty good" when it comes to featured articles, and subject matter isn't considered at all. There are a number of stubby sections that I'd like to see expanded... bascially, if a section (or subsection) consists of only one paragraph, or worse, one sentence, you should consider either expanding it (preferred) or absorbing it into another section, making sure to use complete paragraphs and propper organization of information. "Intellegence", for instance needs to be a more thorough summary of the dog intelligence article, even though it links there. The "Physical Characteristics" section is a pretty good summary, but might use too many images— on my resolution (admittably high and widescreened) the images actually expand past the article text a bit too much, creating unnessesary and unsightly whitespace. On the other hand, the "Scenting" subsection could probably use a bit more expansion, esspecially since scent is one of the main traits of dogs. Multiple paragraphs would make reading easier, instead of jamming everything in one "run-on" paragraph covering multiple topics. I'm also concerned about some casual tones of voice, and the focus on certain trivial facts in prominant locations. Under diet, advice to pet owners is given, which wikipedia is not about. Present it academically, not as a "How To" book. Significant reorganization of information should be considered. Fieari 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: The language is no where near "brilliant", in fact clearly below par. Sentences like "For dogs that do not have traditional jobs" rule out this as a FA. Similarly problematic are "full fledged family members" or "In other cultures, some dogs are used as food" (all this only from the lead)--ppm 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per both above. While it is decently referenced (though more of those references being more inline would be nice), the article needs some pretty heavy clean-up work and expansion in places. Staxringold 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberman

Very well-written with a lot of detail. Includes suffieient, relevant photos and would make a good featured article. Davidpk212 07:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Needs inline citations, and a thorough copyedit. Finding more references wouldn't hurt either.--RobthTalk 13:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - " The Cybermen are due to reappear in the 2006 series in a two-part story, Rise of the Cybermen and The Age of Steel" in the opening paragraph needs to be altered as 'Rise of the Cybermen' is airing tonight, so it would be inaccurate to speak of it in the future. The Cybermen are also due to appear in the final two-parter of said series. Plus is also likely that various parts of the main article will be changed or added within the next week or so as the newest Cyberman story unfolds. Shrinkness 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - insufficient inline citations, even for an article which references a lot of broadcast material in the text; lack of fair use justifications for images (and I have my doubts that so many screengrabs would necessarily be OK); and, per Shrinkness, the article will not, by definition, be stable until after the current series of Doctor Who has finished broadcasting. —Whouk (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, article makes use of ten copyrighted images, far more than "a limited number" necessary for "identification" of the character. Also, several photos are inappropriately labeled {{promotional}} or {{promophoto}}. Angr (t • c) 23:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, an excess of non-free illustrations and zero free illustrations. This is not the best we, as a free content encyclopedia, can do. --Gmaxwell 19:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Angr and Gmaxwell, with note that any unfree images need Fair use rationales. Jkelly 19:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War II

Previous Comments of FAC located at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World War II/Archive I

Ok Guys. Here we go Again. Major work done on this article. Massive improvements everywhere. Every major event of the War covered in chronological order. So I don't see any bias problems. This article is a FAC, just need your approval.--Mercenary2k May 13, 2006 2:24 AM

  • Strong support. A fascinating article on an event that need to be remembered. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object; absolutely no attempt has been made to address (or even respond to) the points raised during the peer review. Briefly:
  • Masses of extremely short and choppy pseudo-sections (most are only one paragraph; some are only one sentence) don't really qualify as brilliant prose.
  • Insufficient use of inline citation; most of the article can't easily be traced back to any particular source, including piles of potentially questionable statements and statistics.
These are the same issues that came up during the previous FAC, incidentally; I don't think simply ignoring them will somehow cause the article to magically be promoted. Kirill Lokshin 21:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
What you are objecting to is not bad writing, but writing that is in a chronology format. Passages are short and choppy because that is how timelines are. Is it a requirement for FA status that articles not include lengthy timelines? Apparently in your eyes this is a rule. Drogo Underburrow 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The requirements for a featured article are quite clear: the prose must be "compelling, even brilliant". Choppy writing—no matter how seemingly appropriate for creating a timeline—cannot, by definition, satisfy this. (This is, incidentally, why actual timelines are properly the province of the featured list.) Kirill Lokshin 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Kirill Lokshin - 71.115.57.95 21:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object. 10 references in a 91 kb article are not enough and I do believe that it should be possible to find sources on WW2. --Maitch 22:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - this is one of those articles which really should be featured, given the ridiculous amount that's been written about it, but this just isn't up to snuff. Also, the lead contains a sentence fragment. Find more sources, and deal with the suggestions from the peer review/last FAC. The Disco King 23:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There are numerous issues with this article which need to be corrected:
    • The number of short paragraphs in this article is unacceptable. Many are one sentence long, and each section seemingly contains at least one of them.
    • There are no inline citations used in this article, which is an FA requirement.
    • Ten references for an article of this size an scope is not adequate, surely there is more material to be found concerning the topic.
    • I'm not an expert on copyright, but many images seem to have questionable or objectionable copyright or fair use rationale.
More work still needs to be done. RyanGerbil10 23:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Kirill Lokshin - TomStar81 00:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Kirill Lokshin. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. References need fixing. "ref_war" 2 to 4 and 6 to 7 don't appear to be linked to anything in the article. Chances are the points they referenced have been moved into one of the subarticles, but at the moment, the article uses 4 refs, not 10. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Does not correctly follow Wikipedia:Summary Style: The ==Chronology== section should be spun off into its own article at Chronology of World War II and a good-sized summary left in its place. Makes no sense to have anything but inline links and mentions of individual battles and operations from the main WWII article. In other words, this article abuses use of 'Main article' links ; just link inline unless the 'Main article' is a real daughter of this article instead of an article in its own right. For example, an article on an individual battle would not be a daughter article of WWII (and thus not merit a main article link) while the Aftermath of World War II would. Trying to summarize so many stand-alone articles and put it into this one article has resulted in way too many very short sections and disjointed paragraphs. A much more high-level treatment is needed ; detail can be in daughter articles. Also needs a great many more inline cites. Granted, this topic necessarily will be one of the largest we have and thus need to go above the regular max size of 50KB of prose, but I think we can do a much better job of summarizing this topic so it is at a much more comfortable reading length. --mav 14:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with this. The Chronology of World War II should be in prose and not just a collection of headlines like in the Timeline of World War II. --Maitch 16:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Those two links go to the same article. Drogo Underburrow 19:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I know. I'm saying that if an article gets made for Chronology of World War II it should be different from the style of Timeline of World War II, which means it should be written in prose instead of headlines.--Maitch 23:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Sections aren't prosified enough, doesn't flow enough. Lincher 17:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Maybe breaking the WWII article in sub-articles where World War II would have big lines of what happened and World War II (1939), World War II (1940) ... would be where it goes in deep details in order to have longer sub-sections and not having a big WWII article. Lincher 17:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. As per nomHezzy 18:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - The objections that the article is chronology based, or that the writing is choppy (of course it is, it is a chronology) are objections of taste, and have nothing to do with whether the article is of featured quality or not. It seems as if editors are judging not on the quality of the article, but whether the article matches a format they like. Drogo Underburrow 18:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Object First as per syle/quality objections above. Second, parts of the article are extraordinary US-centric. The introduction has been recently changed to allude to a fringe theory. My attempt to work on this issue met with uncomfortably strong opposition. Myciconia 04:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: for something as important and documented and written about as World War 2, this article is excruciatingly thin on both citations and content. I'd like to see a lot of the images cleaned up too - they are causing a lot of formatting problems due to their abundance. Also, I feel the WP:LEAD is too long and doesnt give a quick summary of what it was all about -but rather appears to condense the timeline into a few paragraphs. Are subtitles like "the beginning of the end" necessary? they strike me as POV in many ways. Obviously we'd want to be avoiding a sort of "allied" account of it. -- Alfakim --  talk  22:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Object as per Kirill Lokshin: Chronology-only descriptions of wars are just plain annoying. Campaign-based formats are much more easily preusable, and more useful in descriptions of wars. In addition, a timeline already esixts that can be prominently linked. UnDeadGoat 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Excellent article. Love it. Great information.
  • Comment. You are arguing about either writing a chronology or a campaign-based article. I wonder which style did Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica use in their respective articles?
  • Object because I think this needs to make better use of Wikipedia:Summary style. There should be more on cultural ramifications, which are vast (cargo cults, to give one example) -- World War 2 had the effect of moving massive numbers of people all over the world, causing their cultures to intermix. There should be a section on cultural depictions of World War 2. I think that, over all, it's too detailed on military history, which is only one important aspect of the topic. Some of the non-military history sections are also too uncomprehensive to satisfy summary style: "the home fronts" (and why the home fronts?) doesn't cover Japan or the Soviet Union at all. It needs inline citations throughout too. Tuf-Kat 03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chew Stoke

This article is about a small village but, I feel, provides fairly comprehensive information, in an understandable and illustrated format. It's largely a self nomination which went through peer review with only a few comments, which have been addressed. I would appreciate further comments about whether this merits FA status. Rod 13:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment This is quite a nice article, but I think it has a few problems so I will simply comment. The closest FA I could find to this is the article for Waterfall Gully, South Australia. Though it's on a different continent, the villages are a bit similar in size. Certainly take a look at the sections and compare it with this article.
    • The history section just gives a few highlights of the history of the village. This should be expanded. Perhaps some of the building histories might be incorporated here?
      • Some questions I have...when was the area first settled?
      • Since there was a temple, one would presume there were Roman settlements in the area. Where were these?
      • When was St. Andrews constructed and why is it on the outskirts of the village?
      • Did the village ever have a market?
      • Did the Industrial Revolution have any effect on the village?
    • Perhaps "Buildings" should be labeled "Points of Interest"? You might include the Bridges section here as well. I think having headings for each type of building is a bit much especially as some of the sections are quite small. Lumping them together makes more sense.
    • The inclusion of external links in the text is messy. If they are links to locations for footnotes, I would suggest that they be placed in the references list or otherwise placed in External links.
    • I should commend you on the number of wonderful images you have included! They really are marvelous. I think you can vary the size of some of these just for aesthetic interest.
    • What about transportation? Is Chew Stoke located anywhere near major roadways? How might one acces the village? What about trains?
  • Really, this is a fine beginning for this article! Good work! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 13:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. I've added in some information in answer to your questions (eg pre history, location, age of church etc) & changed the section headings - I will also look for info about others & try to sort external links as soon as I have ore time. Rod 15:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now also had a go at the references and external links Rod 21:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak object. There are a few things wring in this article, but they are minor and can be easily resolved:
    • There are too many very short paragraphs, which is more of a formatting issue than anything else.
    • The ordering of details within the lead section is awkward.
    • There are too many subsection in some areas, leading to a bloated ToC
    • The picture which opens the article shifts the lead section and the ToC awkwardly rightward
Most of these are formatting issues, nothing serious. Overall, a very good article given the topic. RyanGerbil10 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I'm mostly worried about the section-stubs (Grade II listed buildings is the worst - that one sentence isn't even grammatically correct). A transportation section would very helpful, and the location should be renamed "Geography". It also needs another copyediting, for example:
    • about eight miles south of Bristol, England close to comma after England needed
    • close to Chew Magna unclear whether village or Bristol is close to Chew Magna
    • Council Area, and has a Parish Council meeting again, unclear whether Chew Stoke or Council area has the meeting (if it is the latter, the and should be replaced by which)
    • It can be found What is it referring to here?
    • south west one word
    • south of Chew Magna which is on comma before which
    • Both 1000 and 2,307 are used; comma use should be standardized in numbers
    • Why is "Irish bridge" in quotes?
    • Per WP:FOOTNOTE, the footnote should go directly after the punctuation mark, without a space.
    • The age of many of the buildings, including the church, school and several houses, reflecting the long history of the village. fragment
    • Part of the current buildings... were built in 1858 either "parts" or "was"
    • An obelisk on Breach Hill Lane, which dates from the early to mid 19th century and is said to be waterwork marker. Another fragment

Thanks, AndyZ t 23:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had another go at copyediting the article taking into account the issues you've raised & changed the formatting. Are there other objections I need to take into account? Rod 10:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Object- the article needs to show how the subject is related to the every day world!--Timorrison 19:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware this was part of the FA criteria, however I'd like to assure you this is the everday world for the 1000 or so people who live in the village and the many visitors. Rod 07:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support! I like this a lot. However, my support is conditional: everything in the article should be referenced. In some sections the referencing is very good, but other sections have no referencing at all: the bell makers section, recent history, and local political arrangements. If this stuff is cited, then consider my vote to be support. One more question (if the info isn't available to you, then don't worry about it): what was in the time capsule, why was it buried there (I mean, any particular reason beyond the obvious), and when is it due to be opened? Everyking 10:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • A little more stuff: is Pagans Hill named after the ancient temple? I assume so, but I couldn't find that in the article (might have missed it). Also, the recent history section is dismally short—isn't there a local paper that might have recorded a few more events that have occurred in the last few decades? Everyking 10:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added citations for the sections you mention & added to the recent history section. Rod 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

This article has become quite stable over the past couple of weeks and I believe has become quite neutral. It is well written, compelling, and well referenced. I've done minor editing on it, so it's not exactly a self-nom. Many Wikipedians have contributed to this article. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if it should be promoted (I'm looking over it), but if it is, it should not appear on the main page (it would be too inflamatory and would look improper). BrokenSegue 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Instead of featuring it, I think it would be smarter if Wikipedia deleted it. --Daniel Brandt 68.91.252.244 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I've heard all about your privacy concerns. As legitimate as your concerns are, what is it in particular that you dislike? —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 01:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The 68.91.252.0/23 IP range is an SBC San Francisco Bay Area pool. I doubt that 68.91.252.244 was Daniel Brandt, but I think I know who it really was. — May. 12, '06 [05:52] <freakofnurxture|talk>
      • Freakofnurture has no idea what he is talking about. Every single one of the 256 addresses in the 68.91.252.* Class C block reverse-resolves from its in-addr.arpa listing to *.dsl.snantx.swbell.net. I hope Wikipedia doesn't let admins like him go around blocking people. -- Daniel Brandt 66.142.89.253 18:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Arguments in favour: very well referenced and seems reasonably complete. Arguments against: the prose seems somehow a little dry, though perhaps that's due to the subject matter. It seems perhaps slightly short. The images could use captions. Quotes should (almost) never be italicized, and blockquotes do not have quotation marks. Doesn't seem to be that stable. Exploding Boy 00:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree this is closely sourced and NPOV, but I would like to see more diversity in featured biographies of living people. So far in 2006, it's been Marilyn Manson, Katie Holmes, W. Mark Felt, Thomas Pynchon, Diane Keaton, Gerald Ford, as well as Pink Floyd and The Jackson 5. All are excellent but seem a little U.S.-centric. All are from politics or the arts. Maybe a scientist or athlete or religious leader, preferably from outside North America? (added in response to comment below) No photo of subject, no birthdate confirmation, and any stability has been due to a lot of protections this year. I don't believe the "privacy activist" issue has been addressed appropriately, and I feel that the interest in featuring this is part of an ongoing dispute with the subject, who has objected to the article as an "invasion of privacy." While notable, I don't even think Brandt is among the most notable or interesting conspiracy theorists. The article does not really discuss his place in that subculture (as a catalyst for computerizing card catalog databases created by individual conspiracy buffs). Jokestress 00:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: while I agree that we need more non-US bios as featured articles, that's not a good reason to oppose the feature-worthy US ones. Exploding Boy 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hi Jokestress. I'd like to point out that Pink Floyd are British! ;-) Notability isn't a FA criteria. Do you have any objections that are actionable? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 02:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ya, I know about Pink Floyd; I was listing all living people featured this year. I bolded my actionable objections above.
  • Comment: When all these celebrities will be FA, then people will begin working on dead celebrities and on older people. It's the way I see it. 132.204.207.108 13:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object lol, not a chance, this article is way too unstable for a FA 172.164.13.197 00:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Well written", "well referenced"…are you talking about the same article that is linked? It cites a blog, a random website, a slashdot post, and a forum post. These are clearly not reliable sources that certainly should not be used to cite criticism (unless we are going to throw WP:BLP out). The sections about wikipedia are filled with either unsourced material or original research (e.g. "(It should be noted that most content is added by editors, not administrators. Wikipedia administrators are not especially responsible for article content, they are users trusted to have power to block others, manage bans, enforce rulings, and the like)"). It also certainly isn't stable as the spat over the image is a content dispute, not vandalism. Kotepho 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose! There is no way this article is stable. It's a very frequent vandal target, and it's much too dangerous to try to present it on the list of featured articles (legality-wise). User:Zoe|(talk) 02:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. There are several major issues which need to be addressed concerning this article.
    • The article is unstable, both currently and in the past:
      • The edit history hints at edit wars between POV forces
      • There appears to be a great deal of vandalism evident in the article's edit history.
      • The edit history of the article itself, and its FAC nomination here seem to attract sock puppets.
    • The article does not seem to be comprehensive, it doesn't even have his real birthday. There is absolutely no information regarding his life outside of his activism, and the activism sections themselves seem short.
    • The quality of writing in the article is not top notch. There are numerous one-sentence paragraphs and a bunch of awkward phrasings thorughout the article.
    • Although not a requirement, there should be a picture.
It will be difficult to achieve stability, as this is clearly a controversial topic, but before we even get to issues of sock puppetry, vandalism, and edit wars, the prose needs to be cleaned up and made more comprehensive. RyanGerbil10 02:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain The person who it's about doesn't want it here. I'd object on this reason, however I am very curious what would happen if it does become featured so I'd support. Both cancel out and so I abstain. DyslexicEditor 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Neither of those points are good reasons to object or support. I'm glad you did neither. BrokenSegue 02:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it would be nice if Brandt could be brought around and offer some constructive suggestions for the article. That may be a crazy thing to hope for, given his opposition, but I'd really worry about the stability issue with the current situation. Everyking 10:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Last time he did that he mentioned that we failed to cover his past history of activism. As a result we covered the subject, and the coverage includes mention of him burning his draft card. This has become one of his primary issues with the article... not that it's factually incorrect, but that it is a skeleton that he'd rather be buried. Seems like a no win situation because his relationship with Wikipedia has become so adversarial. --Gmaxwell 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from banned user Zordrac removed
    • Yeah, I just took it for granted that the nom was made for that reason. Everyking 04:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object agree with RyanGerbl10, it also seems POV too me. Rlevse 00:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This guy does not want his bio on wikipedia - its existence has been a sore point between us and him. Whilst that is not grounds to delete the article, it would rather make featuring it look like we were deliberately trolling him. Not the image we want. --Doc ask? 18:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not 100% sure I buy this as an argument: promoting the article to featured says 'we think this is a good article' not 'Hah! Suck on this, Brandt'. Surely? --Nick Boalch 18:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Needs a photo. Also, it is not wise to try and bait Brandt into filing legal action. Ashibaka tock 23:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Absolutely not. Why?
    • It exemplifies our very best work. False. I would not consider this article an example of our best work; I wouldn't even consider it to be "decent". It's an okay article but there is nothing there that particularly intrigues me. Featured articles are supposed to be good enough to put up on a mounted display. I would not want this article hanging up somewhere.
    • It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. Not really, false, uncertain, mostly true and absolutely false. The article is dry and boring. It is also by no means comprehensive. It doesn't go into detail his student activism at USC. It only briefly mentions Public Information Research, which a fair amount of higher educational institutes have used in the past. As far as being factually accurate.. unless you can convince Mr. Brandt to tell you about himself, I can't verify the factuality of the article. It is for the most part neutral (thankfully) after having a time of being rather biased. Stable? Good God no. The article itself has been the thing of controversy. No, I wouldn't consider it stable, especially while Mr. Brandt is threatening litigation.
    • It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article. Two things. First, it's a biography. Biographies really need some type of image to them, and I'll be very surprised if anyone was able to put a picture of Daniel up there. He has stated to me that he hasn't posted anything to the Internet, so good luck trying to find him. Besides, even if you *were* able to find a picture of him, he would go ape (as if he isn't already). We don't need that type of headache.
    • It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles. This is up to interpretation, but I don't think this article qualifies. It mentions Public Information Research once.
  • I apologize if I sound snippy or pushy. However, compare this article to a featured biography such as Henry Moore, Norman Borlaug, or George Fox. This article is a little breadcrumb compared to those. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bible

Bible is the book of pan-Christianity. It tells you the history in the past, from the creation of the world, to the predictions of the future. I nominate this article for featured article status because it is structurally complete. Please feel free to leave comments. --Cheung1303 11:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - no inline citations. —Whouk (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - The section "Widely Quoted Facts About the Bible" is pure banal trivia, some of which is of extremely questionable relevance. (The fact that no verse in the English version of the Bible contains every letter of the alphabet is unencyclopedic, as are many other entries in that section.) Get rid of the trivia, add some inline citations, shorten the lead, and widen the scope of the article. All this article does is describe the Bible - how and when it was written/collected, what it's about, different versions. What about interpretations (eg. literal vs metaphorical), influences in literature, etc. I realize there's an extensive "see also" list at the bottom; is there any way to incorporate any of those topics, even very briefly, into the text? This is one article that should be longer than average, if only to mention all of the many topics to which it relates. The Disco King 19:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Per above. Plus some other problems: 1) "For Jews, the term refers only to the Hebrew Bible, also called the Torah". The Torah does not (normally) refer to the entirity of the Hebrew Bible, but to the Pentateuch. 2) "the Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical books" implies that we are dealing with two separate sets of books — also note that these books are of importance in more than just Roman Catholicism. 3) Virtually nothing on the Septuagint per se — this is a glaring omission as the Septuagint basically set the tone of the Christian Bible until about the early 18th century (yes, Jerome favored translations from Hebrew texts — not, however, the Masoretic text, as the article seems to claim — it didn't exist — but he still included the Deutrocanonical material). 4) Nothing at all on pseudopigraphia or the non-Deutrocanonical New Testament apocrypha. Well, I think that's enough for here: in short, it needs work to be FA material — may not hurt to get a peer review first. iggytalk 23:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: impressive article, but not enough citation, no inline refs. Remove the trivia section. -- Alfakim --  talk  22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

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

  • Weak Support. There are a lot of one sentence paragraphs, but otherwise, this is an excellent article given the topic. RyanGerbil10 04:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - great example of how wikipedia can cover unusual topics. 08:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - here are my objections which still stand, from the previous nomination, with comments by RN from there also.
    • There's lots here that's not really relevant to the article. For example in the intro, Before Colbert's presentation, Bush mocked himself with the help of a celebrity impersonator, Steve Bridges is a non sequitur with the previous sentence and is hardly something that needs saying in a concise overview of the article.
      • I think the information is indeed relevant to the article, as throughout the article the event is often compared to the bush vs. bush one by the media, so a little context helps here. RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
        • It's still a non sequitur where it is. A bit more explanation should be given there, or better, it shouldn't be mentioned in the intro but only in the main text. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Agreed, it's already duplicated now, I'll remove it from the intro and only mention it to note the difference in audience reaction between Colbert's and Bridge's performances. --kizzle 16:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • 'Early press coverage', 'Media blackout' and 'Praise and criticism' all deal with the same thing, and organisation is a problem here. You could substantially trim what's here because much of it takes the form 'On such-and-such a date, so-and-so said this'. You need to have a paragraph with an illustrative brief quote which explains the point of view behind the quote, rather than just giving a slightly random list of who said what, when.
  • still Object This line needs reworked and prices need to totally go away, it's advertising: "On May 20th, 2006 Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondent's Association Dinner became the #1 download ($1.99) at the iTunes Music Store and #6 at Audible.com. C-Span says copies of a DVD of the event ($24.99) have sold only in the "very low thousands." " Rlevse 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • One could do this, but it may be just a style change - I'm unsure if one would want to trim anything here :). RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The reason why the prices are mentioned is not to advertise, but to give context to the fact that only a couple thousand DVDs were sold while somehow the much-cheaper online version became the top seller at iTunes. I tried to remove the prices and put a qualifier at the end, but it felt like original research because I had no one to specifically quote that that was the reason behind the difference in sales. Thus, lets just make sure the readers know the difference in prices and let them come to their own conclusions, but the vast difference between the C-Span DVD (24.99) and iTunes download (1.99) definetely should be mentioned. --kizzle 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
        • It all feels a bit choppy at the moment, and still looks a bit like the regurgitation of quotes that I originally complained about. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • copies of a DVD of the event, priced at $24.95 - the price is irrelevant and looks like advertising. There's also still a link to the C-SPAN store. We shouldn't be promoting or advertising. Worldtraveller 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think it is doing either - it is just discussing it from a numbers and historical perspective - maybe it is too specific, but some readers might find the extra valuable I guess... RN 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Seriously, it looks like blatant advertising with a price. It also doesn't follow from the sentence before properly, and lacks a reference as well. The store like is probably OK as the text accompanying it looks less promotional now. Worldtraveller 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree, the prices are inappropriate and look like blatant advertising. Bwithh 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Fixed by Raul654. Price is gone. -- Brian.fsm 07:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support once the DVD price is removed, and the citation needed tag(s) are gone. Otherwise, a fine article. If my requests aren't met, consider this an objection. Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support incredibly well referenced and is a different type of article, wiki needs more like this. As mentioned above it needs the 1 sentance paras worked out of it.--Childzy 10:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Further opposition brought from old nom:
    • This article presents facts without enough context to make them meaningful. To wit: 24 words and a footnote about people thanking Colbert en masse without explaining why they were thanking him or what they were thanking him for. Further to wit: Not knowing the history of the word balls as Colbert's catch-word or whatever makes the Daily Show reference uninformative
    • This article is bloated with overuse of direct quotes from sources where they are not warranted.
      • C-Span says copies of a DVD of the event ($24.99) have sold only in the "very low thousands." (and why give the cost?)
        • Please see above. RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Not sure what I'm looking at. Tuf-Kat
            • Fixed by Raul654. Price is gone. -- Brian.fsm 07:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • why the Washington Post's article about the dinner "did not convey with any specificity what Colbert had to say,"
        • Urm, it says right after the quote, doesn't it :)? I agree that wording needs to be tweaked slightly though :). RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
          • The information is justifiable. My point is that "did not convey with any specificity what Colbert had to say" is a wordy way of saying "did not cover Colbert's performance" or something that effect. Tuf-Kat 11:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The Google searches for "Colbert", "Stephen Colbert", "Colbert Bush", and "Colbert dinner" don't really need to be listed -- none of those are surprising and are perfectly predictable. That doesn't give any more information than just "surge in Colbert-related searches"
        • I lightly disagree with this - we're trying to show it was an "internet sensation" and this helps it - just saying that cspan hits went up probably isn't enough. RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Just say Colbert searches went up -- this makes it look like there's something interesting about these particular terms, when in fact, they're pretty much what you'd expect would go up if Colbert-related searches went up. I bet "Bush dinner", "Colbert dinner Bush" and various others went up too. Tuf-Kat 11:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Fixed by kizzle. -- Brian.fsm 07:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The article has been significantly improved in this regard, but I still see a number of direct quotes that are unnecessary. Compare:
        • Calame said the fact that the Colbert speech had been mentioned in a later article "didn't explain why Mr. Colbert didn't make The Times in the first place". - this is perfectly ordinary, straightforward English that could easily be reworded.
        • CBC columnist Heather Mallick wrote, "Colbert had the wit and raw courage to do to Bush what Mark Antony did to Brutus, murderer of Caesar. As the American media has self-destructed, it takes Colbert to damn Bush with devastatingly ironic praise." or even Colbert's performance "landed with a thud" among the live audience - both are idiomatic and expressive quotes that could not easily reworded.
    • Many paragraphs are longer than they need to be. e.g. Time columnist Ana Marie Cox called.... Neither of those quotes are particularly useful in and of themselves. That could easily be trimmed without losing anything: "Cox called the allegations of a deliberate blackout a "fake controversy" because Colbert's performance got coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the major wire services. Fellow commentator Kurtz concurred, noting that he had played two clips on his own CNN show, and the video was carried on CSpan and available online." (not meant to be an exact suggestion) This does not lose any information, presents and connects all the relevant opinions, without original research. (I don't agree that "I didn't get the memo" needs to be a quote; it's not very illustrative and may be difficult to understand for people who aren't native English speakers. But I can live with it.)
      • While you are right that it doesn't lose much information - I don't really see it as improving anything. Rather, it seems like a change from a more immediate direct quoting style to a more passive one. RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
        • It is not appropriate to quote a source unless quoting is necessary to impart information to the reader. There's no reason this can't be summed up in our own words. Tuf-Kat 11:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Many sections of the article read like random jumbles of facts.
      • Chicago Sun-Times TV Critic Doug Elfman... exclusive rights to retransmit the video. (these two sentences share a paragraph despite a lack of any explicit connection between them, AFAICT)
        • You appear to be correct here - I'll try to tweak it :) RN 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I re-organized this section. Please check the new structue. -- Brian.fsm 07:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Aside from the lead, there is virtually no introductory text. The sections are largely laundry lists of direct quotes, and are not in WP:SS. This objection is actionable and is fixable without including original research. For example, take "Allegations of a media blackout".
      • Take one paragraph to summarize who alleged a media blackout, and why they believed it. This would not be original research because is merely restating the cited opinions expressed by others.
      • Take another paragraph to explain the opinions of those who deny the media blackout.
      • Create a section for the allegations and one for the denial. In each, restate briefly at the beginning why people believe what they do. Then give the details of who exactly believes what and why.
      • That section has been well-fixed, and much of the rest of the article has been cleaned up significantly too. Do the same kind of thing to "Praise and criticism for Colbert", and put a sentence or two introducing "Early press coverage". Tuf-Kat 00:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Clips of Colbert’s comic "tribute" remove the scare quotes over tribute; probably just change the word "tribute" to "comic performance" or something. Tuf-Kat 00:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Removed the scare quotes. However, the article already uses the word "performance" 18 times; "tribute" only appears 4 times. -- Brian.fsm
  • Tuf-Kat 00:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Three things:

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

    • Fixed--kizzle 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

    • Fixed--kizzle 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Support It was freedom of speech in it's worst hour. A captive audience, sneering insults right in the face of a sitting President, he might as well have just stood up there and said "Fuck you, Mr. President". But the article is well written and Colbert is a zero of a comedian...he's about as funny as pink eye.--MONGO 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • So in other words, you weren't a fan ;) --kizzle 19:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • To me, the greatest amusement was not Colbert's outrageous performance, but the reactions of the audience. The performance wasn't aimed at Bush. If you thought it was aimed at Bush, you missed the point entirely. Remember, Colbert is playing a satirical character. His remarks may have been about Bush, but they were aimed at the people he was facing - the White House press corps. And by the uncomfortable expressions on many of their faces, it appears they took the point quite well. (Helen Thomas up on on the dais, by comparison, was practically cackling with glee at their discomfiture.) It amazes me that they didn't tar and feather him. Kasreyn 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support pending removal or resolution of the last "citation needed". I have the feeling that this article is at a local maximum: little changes one way or another won't make it noticeably better (though somebody could go through and make the footnote/period placement consistent all the way through, nag nag). A massive reorganization might make it really great, but that's like saying changing lots of notes in "Hollaback Girl" will give you "Hey Jude". In other words, it's not necessarily a meaningful statement. Anville 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Article is well referenced and well written. Tombseye 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Comprehensiveness. The one thing that I think this article really needs is some context. If you could add an introductory section (in the article, after the lead) that brings some more context to the issue, that would be enough to change my vote to support. Describing more what the event was supposed to be about (I understand that another comedian was also invited; was having a comedy night the purpose of the dinner?), stating some facts well known today but potentially not well known in the future, such as that this is Bush's second term, all time low approval ratings, etc. This contextual information doesn't need to be very in depth (so long as it links to other articles), but I believe strongly that it needs to be there. Fieari 22:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Fieari makes a good point here, with very good examples. This should be done before featured status is granted. As another example, reference should be made to reports of Bush as insulated and of his aides normally shielding him from criticism - there are several newspaper articles that have discussed this, and it provides significant context. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 23:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding context where appropriate, but I think an introductory sentence is the wrong way to go here. In fact, I might change my vote to oppose if one was added. Such sections inevitably become crufty and repetitive. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and tried my hand at adding a referenced context blurb for Bush's reputation for avoiding dissent making Colbert's performance more notable. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 12:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A very odd topic, but a very good article. Tobyk777 07:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support once the two items needing citation are either cited or removed. Disclosure -- I helped contribute to the article. I'm impressed with how much the article has improved in response to everyone's feedback. -- Brian.fsm 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm sorry, but after some serious thought on the subject, I still can't bring myself to say this article is ready for featured, for the following reasons:
    • 1) Context and comprehensiveness, per Fieari's objections in part. This article should have information about the nature of the event where the speech occured, as well as Colbert's character from The Report. Also, there's really no serious discussion of Colbert performance as comedy, despite the fact more than a few sources have written about his unique satirical style.
    • 2) Some citations lead to unacceptable sources. The in-line cite for "his jokes were mostly met with awkward silence" leads to a blog entry by a self-described "teenage fangirl" watching the event on c-span (because Stephen Colbert is "hot"). Newshound is apparently a self-published, anti-FOX blog.
    • 3) Some quotes are used misleadingly, like Richard Cohen's criticism of Colbert, which was actually a bit more substantial than saying Colbert was "lame", "rude" and "a bully". The way Brian Calame is quoted also seems misrepresentative, even to the point of being possibly disingenuous.
    • 4) Prose which falls short of "compelling, even brilliant", with excessive use of scare quotes, some disjointedness, and quotes that don't add anything essential to the article (like saying so-and-so called Colbert "unfunny" and "bad"). I do appreciate that this article is improving. However, I think right now it's still being edited heavilly, and it shouldn't be up for featured just yet. Greater stability than this is probably needed to achieve the compelling prose criterion. And techinically, stability is a requirement too. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Since our (probable) goal here is to raise the quality of the article to that of featured status, as with any other article, why don't you make some edits that help put the article in tune with your objections? Looking back at the last 500 edits on the article, it has basically been RN, Brian, and me answering objections on this page by people who haven't touched the article at all or not in a while. I'm not sure how you would accomplish #1 without delving into original research, as I'm not sure it's Wikipedia's duty to evaluate and analyze the efficacy of Colbert's humor. Colbert's character has been plenty explained in The Colbert Report, which is linked to almost immediately in the article's beginning. If you find any citations that lead to unacceptable sources, please just take 5 minutes to google new ones, or remove the citation and put a "citation needed" flag up on the sentence, as your request shouldn't take longer than 10 minutes. For #3, if you believe that Cohen's criticism was mischaracterized, please rephrase it to better reflect his opinions on the matter. Finally, since you have provided no specific examples of scare quotes, disjointedness, and only one example of extraneous quotes, why don't you just go through the article once and do a quick copyedit to make it flow how you would like it to read. I look forward to seeing your edits which might make this article featured sometime soon :) --kizzle 23:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Our "probable" goal is to rasie the quality of the article? Try to assume good faith. :) With regards to discussion of Colbert's comedy, I see you've asked variants of this question before, and I'm sorry I haven't been around to chime in. It is quite possible to include criticism of Colbert's speech as a piece of humor. Please check out some articles in featured status on the movies, or major written works. Criticism isn't automatically original research; just find reasonably good sources and cite your critics. You've already applied the process to discuss opinions about the media's reaction and the newsworthiness of the event. That process needs to be applied to a criticism section related to Colbert's humor specifically, which is extremely revelant to this piece. As for Colbert's character, I'm not saying you need to reinvent the Report article, but this article currently mentions that the speech was given in the Report character, without a word of explanation as to what that means. This article must assume that the audience is not automatically familiar with the character. Wikilinking exists to allow the reader to explore related topics as they see fit, but articles are supposed to stand alone. A short explanation of what it means to perform in this character is warranted. Also, you haven't said anything about the request for context regarding the nature of the event; but I'll re-iterate that I think that's pretty much essential background too.
Finally, on your invitation to fix what I see wrong with this article -- respectfully, I must decline. I appreciate that you're using this page as I guideline to try and fix up the article, but let us not forget that this is primarilly a consensus-building discussion on whether or not this article is ready to be featured as-is. As it happens I don't have the time or the ambition right now to tackle the revisions necessary to this article, but I did feel I had to make it clear that serious objections still exist to this article's featured status. I stopped giving specifics about halfway through my above list of objections mostly because the list was getting dreadfully long. Since these long diatribes really have a way of breaking up the page, I'll clarify any objection you want in the order you're interested in dealing with them. But point one is substantial enough to qualify a serious "object", in my estimation. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 03:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith, I meant (probable) in the sense exactly what you said, not that you didn't want it to see gain featured status, but that you didn't have time to do it yourself. I think there is plenty of criticism of Colbert's humor in the piece (did you read Cox's piece? Yikes!), I don't think anyone else is pointing to a lack of NPOV as the problem getting this article to featured status, but rather the quality of the prose the article uses. Subsequently, I can't understand for the life of me what is preventing you to simply make a 5 minute pass, adding, contextualizing, and editing what you see as bad prose and make it into good prose. Just spend 5 minutes, one non-minor edit, and I'll be happy. I don't think that's too much to ask. For instance, your point about Colbert's character is a good one, I'm going to try and make the change now, and I expect it should take me about 2 minutes to make a stab at it. Just a little bit of effort is all I ask rather than simply pointing out easily rectifiable flaws and leaving Brian, RN, and me to do it. --kizzle 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Objectors are under no obligation to fix any part of the articles they comment on. It is the burden of people who want the article to become featured to make the necessary changes. Tuf-Kat 04:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. Read my comment as more of a friendly appeal rather than citing some obligation, especially considering the good work Lee has already put into the article. --kizzle 04:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Kizzle, I know this is an annoying response, but I'm honestly not interested in editing this article any more than I already have, at least not for the moment. I may jump in at later junction. And anyway, I haven't had time to go through the massive list of citations for this article and individually evalute each one, so I've offered up an examples of how some citations are problematic. I could fix the one's I spotted easilly, and declare the problem solved, but that would be taking the five second out rather than carefully going down the list and examining each individual source for this article, which probably should have been done before this article went up for featured. In any case, my edting habits are probably a subject more suited to my talk page. If it makes you feel any better, if those 2-second citation fixes still need doing after my more substantial objections to this artcle are addressed, I'll gladly take care of it. :)
Meanwhile, with regard to the queston of criticism of Colbert, I don't mean the "two thumbs down" kind of criticism. I mean specific critical discussion. Cox's piece is primarilly attacking the mentallity of people defending Colbert. It doesn't say anything of substance about the humor itself. I agree that you've quoted some people who have opinions about whether or not Colbert was "unfunny", but mostly these remarks aren't substantial with regards to the Colbert's humor. Colbert is a comedian who was hired to do comedy at political function. This claims to be an article about his performance, but the best you could really figure out from this article is that Colbert made some jokes about Bush which were maybe out of line, maybe not. Discussion of Colbert's comedy as comedy should be at least as relevant as reporting on Colbert's comedy as political action, but for some reason, no one here seems to be interesting in writing about this angle. Still needs doing. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 05:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not annoying, not all of us have free time :) Just when you get some free time I'd value your contributions to the page. --kizzle 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Lee, it's not that some of your criticisms aren't valid. By for those of us who have been working with you since this article was but a wee stub of the Stephen Colbert article, I think it seems that you have an entirely different vision for the article, and you want other people to write that article for you. I point to your comments here, here, and here.
As for "discussion of Colbert's comedy as comedy," I've read everything I came across about Colbert & the dinner and have seen nothing on this topic that isn't already included.
Regarding the TV Squad cite -- TV Squad is notable enough, I think, for the fairly benign claim that Colbert's jokes were met with silence (which Colbert himself admitted on his show). Feester ranks it #3 on its list of important blogs. It is one of the top 10,000 web sites according to Alexa, and is ranked higher than many daily newspapers. Annie Wu, who wrote the article, is ranked #8 on the TV Squad site and appears to be their primary writer on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Also, TV Squad is a site dedicated to TV, and this was an event broadcast on TV, so it does seem a relevant source. -- Brian.fsm 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ohio

This is a great page with a large effort towards integrity with many references. (The preceding unsingned comment was added by Leoberacai at 03:56 UTC, 9 May 2006)

  • Object. There are several issues which needs to be addressed with this article:
    • The lead section does not provide an accurate overview of the article as a whole, and also contains some one-sentence paragraphs which should either be merged or expanded.
    • The article lacks inline citations of its references.
    • The article has too few references, seven references is not an adequate number to fully source a topic as diverse and broad as the entire state of Ohio.
    • Especially toward the end, the article is very list-heavy. As many of these lists as possible should be converted into prose.
    • Some of the sections are not comprehensive:
      • The law and givernment section is only one or two sentences long, containing little more than a link to another article.
      • The economy section mentions nothing of the economic decline which took place in the Midwest, especially Ohio, during the post World War II period and continuing on until today.
      • The history section in the main article only covers up until 1835, and then gives a link to another article. The history section should give a brief overview of the complete history of the State, with a link to an article which is a longer and more detailed version of the history section presented in the main article.
    • In general, the article contains many one-sentence paragraphs and examples of shaky writing. It needs to be copyedited.
There is a lot of information here, is just needs some polishing, better referencing, and rewriting. RyanGerbil10 04:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object:
  • History ends at 1835, certainly not comprehensive
  • Law and government is a section stub
  • This article should follow guidelines at WP:STATE
  • See alsos at the end of sections should be incorporated into text
  • Too list-weighty towards end
  • Needs more inline citations; 7 for a 30kb article isn't sufficient
  • Image:Wiki ohio.jpg and Image:Ohio state seal.png need fair use rationales
  • Subpages should be created, in accordance with WP:SS. For example, Geography of Ohio, etc.
  • The WP:LEAD skips around from topic to topic and doesn't summarize the article.

Thanks, AndyZ t 23:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object:

We don't need a populated U.S. State with nothing Extremely Important as our Featured Article,(My family is from Ohio), it should be used on something more Interesting. --Corporal Punishment 02:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

unless I'm missing something this objection is not exactly actionable. Rossrs 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
This objection is unactionable. Certain featured articles aren't interesting, but as long as they fit into requirements laid out at WP:WIAFA, they can become featured articles. Thanks, AndyZ t 19:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - the postage stamp image Image:Wiki ohio.jpg should be removed. It's only fair use if the stamp itself is being discussed, but here it's used for decorative purposes. Fair use images should not be needed in an article like this - a Wikipedian with a camera should be able to capture whatever images are needed. A fair use rationale will not suffice in this case. Rossrs 14:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per above. See WP:LEAD, and there's really no excuse for any unfree content in this article. Jkelly 01:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moncton

I think this is a very good article with good pictures and well-written out explanations. Yvesnimmo 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object; quite well written, but not yet 'compelling, even brilliant'. Clauses such as "consistent snow cover does not take place" don't fill me with confidence. Can you get rid of the apostrophes in "20s" etc., and hyphenate "mid-"? All hyphenated ranges should have an n dash instead (–). Needs a good copy-edit. Tony 02:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; Economy section needs to be layed out better. Pictures break up text too much. I'm not sure how it looks on IE but in mozilla it doesn't look good. --Crossmr 03:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object should be removed per WP:SNOW Tobyk777 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That isn't policy, its an essay, might want to read the page and the discussion before trying to cite it as justification. While I agree it should be removed, its necessary to go through the process in case someone does have intent to actually flesh out the article. --Crossmr 16:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Tobyk777 said "should be removed per" not "should be removed by" - the latter would apply to quoting a policy only, the former would apply if citing a policy, essay, suggestion, or a comment by another user in the discussion. It's just a short-hand way of saying "this nomination should be removed for all the kinds of reason given at WP:SNOW" which seems perfectly valid to me, it's by no means a "policyfication" of SNOW. However, I would also agree with Crossmr that there is no need to quote SNOW in this case, as the article is not inherently unfeaturable, merely apparently unlikely to reach the required standard before this nomination runs out of time. TheGrappler 22:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Object. Maybe next time. :)--陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 04:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Object, some of the photos in the buildings section are stolen from websites and labelled "self-made". Ouuplas 21:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object, Article needs a better lay-out, several problems with pictures (over-sized, too many, copywrite problems), and IP addresses constantly vandalize or add biased facts whiche aren't reverted very quickly. Although the article has many other positive aspects I feel it just doesn't meet "feature-article" standards. Theyab 21:53, 10 May 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] Jefferson Davis

Nominate-I nominate this article because I feel that it is well-written enough to become a featured article.----216.7.248.254 19:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support and I support the nomination of the article!--216.7.254.254 14:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment', 216.7.254.254 and Timorrison are the same editor. -Will Beback 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - completely unreferenced. Soup Blazer 14:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - needs inline citations and references. (As Soup Blazer - edit conflict.) —Whouk (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

--216.7.254.254 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object - refer to WP:PR - This is a good start, but, as pointed out above, it needs a "References" section. I am a little surprised that no paper references are given for such a significant historical figure (there must be published biographies, for example). The lead section is a rather short two paragraphs and could be expanded, and there are quite a few paragraphs of only one or two sentences that need to be expanded or consolidated. Is there nothing that can be said about his legacy? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You may get additional helpful feedback from WP:PR. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: has no references. External links are not references. If they were, the section should be titled "References"; but changing the title won't help, because these are not references. For example, the article says "Until late in the war, he resisted efforts to appoint a general-in-chief". Where can I click to see the external source which verifies this? I searched the listed biographies and found nothing about this. For information on what's required in terms of references, please see:
    — Johan the Ghost seance 15:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object this article needs work, 216.7.254.254 please see WP:CITE, thanks 172.165.98.163 03:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Birth of a Nation

Nominate- this page for the famous silent film seems to fit the requirements for nomination.--Timorrison 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support- this artile has all the required references.--Timorrison 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cast section is poor, needs more references, could be longer. Cvene64 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - WP:LEAD is too long, please follow guidelines at WP:FILM. Web references need WP:CITE information. Image:Naacp-birth-of-a-nation-protest.jpg needs a proper image copyright tag, as it is unlikely that it was published before 1923. Years without full dates shouldn't be linked per WP:MOSDATE. And plus, where did these votes and the nomination come from? Thanks, AndyZ t 01:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The name was improperly listed here, so when I saw the nomination was not listed on the talk page, I created it, and ended up with two nomination pages, hope its fixed now Judgesurreal777 01:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please delink the chronological items that do not include a date—years, decades, etc—as per WP policy. Tony 06:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I think the technical innovations in the movie have to be expanded upon. That's the reason why the movie is important, and it only gets a passing mention here. This website has a pretty good list: http://www.filmsite.org/birt.html . - Cribananda 22:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Image concerns:
    • Image:Naacp-birth-of-a-nation-protest.jpg is incorrectly licensed and unsourced.
  • Jkelly 23:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lamy

An article on the influential and popular pen manufacturer, Lamy (self-nomination). Images, plus extensively referenced/sourced information. Comprehensive examination of the most striking examples of industrial design by Lamy. Dysprosia 07:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Firstly, some of the text is no brilliant prose; too many one sentence paras, for example. Secondly, there are only really two references. That is not enough. Thirdly, there is little about the company history; thus it is hardly "comprehensive". Sorry to sound harsh, but this one is not yet ready. Go through peer review first, then come back to FAC. Batmanand | Talk 10:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand your objections, but the problem is is that there are few comprehensive web references available (Conners is excellent, but seems to be alone in its comprehensiveness), and there is little information provided about the company history, even provided by Lamy itself! To correct something you mentioned, I did note that the article was comprehensive on the examples of design -- I did not mention history. Dysprosia 10:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly my point. How can a corporate article be comprehensive if it contains scant little about the history of the company? You may want to read Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Batmanand | Talk 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I have read that article. My point is that how can a corporate article be comprehensive if there is little information available on the history of the company by means of references? That is hardly my fault :) Dysprosia 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Used some non-Lamy references to confirm data that Lamy provided (ie. awards) -- this should improve the number of distinct references available. Dysprosia 13:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't you inculde the URL access date for each reference? Cvene64 12:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll add these now. Dysprosia 12:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—poor prose. Tony 13:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you make some specific suggestions for improvement? Dysprosia 13:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure. A pervasive lack of clarity; not enough commas (required for clarity of meaning, ease of reading and style); incorrect use of punctuation; other technical faults. Here are a few examples from the first sentences.
'founded the business in 1930, with the preexisting Orthos pen manufacturer. Lamy was also a pioneer in the use of moulded synthetic plastics in its manufacture.'
  • 'with' is unclear: do you mean 'together with'? So he and Orthos collaborated to found Lamy? Or he took over Orthos and turned it into Lamy? Or what?
Resolved. Dysprosia
  • Probably better to remove 'also', and most of the other occurrences of that word.
Resolved. Dysprosia
  • What does 'its' refer to? Go through the whole article to ensure that the referent for each pronoun is clear.
I don't see any problem with "its" usage in the article. Dysprosia 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
'Lamy's product range reflects the intended practicality[1] of the products.'
  • What does it mean?
What is said. Lamy pens are thought of as being practical. For one, Lamy does not just make fountain pens, but ballpoints, rollerballs, etc etc, and compared to other pen manufacturers they are not designed so garishly or for artistic purposes, but for practical ones. Dysprosia
'such as "scribble" for a mechanical pencil, a variant of which can take 3.15 mm graphite refills, useful for sketching'
  • Is this one of Lamy's products? 'a' makes it sound generic. Is it the pencil or the refills in particular that are useful for sketching?
I thought that the fact that scribble was one of Lamy's products would have been clear since the start of the sentence says "Lamy products have a descriptive name". The rest of your comment has been resolved. Dysprosia 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
'Lamy refers to the products by prefixing "Lamy" to these descriptive names, here we simply use the descriptive name.'
  • The comma should be a semicolon, shouldn't it?
I don't see why, but a grammar nazi can correct me on that. Dysprosia 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It's way below a 'compelling, even brilliant' prose that is required for a FAC. Can you find a word-nerd to go through it thoroughly.
I can see the point for "compelling, even brilliant" prose on an article that contains a large amount of discussion, where good prose deals with the facts of a matter in a neutral and unartificial way, but I fail to see why "compelling, even brilliant" prose is necessary for the impassionate and neutral description of products. It's certainly a fine line between sounding like the text is promoting the products and merely stating the interesting design characteristics and other features of the products. Perhaps you or someone else could possibly elaborate on this.
It's a bit slender for a FAC.
I don't believe there are any length requirements for FACs. Regardless, any expansion I or others could make is sorely limited by what resources available -- and I have already noted the dearth of easily accessible resources, again, this is hardly my fault...
Tony 06:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses, your contribution has been most helpful. Dysprosia 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Dysprosia: I'm afraid that the 'compelling, even brilliant' requirement is for all FAs, regardless of the nature of the topic. 'Compelling, even brilliant' does not mean elaborate, beautiful, poetic, or flowery. The beauty of English is that it can be plain and elegant at the same time. What we require is clear, plain, easy-to-read text; that would be regarded as compelling. The article lacks these qualities, and should not be promoted. Please find someone to copy-edit the whole text.
I am more than quite aware that it is a requirement. What I said is that I don't see how one can produce "compelling, even brilliant" prose in describing products. You mention that text is to be clear, plain, and easy-to-read -- I don't believe you've quite addressed this in your objections, as the objections you listed do not make reference to the bulk of the article. Dysprosia
To take up some of your responses:
'Lamy refers to the products by prefixing "Lamy" to these descriptive names, here we simply use the descriptive name.'—This consists of two stand-alone sentences, before and after the comma. Therefore, they must be separated by a stop or a semicolon, and not a comma. Read it out aloud and you'll see.
What I am saying is that they are not so clearly "stand-alone", the sentence is expanding on the use of descriptive names. Anyway, it's stupid to quibble about a minor point, so I'll change that. Dysprosia
Why not clarify by writing Lamy's mechanical pencil, instead of 'a' mechanical pencil?
Because Lamy do not produce one mechanical pencil -- they produce several, as evident in the article. Dysprosia
Who is doing the intending? Just remove 'intended' and it will be plain and clear.
Lamy is doing the intending, of course. The point of the sentence is to say that Lamy intend their products to be practical (see the reference) -- they have not independently found practicality in the market. Dysprosia 09:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Tony 09:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Why do my comments have to cover the whole article? I've given examples to show that the whole article needs thorough editing. Tony 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Because citing a few examples doesn't show that the whole article needs editing, it only shows you found those specific problems with the article. I obviously don't see serious problems with the rest of the article, and you do, so how are your objections to be actionable if you do not go through them in detail? Dysprosia 12:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't try this legalistic thing with me. Prove that my examples aren't representative of pretty appalling prose throughout. It's up to you to fix it up, and not up to reviewers to edit the whole article for you. Do some work. Tony 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please try not to get upset -- no one is trying anything legalistic. No one is asking reviewers to edit the whole article for me. What I am asking is for specific objections relating to the whole article, not vague insinuations. The guidelines at the top of the page say "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." The point of this guideline as I see it, is that if someone has a problem with the article, that person should have an actionable reason why they have that objection, so that people can take action and respond to them and to fix them. Otherwise then resolving objections becomes nigh impossible, because it is not known what exactly is the problem. The problem is especially complicated when the matter is about something so subjective as to the quality of the prose, such problems are not always so obvious to readers, so you need to be especially specific in matters such as these. The onus is on you, the objector, to explain what is wrong with the article, precisely so I can "fix it up" and "do some work". I can't read your mind. Dysprosia 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
<sigh>—if you reread my comments, you'll see that there are a number of specific points, and instances where I've advised how you can go through the whole text to improve it. You need to get someone else to copy-edit the text, because you're not used to writing to the required standard in this register (e.g., your writing right here is full of errors). Someone with distance from the writing process and subject matter would be ideal.
You provided a number of comments that did not cover the whole of the article, and yet you complained that the rest of the article was not up to par. You are of perfect distance from the writing process and subject matter and yet you failed to provide details that the FAC process asks of you. We are not discussing the quality of comments that I have made here, since I am not submitting these comments for FAC evaluation. Dysprosia
None of my comments was a vague insinuation; I'm pointing you to specific ways in which the text can and needs to be improved.
I had to get you to elaborate what you meant by "poor prose" -- that is a vague insinuation, right there. Editors should not have to ask objectors to be specific in their objections -- the FAC process asks that you do that off the bat. Dysprosia
If you don't know 'what exactly is the problem' after reading the comments, then you shouldn't be preparing a FAC.
So if I don't know what's wrong with the article, I shouldn't be asking? Again, the onus is on you to explain what is the problem. Again, I can't read your mind. Dysprosia
The quality of prose has a subjective element, but writers and editors usually agree on the technical aspects that make a text plain and easy to read; in that respect, it's not subjective at all.
They can agree on the technical aspects when they are actually raised. You have only partially raised the technical aspects, and yet you make comments that the rest of the article has technical problems, fail to list them, and then somehow expect me to do something about it. Of course I can "get someone else to copy-edit the text", but that's not what's at hand here. Sorry to sound harsh, but if you don't want to explain in detail the problems you found with the rest of the article, which you are asked to do by the FAC process guidelines at the top of the page, then perhaps you should not be raising objections.
Tony 06:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you please put your comments in the right place in the thread? I shouldn't have to mop this discussion up after you. Dysprosia 07:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Further comments about poor prose. Dysprosia might consider not sniping about the formatting here and working on the article instead. The typical way that the standard of writing in FACs is critiqued is by making overall comments and providing specific examples. That is what I have done. The critique does not have to be comprehensive—merely an exemplification of problems. If Dysprosia can't accept the wider applicability of these comments, he should find someone else to edit the article thoroughly and skilfully. I note that s/he has taken no issue with the first reviewer's assertion that "some of the text is no brilliant prose"; that's odd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony1 (talk • contribs).
All experienced editors are obliged to use standard formatting practices on discussion pages, other users should not have to do this for you. All experienced editors are expected to sign their posts as well. That's not sniping, that's asking you to adhere to standard practice. Dysprosia
It's not odd. You may think so because you seem to have failed to understand the point I am raising. The first reviewer actually lived up to the FAC obligations by explaining his objections in detail -- at least that reviewer stated that "too many one sentence paras" was the problem with parts of the body of the article. Because that reviewer actually said so, I was able to fix it. You have only provided specific examples to the first few paragraphs of the article. I ask you, how on earth am I supposed to work on the article if you withhold describing what is wrong with the other half of the article? I could ask someone else to finish the job for you, but your obligation is for you to provide detailed and specific critique worded so other editors can take action. Dysprosia
Here's another problem sentence, the first I laid eyes on in a random selection:
"The steel Studio pens come with steel nibs, though the palladium Studio comes with a gold nib. The Studio design has won the Good Design Award[5], as well as the iF Design award in 2005"
"Though" should be used only if there's a contradiction; here, "and" is appropriate. "As well as" is a marked expression that appears unnecessary here; again, "and" is appropriate (why use one word when five will do?)
Now, this is another example of a grammatical problem ("though") and an instance of poor style ("as well as"). These types of issue pervade the text. Go through it and clean up the flabby expressions, grammatical problems and redundancies. Make every clause unambiguous. The prose is not "compelling, even brilliant".
Thank you for providing one example here. Now that you have done so, I can fix that problem. Dysprosia 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why isn't this article part of any category? And why is there no see also section? Joelito (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The category problem is easily resolved. However, do articles (in general) require see also sections? Dysprosia 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
No, articles do not in general require "see also" sections. Many editors (and I believe Raul654 is among their number) believe that if a topic isn't important enough to be referenced and linked in the main text, it's not worth giving a bullet point in a "see also" list. Inclusion in a category is more informative. Anville 15:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Dysprosia 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lead is too short, as is the article as a whole. No history. No information about them as a business. I'm sorry to be a bit harsh, but it strikes me as just a sweeping overview of their catalogue and not much more. Ambi 07:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try and work on the former, but like I mentioned above, there's little so far I can do about history. Dysprosia 07:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I've cobbled together a business history. Dysprosia 09:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The disputed sentences have been fixed. A general cleanup will come soon, and there are now tons of references in proper citation format.Judgesurreal777 12:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Business History section—It's a pretty boring list of increases in turnover and employment numbers, taken from some potted history or company manual. We'd like a wider angle, perhaps characterising the company's business strategy, or its relationship to its competitors and/or manufacturing as a whole. How did it differ from companies in similar industries in other countries? To be 'among the best' that WP has to offer, more is expected.
The same casually incorrect version of the English language is apparent here, as in the rest of the text. For example:
"In 1989, turnover increased to approximately 62 million DM, and had begun taking on employees as sleeping partners." So the turnover took on employees? Please explain "sleeping partners", if it's a technical term.
"In 1984, Lamy's export share increased to 33 percent." What, the share of national exports, or of the pen market? "Export share" is awkward.
Tony 12:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No, sleeping partners is linked -- we do not need to explain the term, even if it is red-linked. Furthermore, I believe "export share" must be an economic term as, if I remember correctly, this was the term used in the resources. Dysprosia 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You haven't addressed any of my points. You 'believe' that export share 'must' be an economic term. So what; make it 'share of exports', please. Are you going to let us into the secret of what 'sleeping partner' means, then, since there's no info on it? We'd love to know. The impression we're getting is that you're copying the text from somewhere without knowing what it means. Tony 13:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I have addressed your minor technical point on grammar. I have not spoken to your earlier point about the section being "boring" because I happen to agree with you, and thus I had no dispute with what you were saying. I believe that "export share" must be an economic term because I'm not an economist. Are you? Since you now seem to have the belief that I'm "copying the text from somewhere without knowing what it means" (who is "we" here, you seem to be the only one who appears to have this view), would you rather we have no business information at all?
It's not my responsibility to fill redlinks on a FAC. Dysprosia 22:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
So is there a copyright issue here? There's no reference. People will expect that you understand what you're copying. You don't seem to. Tony 01:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The first reference on the page covers everything preceding it up to the section header. No sentences have been copied verbatim.
So in effect you are saying that I must learn about economics to add a short fact to the article? That's hardly practical or appropriate. Nor does a less-than-comprehensive understanding of a fact preclude me from adding it to the article. Do you strictly contribute inside your fields of expertise? I doubt it. Dysprosia 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm amused at your insistence on punching in colons to format this stuff to the right; it must be very annoying for people with small monitors, and is not strictly necessary. But I'll leave this clerical duty to you, if that's what you like doing. No, you don't have to be an economist; but you are expected to know what the terms mean if you're writing them in. You haven't yet explained 'sleeping partner'. I'm all ears. And 'export share' is hardly jargon—it would just be better rendered as 'share of exports'. You still haven't told us whether it's the share of national exports, or just of pens, or what. Tony 03:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
As I said, "All experienced editors are obliged to use standard formatting practices on discussion pages, other users should not have to do this for you"; to answer your question, when the rightmost indenting gets too long, often it is reduced back slightly. I shan't comment further on this in order to refrain from casting aspersions on other editors.
To answer your other comments, I have fixed the problem you describe; otherwise you are now making me repeat myself. The comments I made above: "No, sleeping partners is linked -- we do not need to explain the term", and "It's not my responsibility to fill redlinks on a FAC", still stand. Dysprosia 03:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope, if the link is not active, you'll need to explain the meaning in the text. Pretty lazy option, isn't it, just link it and forget about it. Here, we are reader-oriented, not writer-oriented. Tony 06:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with laziness and I'll thank you not to imply that I am being lazy by doing so. You might benefit by acquainting yourself with Wikipedia civility policy. I remind you that this page is intended for the discussion of the nature and merits of the article, not of other editors. Regardless of our differences of opinion I expect other editors, including yourself, to at least behave in a civil fashion in discussions.
That being said, providing links in articles is a matter of avoiding redundancy -- if a target article exists, explaining the link and providing the link is redundant, as the reader can simply click on the link. Even if a target article does not exist, explaining the link target article is redundant -- provide the explanation as a stub in the target article. Again, it is not my responsibility to fill in redlinks on a FAC. Dysprosia 07:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well don't link it then, if you can't stand the 'redundancy'. Somewhere, the explanation needs to be accessible ... like, now. So I suggest you explain it IN the text. I don't believe that you know what it means ... Tony 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Either you have misunderstood me, or you are not reading my comments closely: I am saying that only linking is enough for the reasons I provided to you above.
It does not matter at all whether I know what the term means or not, since what I know is not under review at all.
I suggest that you also refrain from making potentially false assumptions about other editors -- I have provided you with this basic courtesy, I would ask you that you do the same. Dysprosia 12:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
So now no one knows what 'sleeping partners' means in this context. How silly. This attitude reinforces the suspicion that the article is largely copied from elsewhere, without attribution. Thus, it fails Criterion 2c as well as 2a. (Please count the indent colons carefully when you punch them in.) Tony 16:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If you do not desist from making fallacious accusations about my behaviour (of course there is attribution, try reading the References section on the page) and continue to have an incivil attitude (I shouldn't have to clean up after you and "count the indent colons" if you would simply follow standard Wikipedia practice), I'm going to refuse to discuss anything with you further. Based on your attitude, I doubt anyone else would be willing to either. Dysprosia 22:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, Dysprosia—you put the article up for promotion, so you can expect the prose to come under close scrutiny here: this is where the standards for WP are set. Yet instead of reacting positively, you've bickered and quarrelled, and taken criticism defensively and personally. These are technical matters, and they're not meant to be personal. IMV, the article still has serious problems, and two other reviewers clearly think likewise.

Let's take apart another, rather long sentence that, regrettably, forms a whole paragraph:

"Many designs in Lamy's product range have won numerous design awards, and many designs such as the design of the 2000 and the Safari mentioned below, amongst others, have been produced continuously since their inception -- for example the 2000 fountain pen was originally released in 1966 and is still in production today, with a large number of product variants including multisystem pens, mechanical pencils, all with the 2000 design."

    • 'Design' occurs four times, three of them in quick succession; 'many designs' occurs twice.
    • In this context, designs aren't produced; pens are.
    • Avoid 'mentioned below' if you can; it would be OK to remove it, I think.
    • amongst --> among (nowadays, like 'on' rather than 'upon', and 'while' rather than 'whilst').
    • The double hyphen should be a semicolon or a stop.
    • 'multisystem pens, mechanical pencils'—you're listing two items, so 'and' is required, not a comma.
    • Remove 'product' and 'today' as redundant.
    • 'with' twice: make the second one 'of'.
    • Commas after 'the design', 'example', and 'variants' would be typical in this fairly formal register.

Please try to take the criticism positively. Tony 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


PS Your new link to explain 'sleeping partner' is perfect. Why did we have to endure all of that unpleasantness to achieve this? (But you're refusing to respond, so that's probably for the best.) Tony 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


"you can expect the prose to come under close scrutiny here" -- except it is quite clear here that it is myself here that has also been coming under close scrutiny here by yourself, we've had accusations from you that I've been lazy, you've questioned my knowledge of terms, and you've behaved boorishly by making unnecessary comments enjoying the fact that other people have to clean up after your formatting mess. We've had all of this, even after I've asked you to behave in a civil manner, which you've blatantly ignored. That is unquestionably not close scrutiny of the text.
"taken criticism defensively and personally" -- Another absolutely ridiculous and fallacious assertion. I can quote you several comments made by myself that clearly show the opposite. Any differences I have claimed with your statements were meant as a spur for further discussion, and I fail utterly to see how my responses to criticism that you have made could be construed as being "defensive" and taking the criticisms "personally".
"Let's take apart another, rather long sentence, which, regrettably, forms a whole paragraph:" -- It absolutely astounds me that I had to drag any semblance of detailed criticism out of you (which is what I want, contrary to your unsupported beliefs), and now here you are spontaneously providing it. Why could you not have done this earlier? Furthermore, are you going to make further accusations that I am taking your criticism personally if I attempt to calmly respond to your points?
"Why did we have to endure all of that unpleasantness to achieve this?" -- because I held a view contrary to your beliefs, you would refuse to discuss any further on the matter than to restate your belief. The unpleasantness, I would argue, has its origins in your behaviour.
"But you're refusing to respond, so that's probably for the best" -- Thankfully, for some reason, you've seemed to stop the personal attacks -- they're just now blatantly false comments. If you do recommence with the personal attacks, I'm not going to deal with you further. Dysprosia 03:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, so it's OK for you to call me 'boorish', yet you complain that I'm making personal attacks. Hello? I'd like to point out that from the outset, I provided technical criticism; my recent analysis of that sentence/paragraph is additional. Again, please try not to take it personally. Tony 03:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence justifying calling me "lazy"? I apologize for the term, but this is the impression that I receive from your behaviour. Dysprosia 03:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Extrasolar planet/archive1

[edit] Extrasolar planet

Self-nomination. This article recently failed as a FAC and I am now renominating it. All the problems that were pointed out after the last nomination have now been fixed. Further substantial improvements have been made in the article as well. I have been one of the people to edit the article since the last nomination failed, and in my opinion, it now amply satisfies all featured-article criteria. Kevin Nelson 07:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Object. "Notable extrasolar planets" section needs changing from a bullet list into proper prose as flowing paragraphs. Footnote size is non-standard, see Belton_House#Notes for how it should be done. Everything else seems OK. — Wackymacs 11:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Addressed the concern around "Notable extrasolar planets" by breaking it into two lead paragraphs about the first two major milestones and then a list that's a bit easier to scan through and grasp, of the rest of the important discoveries by year and planet name. -Harmil 18:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I've noticed some of the footnotes do not follow the proper citation style using templates, so these need to be fixed. I've just noticed the See also section is a bit too long, can you remove some links from there? — Wackymacs 07:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
        • The only footnotes I've seen with improper citation style are those that are just URLs with no access date. Are there any others you find to be improper? Also, I have now further trimmed the "See also" section. Kevin Nelson 08:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
          • From quickly looking... Footnotes 14, 16, 35 are not formatted with their page titles, authors, site name, access date, etc. (I am sure one or two of those apply to at least every link used in those footnotes). — Wackymacs 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I think the article needs a few more tweaks before getting the FA status:

  • The "See also" section seems to me huge. Are all these links necessary? Can we have some of them incorporated in the main article?
  • The "Notable extrasolar planets" section is now prose, but with some stubby paragraphs consisting of just one sentence. One-sentence paragraphs are also present in other sections.

I think these things need fixing before FA status is awarded.--Yannismarou 19:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Certainly some things in the "See also" section could be deleted, but nothing really stands out as especially deserving of deletion. I have to say that its length doesn't strike me as all that unreasonable. I fixed several stubby one-paragraph sentences. Two remain, which I think are justifiable in that they come at the end of introductory text within a section, and serve to introduce the subsections that follow. Kevin Nelson 07:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Can't most of the items in the "See also" section be worked into the prose as wikilinks?--Paul 10:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have now done some of that. The "See also" section has been trimmed by a decent amount. Kevin Nelson 04:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I have a few concerns about the article:

  • The definition excludes orphaned planets that have been ejected from the star, as well as planets that formed by other means.[9]
  • I couldn't find any discussion of the suspected connection between a star's metallicity and the presence of planets. [10] [11]
  • There's no mention of such proposed detection methods as starshade technique in the New Worlds Observer.[12][13]]Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a paragraph in the lead about these "orphaned planets" (aka interstellar planets, aka rogue planets, aka free-floating planets). In short, I would prefer that this article not discuss such objects, for the following reasons: 1) They are outside the IAU's definition of "planet" 2) There is already a separate Wikipedia article about them 3) They remain a controversial subject in the astronomical community 4) Their relation to more ordinary planets is highly uncertain.
  • I added a paragraph about the metallicity connection.
  • Since length of the article is a concern, I would prefer not to add proposed detection methods like the starshade technique that are still very far from being put into practice. Several such methods have been proposed, and it's not clear where to draw the line. Kevin Nelson 08:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Support —
  • If the article length is becoming a concern then perhaps consideration should be given to creating a daughter article on the topic of detecting extrasolar planets.
  • The Category:Dark matter should probably be removed since there is no mention of the topic on the page.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - suggestions were fixed, unbelievably great article! NCurse work 08:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - Strong article when submitted & author has been very responsive to comments & suggestions. Well-writte, comprehensive & well-referenced. --Paul 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wackymacs has a point about the references, the notes do need some work. I saw a few problems just now & fixed them as examples of what needs to be done to clean things up.--Paul 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Notes/Refs seem to be fixed now.--Paul 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, although the nature of the article gives me some concerns: as more telescopes are deployed and/or more techniques to discover planets are put into practice this article - if not constantly followed by a editor - might become outdated. // Duccio (write me) 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- I was originally going to re-nominate this article because it has been improved since when I first nominated it. There might be a few changes that need to be made overall (with the citations etc.) but it's pretty much FA at this point Latitude0116 01:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rolling Stones

This is a very well written, and put together article about one of the most influential bands in the history of rock and roll. The pictures are great as well. - Mike(talk) 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator - Mike(talk) 02:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'd suggest that you move the list of members further down. Also, the entire article needs to be sectionalized (try more headings and subheadings); it doesn't look or read like a summary. Also, all images need fair use rationales. Orane (t) (c) (e) 02:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Members moved. I thought they didn't really belong at the top as well. - Mike(talk) 03:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. For several reasons:
    • The lead section is not properly organized into a three paragraph introduction.
      • Okay, okay. I'll drop the three paragraph lead objection. A three paragraph lead is simply customary, that's why I asked for it. RyanGerbil10 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The article lacks references, which is an important requirement, and when those references are added, they will need to be properly cited within the article, including footnotes.
    • The section titles are not written with an encyclopedic tone, and the sections themselves are extremely long. It seems like they could be reorganized so that instead of a chronology of the band, each section focused on one element of the band and how it changed throught the band's history.
The information is here; it just needs references and organization. RyanGerbil10 03:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • True. I didnt even realise that the article lacked source. I should point out, however, that it is not mandatory for 3 paragraphs to be in the intro. Orane (t) (c) (e) 04:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object
  1. Lead should be a summary of the articles content, and is rather brief considering the length of the article and the 40+ years the band have existed
  2. No list of sources, a few html links in text which lack supporting information
  3. Fannish tone.
--nixie 05:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—I've read only the lead, which I don't think should necessarily be in three paragraphs, RyanGerbil.

This sentence is not nice: 'By the end of the '60s, The Stones had racked up a great number of hit records, each single displaying an alarming rate of musical growth.'

    • Upper-case 'T' for 'The Stones'?
    • 'racked up' is too colloquial for this register.
    • 'a great number of'—would a single word do here?
    • 'alarming'—this appears to be inappropriate here.

Tony 15:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. No references. Most of the images have no source or fair use rationale. Examples: Image:Rstones3.jpg (what magazine is this from, and why is the magazine's name cropped out?)--Fallout boy 04:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The Upper case "t" is correct. In their Album "Jump Back:The Best of The Rolling Stones", the little book in the cover capitalizes the 'T' in 'The' in middle of a sentence several times. - Mike(talk) 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milk

Self Nomination

Reasons for Nominating this article:

  • A well written article with a concise lead section
  • Neutral
  • Pictures are fine
  • Factually accurate
  • I added some sections to it

This will also be an opportunity to improve and expand this article. Criticisms sometimes help. Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 22:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object:
  1. The article needs to be prosified. Large parts of the article consists of lists. (See Butter)
  2. The article delves on the patterns of "developed" nations. What about practices in the underdeveloped nations
  3. =History=? When did man begin to drink (non-human) milk?
  4. The article starts off with cow's milk as the second section and other animals' as the eighth. Why not discuss milk producing animals right at the beginning?
  5. Milk adulteration? Common in countries such as India
  6. Inline references not formatted correctly
  7. Copyediting needed> eg. Male calves are a "useless byproduct" ... followed by veal crates Long and winding sentence.
  8. Milk is considered to be vegetarian or not? Touch on the debate
  9. Uses of milk? edibles+cosmetics etc
  10. Is it natural for humans to consume milk long after the infant stage? No other animal drinks milk after the nursing stage.
  11. Some graphs would be a welcome addition

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've expanded the article by adding the "History of Milk" section and "Milk and vegetarianism" Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 21:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
History is very short, and again documents only the "First World" countries. 2. Cows are ... consumed by most Hindus. This is misleading. There are many staunch vegetarian Hindus who consume milk. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object
    • Too many lists
    • Sources are all inline web-links and it takes a lot of work to tell if they are good references or not. Suggest using cite.php footnotes; if not, at least needs a references section detailing all the sources linked to.
    • Stucture is strange. A top-level section "Expansion of Milk on heating"???
    • The lack of a History section, pointed out by Nichalp, says a lot about non-comprehensiveness.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have added a History section Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as incomprehensive. Has a lot of lists and referencing is also improper. History should be overall and not just for cow's milk. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Only 3 refs. Refrencing is improper. Many stub sections. History section under cows milk could be a whole article. Not just a paragraph. Too many lists. Advargae prose. Tobyk777 00:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it's a good start - keep working on it. - HarpooneerX 10:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - referencing is not done properly. Otherwise, it's promising. Ronline ✉ 10:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fujiwara no Teika

Self-nomination: I feel I've addressed peer review's concerns, I've cleared up the last area whose factuality I doubted, it's well-written, the last few people on IRC who I solicited to review had little to say; there are a number of nice PD images, and it simply strikes me as FA quality. That is all. --maru (talk) contribs 20:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object, does "sika bakari/tigirisi naka mo/kaFarikeru" really not bother you? Plus the other things I said on PR (bar the image, which you've done), plus the lead section needs that extra paragraph. Someone who actually knows something about old ja poetry is kinda needed, I'm way outa my depth on actually assessing the content of the article. --zippedmartin 04:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, hey, the "sika bakari" thing is not my fault- I was only faithfully reproducing what was said here. As for your PR suggestions, I did what I could. I managed to get a partial translation of one of the images, but it was too bulky to fit in a caption, and not particularly relevant- what was relevant was the calligraphy, not the contents.
Why does the intro need another paragraph? --maru (talk) contribs 05:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'm not suggesting anything's your 'fault', but little consistancy and polish issues like that do matter - sources need editing, not just regurgitating. Intro largely needs another paragraph because it doesn't provide an adequate introduction/summary for someone unfamiliar with the subject, but see also WP:LEAD. The other issue though, is that the content isn't terribly easy to verify, so bar *real* peer review, featured-ness is largely trusting Brower, and your interpretation, when it comes to correctness and comprehensivity. --zippedmartin 06:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I see. Problem is, I can't polish that particular example. The hiragana or whatever simply aren't in a form I can edit, parse and associate with the proper line, as the tables demand. One needs to actually understand Japanese for that; I've asked over on the Japan Wikiproject for some help in that respect, but who knows how well that will work. I'll try to work on the introduction, but I'm not too sure what I can add without stealing stuff from the regular biography section. As for sources, it's not so bad as you make out. I really rely on Brower only for the court politics and Go-Toba's poetry sequences bit; the rest either comes from the other references (such as Brower and Miner) or external links (much of which is also confirmed by one of Brower's books). --maru (talk) contribs 06:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Lead should be expanded to two or three pars.
    • Consider putting brief summary under all empty section headers
  • Tuf-Kat 02:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Seems a little disjointed. Images need to be rearranged so they don't bunch up and displace the text. Style a little off in some sections. Lacks sufficient citations (although it does have citations, some assertions/facts are not cited). Exploding Boy 05:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Huge problem witht the look of the refs. Tobyk777 01:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excelent article. Of course there is always room for improvement, but this article as is qualifies to be featured. --Cat out 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sample chess game

This one has received many thanks at its talk page. It is very well written and stays tightly focused on the main topic, covering the subject clearly but extensively. --ZeroOne 13:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose. Lead section too short and no inline citations... are there books on that subject? If so maybe incorporate some of their tactics. I would also define certain terms in Wiktionary like logjam?. Lincher 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There are at least a few hundred thousand books on the subject of chess. ;o I could copy the references that are used in the main article, chess. Logjam is just a figure of speech there. I don't remember it being a custom that individual words from the middle of an article are linked to Wiktionary. --ZeroOne 17:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this article feels like a how-to article. --soUmyaSch 13:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agreed with User:Soumyasch. I'm not even sure why this is on Wikipedia and not Wikibooks. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 14:04 UTC
  • Object. Seems unencyclopedic. Even if it wasn't, it comes close to original research, and has no proper lead section. (The lack of references is a non-issue because obviously this article can't have any -- which in itself makes its topic appear to be of dubious encyclopedic value.) Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, needs references. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What if I copy some of the references from chess? They all apply. Would you support then? --ZeroOne 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Entirely violates WP:NOR, some of WP:NOT, and, with comments like "White makes another fine move", WP:NPOV. This should be moved off Wikipedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose this article is not encyclopedic. Should be transwikied to Wikibooks if they want it. Tuf-Kat 19:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The article has serious POV issues and needs a complete rewrite, but I feel that the content here, or at least the idea of a sample chess game in general, could be justified here on Wikipedia. However, because we say on Wikipedia that every article could be raised to featured status, and featured status requires references, we would perhaps have to make our sample game one that was actually played, such as one that demonstrated a particularly noteworthy level of play or which used a broad range of possible moves. This particular article though,is not of featured quality as of yet. RyanGerbil10 03:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some paper encyclopedias have full pages which are not mostly text: maps, or diagrams of the legislative process, or little picture galleries with examples of eight different kinds of lace, or whatever. In the more vertical (and more nonlinear) format of a web browser it makes sense to put things like this on their own pages, rather than break up the main text column with them (and they won't necessarily fit to the side of it). So not every Wikipedia page has to be exactly an "article". The page Sample chess game does not belong on Wikibooks because it is not a textbook or part of a textbook. Rather, it is a supplementary document for the encyclopedia articles Chess and Rules of chess. Such supplementary documents should probably never be given featured article status, since they are not encyclopedia articles per se (thus I oppose this nomination), but there is no good reason to delete them, or to transwiki them to other Wiki projects whose stated criteria they are equally unsuitable for, either. (If anyone wants to get gung-ho about every Wikipedia page being an article per se, rather than some pages serving subsidiary functions, they will have to delete or transwiki all "List of" and "Timeline of" pages, to begin with.) DanielCristofani 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me started :-D —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This is original research, why not change the sample game to a classic game played by one of the champions and give commentaries made by reliable sources? Then this would be an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Joelito (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Complete games are generally too long for this kind of introductions. Then there are these games like Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1997, Game 6 which only few understand - try to make a computer analysis of this game, it will probably agree on every move, yet Kasparov resigned. Besides, this particular example game is hardly original research, as Damiano Defense has throughly been examined to be a poor one. Chessmaster 9000, for example, knows an almost the same game (differs on White's eighth move) that leaves the opening book on move 11, at which point it is a forced mate in three for white: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5 7.Bxd5+ Kg6 8.Bxb7 Bxb7 9.Qf5+ Kh6 10.h4 g5 11.Qf7 Nf6 12.hxg5+ Kxg5 13.d3+ Kg4 14.Qe6# 1-0. --ZeroOne 20:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah! I knew I had seen that poor opening somewhere. Since the article is nothing more than an explosion of the Damiano Defense then I suggest a merge of the article. Joelito (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Nothing more than an explosion of the Damiano Defense? This article is aimed for people who have never played chess. Those players are not interested in the names of openings and only get confused should you start telling them about King's Indian Opening, Scotch Opening, etc. :) They will not click on Damiano Defence when they want to learn chess. For people who are already intermediate players, this text is just holding them from hand and telling them "this-is-a-rook". They do not need every move commented. Advanced players would appreciate a short and compact form when presented as one line of the Damiano Defense. --ZeroOne 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What you are describing is a how-to of chess and this explicitely one of the things that this encyclopedia is not. I am merely trying to save the article. Joelito (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, this is just a Featured article candidate discussion, which, I gather, has come to the conclusion that this will not be made a featured article. We'll discuss about saving the article should someone nominate it for deletion... --ZeroOne 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I would hardly call an example game of chess an instruction manual. It's not a "how to win a game of chess" or even "how to play chess" article. As DanielCristofani pointed out, it's rather a supplement to Chess and Rules of chess (the "how to play chess" article, should you want to call it that). Should you counter that Rules of chess is not an encyclopedic article either, we would have to strip the rules out from most of our sports related articles. See, for example, Laws of the Game (soccer), too. --ZeroOne 20:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Storng object If this can even be considered an article, this article is a poorly written, unencylopedic, unrefrenced indisciminate collection of information. I wouldn't be surprised if this wound up on ADF. At the very least this should be removed from FAC per WP:SNOWTobyk777 04:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not an article; it's not poorly written; it's not a "collection", discriminate or indiscriminate. It's an illustration to show what chess games are like. Not being an article does not make it unencyclopedic; encyclopedias have things other than articles in them. I've mentioned a few already. Just as the printers of paper encyclopedias will sometimes make a map or other illustration big enough to take up a full page, or even two, when it is necessary for including enough information to give people a clear idea of the subject, we should be able to do the same. And yes, go ahead and take it off FAC. I think we have some consensus on that, anyway. DanielCristofani 09:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose, but support the concept. I agree this is an edge case, but I certainly don't understand the level of vehement opposition here. Remember that our goal here is to improve Wikipedia, not to fight off nasty, invasive bad articles.
    1. Would this article survive AfD? I think it should. Chess is a complex game, and not easy to grasp from a simple list of rules. This is -- or at least could be -- an illustration, not a how-to, and as such I think an article like this belongs in Wikipedia.
    2. I don't understand why people have a problem with this as an illustration of how the game works. Would you delete the animated diagram and explanation from Internal combustion engine? It walks you through the sequence of steps in an engine cycle, just as an article like this could walk you through the sequence of stages in a typical chess game.
    3. Given that it belongs in Wikipedia, it must be possible for it to become featured.
      • It could certainly do with a lead which summarises the article.
      • With good discussion of the implications of each position and move, this article could be comprehensive and well-written.
      • If based on a well-known game which has been discussed in at least a couple of reference works, it can be factually accurate, verifiable, and NPOV.
      • References could then be provided (eg. to the page where a move is described by a respected authority as being "fine", and why).
      • Given the above, this would not be original research.
      • "Stable" should be achievable...
      With all of these, I think it would meet the criteria for an FA.
    4. Would people find this a useful aid to understanding chess? I think so. So, with virtually unlimited storage, why not?
    So, the trick is to find a short, clear game which satisfies the above criteria. Address the above, and I would support. — Johan the Ghost seance 10:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this article would survive AfD, on inertia alone if nothing else, but I don't think it should. Being useful isn't sufficient. How would you feel about these hypothetical pages:
  • A recipe for chocolate cake, to illustrate how cake is made.
  • A sample poem, to illustrate issues of meter, rhyme, etc.
Specifically regarding the idea that this article could, in a better form, be an FA, I would argue that the choice of what game to discuss -- what game is the best sample? -- is an inherently POV matter. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I think being useful and meeting the FA criteria, which I think this article could do, is sufficient. As for your examples, I don't think these are totally accurate analogies. A cake recipe is something you would make for its own sake; a poem is something you would read for its own sake. But a sample chess game is not something which you would read, and then play for its own sake, even if you could find a willing partner -- it's only use is as illustration, which is why I don't agree with the "instruction manual" comment. I don't think the choice of a sample game based on the criteria I outlined above (which specifically don't mention "good", "interesting", "skillful", etc.) would be POV, any more than the choice of poem fragments in poetry is POV -- in fact, less so, I would say.
Still, as I said, it's certainly an edge case. No, I wouldn't want to open the flood gates to pages of sample recipes. To me, this example is just on the right side of the line. But perhaps the safest thing is to do what cake and poetry both do (not to mention tea); include a sample game fragment in rules of chess. — Johan the Ghost seance 16:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand

I would like to move to re-nominate the Ayn Rand Article for a Wiki Featured Article due to the fact that all of the problems have been cleared up and the new version is both informative and well-written. The Fading Light 5:59, 2 May 2006 Previous nomination.

  • Images do not meet licencing requirments, all fair use images need fair use rationales.--nixie 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nixie. - FrancisTyers 00:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh Good God! Why on earth do some of you people have to be so nit-picky and kill off any enjoyment you might find in working on Wiki? The Fading Light 10:10, 2 May 2006
  • Oppose. The cult section is still not fully explored. Several other arguments, including more in the cited sources alone, have not been added. Also, I made a recommendation for a separate article for this section (as the Rand article is getting quite big, and it would help for consistency's sake to have a central article on the subject) which has not yet been addressed. -- LGagnon 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to Strong Oppose. As the "Ayn Rand cult" article, which supplimented this article, was deleted (same old Objectivist bias on Wikipedia), the section on the cult claims is even weaker. There's a lot of work to be done to recover all the information deleted by so-called "unbiased" editors and a lack of safeguards against a tyranny of the majority. -- LGagnon 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It looks like a good article, but I have a few nitpicks. The 'Is Objectivism a cult?' section has several quotes, one of them is very large: consider reducing the quote overload (move the to Wikiquote). Some tiny sections are but a stub sections and should be expanded: 'Ayn Rand Institute' and 'Popular interest' are currently stub sections.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The cult section is not good, but it is not a widely discussed aspect of Ayn Rand's life and is not essential to the article. I'm more bothered that almost all the references are to web pages; one of them is just a google search. It would be more credible to cite stable and edited paper sources, such as the ones in the "Further Reading" section. But even though it's not perfect, this article seems to meet the FA criteria. Our remaining concerns can be addressed later.--Yannick 01:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The cult section is, in fact, essential. How can the article be NPOV if we remove the most important criticism of Rand? -- LGagnon 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting removing that section by any means. I just don't think it is essential for that section to be polished in order to deem the article comprehensive. This is the harshest criticism Rand, but it is not widespread and only has peripheral importance.--Yannick 04:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This looks to be a well-written and extensively footnoted article about a person in whom many people are interested.--Coemgenus 20:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman naming conventions

If you look at this articles talk page, you will see that I have fulfilled the previous criteria given for the failure of my first nomination. I have also attempted to add more interesting topics and I feel it is an excellent example of what a FA should be. Rrpbgeek 17:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Current unanswered issues for nomination:

  • Absence of inline cites
  • Shortness of sections, esp. lead
  • Improper source formatting


  • Object. The article has no references,(Fixed Rrpbgeek) and many sections, including the lead, are too short. RyanGerbil10 17:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a nice start, but the footnotes need to be listed in a separate section, the lead section needs to be expanded, and the sections themselves shouldn't contain so much bolded text. Keep up the good work, RyanGerbil10 03:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Lincher 18:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

For these reasons :

    • Fix the prænomen and praenomen, which one is the good one.
    • More info on the nomen gentile as per why these name, what is the origin and where the -ius comes from.
      • -ius comes from the masculine form. Shown in history. Rrpbgeek
      • More info on Nomen Gentile and origins. Rrpbgeek
    • Support information with inline citations. Lincher 18:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The footnotes go nowhere (fixed Rrpbgeek) and there's no book sources.(added Rrpbgeek) Also, prænomen needs to turn into praenomen,(done Rrpbgeek) and more details need to be added. Might be more appropriate for WP:GA. UnDeadGoat 23:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In the Foreign names section the article reads "A number of the names below are of Greek origin..." but there's nothing listed. Should this link to a separate article? Very interesting topic, but the article needs a strong copyedit. --NormanEinstein 14:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No inline citations. Most of the sections are so small that they should qualify as stubs. Probably more suitable for WP:GA per UnDeadGoat. And please respond in a separate paragraph and don't include your responses inline. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not sure that all of the references were actually used in the creation of this article. For example, I have significant doubts that the "list of roman derived names" is a references rather than just an external link inadvertantly labeled a reference. Also, the article would be improved by adding inline citations and also formatting the references properly, see WP:CITE. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vacuum

Self-nomination It's much ado about nothing. I've done a lot of work on it for the last year or so, and I think it's ready.--Yannick 00:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks really good. I have a few comments:
  • Some of the main article links are italicized, some aren't. I think they're usually italicized, so please make this consistent.
  • The see also should be trimmed of everything that is linked to elsewhere in the article.
  • More citations would be a good idea. Any number (i.e. a measurement of something, a statistic) should probably be cited.
  • I don't see why "Measurement" is in bullet-points. Each of those could be a normal paragraph.
  • "Properties" is really stubby. If you don't already know what that stuff means, it's not very helpful. Is a magnetic permeability approaching 4π×10−7 N/A2 in someway interesting? Does it change the properties of magnetism in some way?
As an outsider and a physicist, it is interesting. To take one example, the speed of light varies with permeability. Batmanand | Talk 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
That's precisely the point. The article should explain why this is interesting. Tuf-Kat 05:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally, only the article in the lead and any redirects are bolded. Is there a reason there's more in this article.
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Legibility--Yannick 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
And also because the red link nazis keep raiding popular articles and turning links into boldface.--Yannick 05:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think most don't help legibility at all, and many are discussing a use-mention distinction, which means they should be italicized (e.g. "These ideal physical constants are often called free space constants"). See words as words.
Ah. Thank you. I was not aware of that MoS section.--Yannick 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the "Examples" are needed. I don't really know anything about vacuums except what I've read here, and I don't really get anything out of them. Maybe one of each category could be added to the table of vacuum categories above it. The remainder don't seem very informative; I guess the rating of a vacuum cleaner is interesting and could be worked into a sentence earlier in the section.
As people get used to the idea that vacuum is always partial and quantifiable, they often ask what is the vacuum quality of some common devices, and how they compare to the vacuum of space. Look at the talk page archive for examples of this. It helps define a "vacuum spectrum" in people's mind.--Yannick 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be more helpful to move the examples into the top table so you could see which examples go with which part of the spectrum without scrolling up and down and comparing the numbers. Tuf-Kat 05:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Lots of passive voice, most of which could be removed.
  • I cleaned up the "Pumping" section a bit. It's not clear if lungs are a "positive displacement pump" or not. Also need a few words explaining how momentum and entrapment pumps work. Check to make sure I didn't introduce any errors in that section (I just wanted to give an idea on how the prose can be cleaned a bit) -- if I did, that's probably a sign that the original was significantly unclear.
I found at least 10 errors introduced by your edit, and I'm having trouble understanding how it makes anything clearer. Lungs are indeed a positive displacement pump. I will work on a better version, but it will take me a while.--Yannick 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I made some improvements, found another dozen technical errors, and eventually just reverted a couple of paragraphs. The begining of this section should be clearer now, but then it trails into increasingly technical stuff meant for increasingly specialised audiences. I think this is an appropriate structure for a technical article, and the detailed layman's explanations should be left to the daughter article.--Yannick 05:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Your changes have made that section much clearer, I think (though consider using the term "vacuum pump" somewhere earlier in the first paragraph). The whole article really needs a cleanup like that, though. Tuf-Kat 05:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Fixed first two comments. Although I kept Suction on the list. It's a judgement call.--Yannick 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, IMO, no article should have a "see also". If a subject is relevant, it should be covered elsewhere. There's no consensus for that view, so I won't oppose based on it, but that's my philosophy. This "see also" still seems bloated to me, and putting a red link in see also is kinda pointless. Tuf-Kat 23:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- the details in the Quality section would probably be easier to floow if they were in tables.--nixie 04:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Object, 2a. Here are a few reasons.

'A vacuum is a volume of space that is empty of matter, relative to the atmosphere, so that gaseous pressure is much less than standard atmospheric pressure'

This is contradictory: 'empty' is a binary epithet, i.e., something's either empty or it's not; yet this is immediately treated as a comparitive ('relative to' and 'much less'). You go on to explain it in the lead; get rid of the empty bit at the start.

I'm not sure about this. Are you saying that a glass cannot be half-empty, and a gas tank cannot be almost empty?--Yannick 04:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"half empty" and "almost empty" limit the adjective with a qualifier, which is fine. I think he's saying that the first bit says it is "empty of matter" with no qualifiers, and then implies that it is not "empty of matter" since it has less gaseous pressure than something else (the implication being that it has still has some gaseous pressure). Something like "space filled with less matter than the atmosphere, so that gaseous pressure is lesser than" would be better. Tuf-Kat 05:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There are 'also' problems; most of the alsos should be removed—Why do we see 'also using', then 'using', and 'also used' then 'used'. Either insert 'also' in every single statement (which would be tiresome) or remove the word throughout.

'It has no friction'—awkward and stubby.

I hate 'manned spaceflight'—sexist and redundant. Use a piped link to render just 'spaceflight'.

Tony 06:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Oppose: I'm sorry, but this article really sucks! 128.208.45.223 00:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not an actionable objection. If you don't provide a fixable problem, your opinion will not be taken into account. Tuf-Kat 05:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Are there any better pictures of the Crookes tube or perhaps a more striking picture? The content I'm alright with, but the aesthetics could use some work--Jonthecheet 09:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Some things I would have expected to see in this article:
    • 'Uses' section could be expanded upon, particularly historic uses.
    • Historic means of production: such as the creation of partical vacuum by condensing steam
That's a type of sorption pump, a precursor to the cryopumps that are still in use today. Was the steam condensation technique widely used in anything other than the Newcomen steam engine? My understanding is that Guericke's air pump and Geissler's mercury pump were the two most important historic means of production, both of which were positive displacement pumps. My point is, was steam really a historic means of production, or just a strange means of production?
Isambard Kingdom Brunel's Atmospheric railway created a vacuum by steam condensation, I believe. The steam condenser in a power station creates a partial vacuum by condensing steam; the resulting large pressure difference is what drives the low pressure turbine. You might consider a sentence or so on the electrical insulating properties of high vacuum; if you like, I'll see what I can put together on that. Also: vacuum packing of food and other goods. --BillC 18:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Unless I missed it, there is no direct reference to the famous NASA incident wherein a technician ruptured his spacesuit in a vacuum chamber and passed out. --BillC 16:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Because I lack the scientific background to assess the factual accuracy of the article, I looked at the article to see if it is comprehensible enough for the layman. I think the article is pretty understandable for educated readers. I do have the following comments:
    • You should explain that "vacua" is the plural of "vacuum." You might want to consider using the plural "vacuums," which appears to be far more common on the Internet.
    • You might want to put the word "quality" in bold when you first use it to indicate it is a "vocabulary word" rather than something the reader is expected to know already.
    • Instead of writing that vacuum "is most commonly measured in units of torr," consider writing, "units called torr." This would make it clearer what torr are.
    • I believe articles should not use Wikilinking as an excuse not to define terms in the article. Consider very short descriptions of terms not now defined. For example, instead of just writing "neutrinos," you could write "tiny particles known as neutrinos." Other terms that might merit short descriptions are: plasma, bends, gas embolism, tardigrade, Scientific Revolution, aether, interferometer, thermodynamic equilibrium, vacuum energy, cosmological constant, Casimir effect, Lamb shift, momentum transfer, dynamic pump (not linked), entrapment, ultra high vacuum, sublimation, chamber materials (not linked), rotary vane pumps, cyropump, absolute pressure, Crookes radiometer, Bourdon tube, thermocouple, and Resistance Temperature Device.
    • I don't understand the sentence about Einstein.
    • Instead of the sentence that mentions the Dirac equation, I would simply write, "Dirac's theory helped him discover the positron, the positively charged equivalent of the electron."
The positron was discovered by Carl D. Anderson, and would probably have been discovered just the same without the help of Dirac's theory. The combination of the Dirac equation with the Dirac Sea interpretation led to his correct prediction of the positron, even though the Dirac Sea interpretation was wrong.--Yannick 19:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The paragraph about uncertainty might be made a little easier to understand.
    • The section on quantum-mechanical definition is, as you would expect for the subject matter, not comprehensible to the layman. I would recommend adding a prerequisite box template to suggest articles readers could look at to understand the subject matter.
    • It would be helpful if the diagram of the pump had a label for the "small sealed cavity."
    • One of the paragraphs in the section on outgassing begins, "Ultra-high vacuum are...." Shouldn't that be "vacua" or "vacuums?"
    • I don't know what you mean by "dessicating" or "baking." -- Mwalcoff 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States

(self-nomination)

This important article is very well-written, not too long and not too short, and full of references.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive2
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States/archive1
Wikipedia:Peer review/United States

NOTE: This article has 48KB of prose as of 9 June 2006

  • Support per nom.--Ryz05 t 14:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Terrific article indeed! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. My previous objection in a former nomination has been fixed. --Maitch 15:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support On this topic I would love to see some adminstrator step in, because I have seen this article keep getting kicked around; first it needs to mention all this new details or it can't be Featured, and then it's way too long. Unbelievable, this article is going to be long, lets accept that. Judgesurreal777 18:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Finally someone understands this dilemma.--Ryz05 t 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article is on the longish side but that is to be expected for a topic as broad as this. It would be hard to shorten it in any substantial amount without detracting from its comprehensiveness. --Richard 22:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The prose is flabby in some areas and awkward in others. Per various comments below.
--Richard 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. The main arguements against this nomination are that some things important to the objector are missing. However, it simply is not possible to say everything about the United States in one encyclopedic article. Instead, the purpose is to give a good introduction to the topic, which I think this article does a great job of doing. PDXblazers 23:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    We summarise the content here, and move detail to dedicated articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Response' I didn't ask that Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the American Dream, Entrepreneurship, and the development of computers after 1969 be described in detail. Most people suggesting additions fully understand that this is a summary overview article. What we're asking is that these things be at least mentioned in the corresponding sections. The whole point of a summary overview article is that includes mentions of major terms and topics. Can you show how mentioning Hollywood is less important than mentioning the influence of Disney on Chinese comics? Or why the American Dream isn't important to reference properly rather than dump in the See Also section? Bwithh 14:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
        Are you asking me? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, I was being rhetorical, I think. Oh, and for the record, I support letting this article be longer than normal for a FA due to the scope of the subject Bwithh 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. PDXblazers has got a point, you can't put everything there is in an encyclopedic article. It is well summarize as it also gives important issues on all USA aspects. Lincher 02:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I'll take care of Bwithh's comment about the dates sometime soon. (and by the way, I don't think the stability of an article was originally intended to refer to protection/vandalism- see Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article?#Stability) Andy t 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I believe that the article is well-written and makes good use of summary style. I think because it does all that it can to off-load information, it's size can be forgiven. It's long, but it's doing the best that it can to be short, IMHO! InvictaHOG 03:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. But Geography section may contain more summarized text on climate. --Brand спойт 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I support everything about the U.S. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 19:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment thats not what the featured article process is about. Philc TECI 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an excellent article. Very informative and very encyclopedic. -Vontafeijos 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent footnotes. Globeism 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is a great article. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Per all above. --Hezzy 02:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per all the supporting comments above. --Northmeister 02:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Although I must say: holy crap this article is long. I'm not going to oppose because of that, since America is the world's pre-eminent nation and I'd expect nothing but a very long article, but still....damn. I would suggest beefing up the lead though; such a long article definitely requires a bigger lead than what's currently there. Overall, great job though. Long live America!UberCryxic 02:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "Long live America!" - Amen, Brother! --Northmeister 03:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What's with all these patriot support votes which have suddenly come flooding in? Bwithh 03:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - One of the most fantabulous articles I have ever read, like oh my god, it was good. Strong support. Amaas120 03:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support This is a good article, which I do not think is too long. I continue to worry about systemic bias, which is not evident in the length and detail of this article, but in the shortness and lack of detail in other articles (and the flag waving on this page). However, each section is well summerized and well written. Good job to all who worked on it. --D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 06:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, why the hell not. I added a mention of the American Dream and removed the table; those take care of my two largest grievances. I do, however, also agree with Pepsidrinka, and hope that the article continues to be trimmed. --Golbez 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahem, that was rather bold of you. (Too bold, in my opinion, since it goes against an established consensus) However, if it will get you to support the FA status, let's leave it out and re-vote on whether the table belongs in or out of the article later. Personally, I don't like the table either and would have voted against it if I had been aware of the poll.
--Richard 17:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to imply this is what you meant, but let me just state that it would be in bad faith for the editors of this article to remove the table simply for the purpose of this FAC only to re-add it once this nomination is completed, if it does succeed. Pepsidrinka 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you got me right. I'm not suggesting that I would deliberately manipulate things in the way that you described. However, it is inappropriate for you to be so bold as to delete text from an article knowing that a previous consensus had been formed around keeping it. (Remember that I am not personally in favor of keeping it myself.)
What good is it going to the trouble to form a consensus if people won't respect it enough to form a new one in the opposite direction?
If you won't vote for the article with the table in, then leave it in and vote against the FAC. If it makes you happy to delete the table and then vote for the FAC, be my guest. However, Wikipedia being what it is, don't be surprised if one of the people who does care about the table puts it back in either before or after the FAC closes.
That's the funny thing about Wikipedia. It would be a great place except for all those pesky editors that you can't control.  ;&)
The right way to get that troublesome table out of there is to re-open the poll and see if enough other people hate it also.
--Richard 03:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I've read through the whole thing, and I really approve of it. JONJONAUG 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Neutral - I've flipflopped too much on this vote. --Golbez 04:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object. This article is great indeed, but there are still some minor issues in comprehensiveness. For example, the lead section does not mention the Civil War, rather, it jumps from the Revolutionary War directly to World War I. Also, the map showing territorial acquisitions of the United States, even though it comes from the United States government, is not accurate. It's close, but it does not show the result of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty which changed the border of northern Maine in 1842. I hate to be such a pain, but it's the small things that distinguish good articles and truly great ones. RyanGerbil10 14:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Having done extensive research on the US's borders very recently, I would say that northern Maine would not count as a territorial acquisition, it was a territory dispute. The other areas - Louisiana, Florida, Mexican Cession, Gadsden Purchase, Red River Basin, etc. - were clearly unowned by the United States until received via purchase or cession. Maine, on the other hand, was only disputed, claimed by both sides. Therefore, I don't think the northern half of Maine belongs in any list of acquisitions, only in a list of disputes and changes. --Golbez 14:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I added a paragraph in the opening of the article that breifly talks about the civil war. Edit as seen fit. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Good article, but missing some key points which I raised in the previous nomination discussion but were apparently just ignored:
    • No mention of Entrepreneurship or "the American Dream" in neither the Economy or the Culture sections nor anywhere else. The American Dream is key to both the ideological legitimacy of the US economic system and to its positive image around the world.
    • Glaring ommissions from the culture section - the "American film industry" is mentioned (inadequately) but the term "Hollywood" is not mentioned anywhere. Also, television is not mentioned in the culture section, but is definitely more important culturally (and economically) than cinema. (Also this newest version now bizarrely refers to Disney's influence on Chinese cartoons and Japanese manga but still does not refer to Hollywood). Also, what about fast food?
    • Science and technology section has no mention of Silicon Valley or the Internet (there is only a very brief mention in the History section - it is not clear that the internet revolution began in the US). Computers are only mentioned in a pre-1969 context.
    • "The country has also sought to fight terrorism and control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but its main goal remains to protect American interest and the safety of its citizens at home and abroad". How is the "main goal" different from the first goals mentioned? (And it should be "interests", not 'interest") Bwithh 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Article should probably also mention that the idea of immigration being crucial to US history and identity ("a nation of immigrants") rather than just an useful economic boost - this would tie in with mentioning the American Dream Bwithh 15:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you forgot to read the Culture section, the Population migration and growth section, as well as the History section of the U.S. article.--Ryz05 t 15:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)\
No, I didnt forget to read those parts. They give stats and talk about economic impact. They don't talk about the American Dream. Bwithh 15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about the mentioning of immigration. I also added the American Dream to the See also section. If you can think of a more suitable place to incorporate it, please say so. --Ryz05 t 15:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of putting words into Bwithh's mouth, I think he is saying that the American Dream is central to the American ethos. Although it will be seen as POV by some, it is important to highlight the sense that Americans have of having a dream that was previously unattainable in Europe and other countries (that of achieving material success and upward social mobility solely on the merit of intelligence, talent and hard work rather than being born into an upper class). This should not just be a "See also". I recognize that this was more true in the 19th and early 20th century and that the differential narrowed in the last half of the 20th century to the point where there may be very little difference between the U.S. and some European countries on this dimension now. However, the difference still exists between the U.S. and many Latin American countries. Why do you think we get so many immigrants? It's because of the American Dream. Not just that we are a wealthy country but that you can get some of the wealth if you are willing to work hard. You don't necessarily even need to be educated. A hard-working entrepreneur can make it big here. It is this American Dream that has fueled immigration for two and a half centuries and some will argue that this is the basis of American greatness, that we did not have a rigid class structure when most everybody else did.
Similarly, we should highlight the idea that we are a "city on a hill, a light unto the nations" shining a beacon of democracy, justice for all and human rights. It's not for nothing that Superman stood for "truth, justice and the American way". Others may not agree that we are this and we may not be this in reality. But that is the way many of us like to think of ourselves. It affects a lot of how we act domestically and abroad. (No, not just Republicans, Democrats think and act this way, too.) Of course, you've heard this from me before but haven't been willing to incorporate it into the intro as I suggested. --Richard 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've inserted an encyclopedic version of the above text into the article. I disagree with Bwithhthat "The American Dream is key to both the ideological legitimacy of the US economic system and to its positive image around the world." I think that's hyperbolic and POV. I've tried to strike a more NPOV stance in the article text.
Bwithh, would you review the new "American Dream" section and tell us if this addresses your concern?
--Richard 17:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the section is great. I just added one small fragment mentioning entrepreneurship. As regards whether the my statement was hyperbolic, I was referring to the idea that the American Dream is a key part of the basic social contract between the politico-economic system and its citizens - and is important in this role today, not just in the 19th century - through which citizens accept less of a state social welfare safety net and greater economic inequality in return for a better chance at social mobility and improving their financial worth and enhancing their class through free market capitalism. I don't think this is hyperbolic - its a common part of political and academic discourse in the US and is not regarded as an exaggerated kind of position. Whether this social contract functions effectively is another matter of course. You addressed the second part regarding the positive image around the world in the passage. Bwithh 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for this explanation. I think the bit about "accepting less of a social contract, etc." is important and I will try to make this point in the text.
--Richard 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Bwithh, I'll see what I can do about some of these. --Golbez 14:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Changed vote, see above.
  • Reference dates Most of the dates in the reference footnotes appear to use European style dating (day first) rather than US style (month first). To be perfect, this should fixed up Bwithh 15:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object -- summary needed. Also needs to stabilise since it's protected. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
About the protection, see Talk:United_States#Request_unprotection.--Ryz05 t 16:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, too long, too many details that should only be in subarticles. Especially History and Publich Health are too long. Kusma (討論) 16:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not too long? Skinnyweed 17:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe in WP:SIZE and think no article should be longer than 50k (plus references). 88k is too long. I know that it is hard to make a short article on a topic of such a scope, but that is what Wikipedia:Summary style is for. Here, the sumamries for some sections should be shorter, the meat and the details should be in the subarticles. Kusma (討論) 17:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose per WP:WIAFA 2e. This article is well-written, well-referenced, comprehensive, but it is not stable, and that is a major criteria for FAC. There has to be some guarantee that it won't degrade over time, and a page which is protected for vandalism can't guarantee that kind of stability. You could, of course, argue that my objections are unactionable (which they probably are); I'm not sure where I stand on that point right now, but for the moment, I'm voting against. Sorry. The Disco King 18:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

From WP:WIAFA, "(e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars."
The article is only changing "significantly" in response to coomments on this FAC page. The semi-protection is to ward against vandalism by anonymous IPs. There has not been a significant edit war on this page in a couple of months. There are some pages which are more habitually vandalized than others (this is one of them). As a result, this page is almost continually protected as are some other notorious targets of vandalism.
--Richard 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, some minor, actionable points. Why are "Science & Technology" and "Transportation" subheadings of "Economy"?

The Disco King 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Truly a minor quibble, eh?. They could be moved out of "Economy" or left in. It's hard to define what belongs in "Economy" and what does not.
--Richard 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Could the History section be subdivided to make it less daunting, or could some information be moved to History of the United States? Cheers! The Disco King 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be difficult to shorten the History section much without opening it up to the charge of leaving out something important.
Insert non-formatted text here


    • Canada recently became featured. It is far shorter than this article. The US may be more important and more powerful, but it's article should still cover the same information and should be able to do so in the same length. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 19:02 UTC
      • On the other hand, if this article becomes to long with the additions, more of it might be eligible to be split off, per summary style. Obviously, if things have been split off to their maximum potential, then length can't be counted against it. Fieari 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Size issue is a major concern for me although an article on USA is bound to have a lot to write on. Please summarize further. Also image captioning is improper with many images having 9 lines long caption. For guidelines, please see WP:CAPTION. Image problems in "Largest cities". Please have a look at "Largest cities" in 800x600 screen resolution. One advice: It is better to have a reasonably big image rather than 5 tiny ones. Images are there to provide visual aid for the readers to understand the subject. Seeing one representative skyline is enough to fire the imagination of a casual reader. There is no need to fill the page with images as additional images aren't very helpful. Why does mile has "sq mi" and kilometre has "km²" in the table? Also, the references are sometimes after the punctuation and sometimes before. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The area measurements use the standard abbreviations - square miles are sq mi while square kilometres are km². It's much like the in-tandem use of mph and km/h for miles per hour and kilometres per hour. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 20:03 UTC

"The country has also sought to fight terrorism and control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but its main goal remains to protect American interest and the safety of its citizens at home and abroad". How is the "main goal" different from the first goals mentioned? (And it should be "interests", not 'interest") Bwithh 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC) The country is not a person with goals. This is instead the primary interest of the curent administration and may take a back seat to other issues at another time. It maight better fit in a polotics or modern events section. Feel free to change my post to conform to the style of this section.

  • Object. The human rights section does not even mention the fact that the US is among the top five nations WRT death penalty, nor the intense domestic and international controversy surrounding that fact. That makes the article looks incomplete. Furthermore, phrases such as "unprofessional military tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan" to describe the well-documented organised violation of human rights by US soldiers, CIA et al. look ever so slightly euphemistic, don't they. 87.122.36.179 22:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per my comments on last FAC and peer review - in summary some parts are too long and others underdeveloped (like culture), the article still relies on some poor sources. Laregst cites table still poses a problem, its inclusion is not consistent with other featured country article and is over a screen in length, and I am yet to hear a compelling reason as to how/why it is useful to the reader.--Peta 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just had a brief look at the article and i can't find anywhere a discussion of the flora or fauna of the U.S.A. I think this would be a positive addition to the article.Yakuzai 12:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I said above, the article is too long. To those objecting because topic XY is not mentioned in the article: It should not be. Check that it is mentioned in the appropriately titled and linked and easily found subarticle. Kusma (討論) 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—2a. Here are examples of awkward prose.
    • "the U.S. displaced most Native American nations residing in the area." Can "residing" be removed as redundant (it's awkward, too).
    • "This belief was thwarted somewhat by the stalemate of the War of 1812,.."—"somewhat" is pretty clumsy here; can you find a better word than "thwarted", if that is too strong by itself?
    • Why is it sometimes "the U dot S dot" and sometimes "the United States"? Most US style manuals say to spell it out when another country appears in the same sentence (after the initial appearance in the text, of course); beyond that, consistency is required.
    • A few snakes need chopping up; e.g., "In the mid-19th century, the nation was divided over the issue of states' rights, the role of the federal government, and the expansion of slavery, which led to the American Civil War when, following the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, South Carolina became the first state to declare its secession from the Union.[9]"
    • "The post-war era in the United States was defined internationally by the beginning of the Cold War in the late 1940s,.."—a bit jumbled ("internationally"?).
    • "Specifically, the nation operates as a presidential system, also known as a congressional system." Do we need the first word? Is it an overstatement to say that a whole nation, rather than its system of government, does this?

Now, I've looked at just a small part of the text. The density of the problems suggests that the whole article fails to meet 2a. Tony 01:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there were instances of "awkward prose". I have fixed (IMO) some of the ones that you identified. Could you review my edits and see if the changes address the issues to your satisfaction? Also, I notice that your comment suggests that the problems you mention are only representative of a larger problem with awkward prose. I acknowledge that this is a failing of at least one editor who seems to prefer anacondas to common garter snakes. My problem is that I don't always focus on a snake until someone points it out to me. Would you do us the favor of doing some snake hunting for us? If you will point out the snakes, I will slice and dice them into snake steak. --Richard 16:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per my previous objections concerning the article size. Please consider further summarizing. See WP:WIAFA, number 5. Pepsidrinka 01:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I was asked to justify this objection further, so I shall give some suggestions on what can be shortened/removed to decrease the size of this article. The "Demographics" section can be vastly reduced. Five paragraphs should suffice for the entire sections, rather than the monstrosity it is now with many subsections. Further, there is no need for that much information regarding public health in the main article. Also, the information does not have to be cut, just moved to a more, in my opinion, deserving location for the information, i.e., Demographics of the United States. Also, as stated previously, the largest cities table is not neccessary (yes, I know, there is a discussion in one of the talk page archives). Pepsidrinka 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
While I think the article is "good to go" in its current state, I agree that the above suggestions by Pepsidrinka would improve the article. --Richard 04:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Further objections. I objected earlier based on size, but I'm going to provide more details on my objection. From WP:WIAFA, this article fails to comply with 2e, with the largest cities table being added and removed several times within the past few days. This article's lead paragraph is hideous. Three short paragraphs filled mainly with historical facts does little to summarize the topic (See other country FAs on what a lead should be like). Also, the article seems to disregard consensus from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (Number 3 from WP:WIAFA). Pepsidrinka 02:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak object I hate to object to an article that's obviously had so much work done to it, but there are a few things I just can't overlook:

  • The size. Yes, the US is a complicated place, but that's all the more reason to create a good summary article. This article is nearly twice as long as the article on China, which is just as complex, but with a history ten times as long. The US history section could probably stand some pruning, which might help reduce the number of references cited on the page.
  • The history section also weighs too heavily on the recent stuff - fully half of it is from the 20th century onwards.
  • Do we need to have a map and a list of the states? I would remove the list since it's redundant (there's also a list at the bottom), but I realize nation articles typically list their divisions in the article itself.
  • The Foreign Relations section might work better if it was reworked into the military and economics sections somehow.

Again, it's obviously a very good article, but it just doesn't feel like a FA (yet). Matt Deres 00:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The article is too long, 88KB. I wish I knew what to do to allow certain sections to be in articles of their own so that this article, made of summaries alone, is at most 32KB, but I'm sorry I can't do this. Georgia guy 01:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article! HeyNow10029 23:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment. The size issue alone looks as though it will sink this nomination. I know that some of the contributors have resisted the relocation of such details as the list of the largest cities, but they appear to be out of touch with WP's summary style. My advice is to be bold and reduce the size by making proper use of the daughter articles: that's what daughter articles are for. I'd make a strong case in the edit summaries and on the US talk page for why this has been done.

It's simple. Tony 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be reduced by about 20%, which is a tall order. You can probably weed out 10% of the text by identifying redundancy. Look: "the United States foreign policy became highly concerned with the threat of terrorist attacks." Make it: "U.S. foreign policy focused on the threat of terrorist attacks." Magic wand got rid of more than a third, and it's much nicer to read at the same time. Everywhere I look, there are extraneous words. This might help you to define the scope of the task. The other 10% might come from relocating material to daughter articles, or from just getting rid of it. The list of 50 states takes up a lot of room; the states are named on the map nearby, and readers can easily type a state name into the search box. "American dream" risks being a little sentimental; why not shorten it and integrate into the "Culture" section? There are lots of opportunities for tightening up the article. Tony 02:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Until a majority of the citations are to reliable paper sources with page-level granularity (that is, by page number), I cannot support this nomination. --Coolcaesar 01:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment What is the obsession with paper references? Any intelligent person should be able to tell the difference between legitimate sources and junk on the net. I believe that for a project like Wikipedia, Internet sources are actually better because the user can verify the accuracy of the information with the click of a mouse, whereas there is no guarantee that the print reference in question is availiable at the local library. PDXblazers 02:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That's what WorldCat and interlibrary loan are for. Furthermore, in areas of the world with a high density of good public libraries and community college libraries (New York and California), it is extremely likely that the reference in question is at the local library. Also, you are making the hilariously false (and uninformed) assumption that Internet sources are always self-authenticating, when they are not. If information on the Internet was inherently self-authenticating (and if the majority of people were capable of intelligently discerning such authenticity) then we wouldn't be having so many phishing scams or downright crazy disasters like the Craig Shergold mess. That is why few scholarly works rely upon Internet sources as reliable unless their assertions are heavily corroborated against reliable print sources. At a top public university (like the one I attended), turning in a history paper that cites solely or primarily to amateur Web sites is likely to earn a D or F. Wikipedia can and should do better than that.--Coolcaesar 06:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Flab is the problem here. The writing is uniformly flabby—all 88 kB of it, except for the bits that have been fixed in response to complaints in this room. Thus, not only does the nomination fail 2a, but the opportunity to reduce the size of the article with no loss of meaning is being passed up. Take this paragraph, for example:
The United States is a constitutional republic and its government operates as a congressional system, meaning that it operates through a set of limited powers imposed by its design and enumerated in the United States Constitution. There are three levels of government: federal, state, and local. Each level enjoys certain exclusive powers and obligations, and the precise delineation of these powers has been a matter of considerable ongoing debate. Officials of each of these levels are either elected by eligible voters via secret ballot or appointed by other elected officials. Almost all electoral offices are decided in "first-past-the-post" elections, where a specific candidate who earns at least a plurality of the vote is elected to office, rather than a party being elected to a seat to which it may then appoint an official. The relationship between the state and national governments is rather complex due to the country's federal system. Under United States law, states are considered sovereign entities, meaning that the power of the states is considered to come directly from the people within the states rather than from the federal government.

Here's a much improved version:

The United States is a constitutional republic; its government operates as a congressional system through a set of powers specified in the Constitution. There are three levels of government: federal, state, and local. Each has exclusive powers and obligations, although the precise delineation of these has been a matter of debate. Officials at all three levels are either elected by voters in a secret ballot or are appointed by other elected officials. Almost all electoral offices are decided in first-past-the-post elections in which candidates who earn a plurality of the vote are elected, rather than appointed by the governing party. The relationship between state and federal governments is complex. Under U.S. law, each state is a sovereign entity, its power arising from its people rather than from the federal government.

The existing version is 1160 characters; the new version is 832 characters, and more precise to boot. There's your size problem solved, and Criterion 2a satisfied. Gone are awkward/redundant expressions such as "enjoying obligations" and "specific candidate". There are many occurrences of "the Constitution of the United States" in this "Politics" section; for some reason, all are fully spelt out and linked, and in one instance, piped into an inconsistent wording.

I wonder why so much detail is given over to elected officials (80% of the existing paragraph), when critical information about the relationship between the president and congress, and the fact that there are two houses of congress, has been removed. It used to be there, and it's likely to be needed by foreigners who consult the article to try to understand the system of government. I suspect that most Americans don't properly understand it either, which is more reason to explain it here succinctly. This is a very disappointing shift of emphasis, considering how much space is squandered in the article.

When you say "Under U.S. law", I hope you don't mean "Under the Constitution". If not, whose law? That of the Congress? I don't think so.

I can only assume that the reviewers who have expressed effusive approval of the nomination haven't read the article, or at least, haven't read it closely. Tony 13:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • As the article is no longer semi-protected, I'm retracting my "Oppose." However, before I support, something has to be done about the overly-long sections, especially History. We don't need to read the whole of American history on the page on the United States; that's what History of the United States is for. Tony's comments above are also correct; in some cases, the emphasis is misplaced. This article is fairly close, however. I'm gonna keep an eye on it, but for now, I'm still Opposed. The Disco King 16:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have noticed that the article actually has gotten larger since the nomination. It is moving in the wrong direction. At this pace it's going to hit 100 KB next Sunday. --Maitch 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Version before nomination: 88 KB
Current: 94 KB
--Maitch 17:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Trying to think of things I would expect to see covered in more detail in an encyclopedic article (or at least mentioned), and I came up with: the industry of the USA - the economy section and the main article about the US economy doesn't really go into any detail on the industry of what is, after all, an industrialised nation; Hollywood - there is currently a piped link hidden behind the word 'cinema' and a link in the template "see also" monster; US TV networks don't get a mention in the 'Culture' section - there is only a passing reference to sedentary people watching sports; I would expect to see references to TV shows around this point somewhere. Carcharoth 18:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Oppose because of unconcise, flabby writing. --Shaanxiquake 10:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article needs a lot of copyediting, condensing of some material, while expansion of other areas...there is zero mention of biodiversity, the world's first National Park (Yellowstone), etc. I noticed many run on sentences, missing commas and there is a need for more precision: for example, the word "several" was used intead of the more exact "ten" when discussing the states that joined South Carolina and formed the CSA in 1861. I do think this is an excellent article overall, but some tweaking is necessary in my opinion.--MONGO 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, article can be summarised further. --Terence Ong 13:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Did you mean Oppose, as your observations indicate that. One further note. This FAC is fast reaching half the size of the article concerned. However, since the article is expanding faster now, it seems unlikely. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think he means that the article can be summarised a bit more, but overall, it's a good article and deserve to be featured. Also, your comment about the article's expansion is unjustified.--Ryz05 t 16:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops. It was probably a bad attempt at humour which didn't go very well. Hence I am striking my observation completely. Hope this is ok. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great page, I love it. Aspern 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support I believe that such an article is meant to be an lengthy as ours is. It is well written, fully documented, full of well placed photos, and has plenty of links to related topics. --Chris 23:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Sorry, but the article really is too long. It's up to 94k now, and needs to be trimmed. I suggust trimming public health, and maybe removing completely the American Dream section. The Halo (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support More than enough pictures, refrenes, links etc. I don't think the article is too long. Felixboy 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per discussion. -- Wikipedical 23:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article. --MZMcBride 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object based solely on first two paragraphs. America's history, while certainly noteworthy, is not the most notable thing about it today, and isn't what the entire second paragraph and some of the opening paragraph should be devoted to.
    • America is the world's sole superpower, a nuclear power, the world's largest single-country economy, the large country with the highest per-capita GDP, the country most important to scientific and industrial research, seat to the United Nations, dominant NATO member, largest Western country by population (as well as economy), the country in control of the world's reserve currency, ... not all of this needs to be in the opening paragraph, but I find "oldest existing constitutional republic" a bit weak.
    • America has a democratic form of government. While this is nowadays seen to be implied by "constitutional republic", I would think it important enough to point out specifically. RandomP 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per the discussion, I find the article to be acceptably summarized, and the main article is informative enough but is covered more extensively in sister articles. Meticulously referenced. NorseOdin 03:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support With those cluttering lists gone, the article has become readable enough. Earlier it was difficult to go through the article at one go. It's good that the editors decided to go for good summarisation rather than obstructive thoroughness/comprehensiveness. The article is still comprehensive and abides by all the points of becoming an FA. And yet, it has much improved from the previous riot of information to an article that is a treat to read. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Another note, which leads me to weak object: The article quotes the economic assessment in the CIA World Factbook as a fact. This is unacceptable, as that publication does not have a neutral point of view on certain issues. I've drafted a proposed (very short) policy on this at Wikipedia:The CIA World Factbook, since it's an issue to many country articles. I think discussing things there would be best, but the statement as it stands is arguable at best. RandomP 05:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Ryz05 challenged me on this issue on my talk page, which leads me to believe that he does not understand that the CIA is not a neutral source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Its primary job is to provide intelligence to the President of the United States that supports American sovereign interests. It is not the CIA's job to write balanced assessments of every aspect of every country, especially when those assessments might conflict with the political views of Presidential aides who could then get the responsible analyst fired. --Coolcaesar 05:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I find the CIA site surprisingly NPOV. It is widely used as a reference. Tony
The economy sections, in particular, do contain both predictions and value statements - it's perfectly usable as a source, it just cannot be used as sole reference for a statement that is either controversial or meaningless (the US has "low" inflation compared to countries that do not make low inflation a monetary policy goal. It has high inflation compared to the other world currencies.)
Read the economy - overview section of the "china" (i.e. PRC) article. I'm happy to discuss this further at a more appropriate page, but it just doesn't satisfy NPOV
RandomP 11:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the CIA writes on their World Factbook is based off of data collected, either by themselves or from other government agencies. Accusing them of not neutral is a matter of opinion at best.--Ryz05 t 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak object Lotta good stuff, but I'm also concerned a bit about the size. Trim about 10-15% out. Also, in the Human rights section, scrap the crud about South America, Iraq and Afghanistan. In the scheme of American history, any abuse there ranks far down the list. Events such as the Trail of tears, or the Japanese American internment camps rate much higher. --Jayzel 03:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. A very nice article. Rangeley 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support good work on an article about a great nation. God Bless America! Rama's Arrow 04:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - The article is much too long. The editors have to be a little more discerning it what should be included in the page, and let the daughter articles take care of the rest of the information. -- Jeff3000 20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - We're working on it but it's not there yet. The article still has far too much creaky prose and too many awkward phrasings. Moncrief 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I agree but, since you haven't fixed them all, perhaps you could identify the passages that you find creaky and awkward? Then, others can work on them. The appropriate place fo this would be the Talk:United States page. --Richard 18:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I've added many comments in recent days to the Talk page there, and will continue to do so. Moncrief 18:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No Opinion I would generally support the article. I do not have a problem with its length, find the level of bias to be minimal, and find the choices of what to include very acceptable. The article is comprehensive and clearly took a lot of work. I still, however, find the prose to be rather clumsy. MikeNM`

  • Voting is over. --Golbez 16:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orion Nebula

This recent SCOTW has shaped up pretty nicely. It has undergone considerable expansion and improvement in the past few months, and I think it's ready for a FA review. Please let me know what you think and I'll try to address any concerns. Thank you. — RJH 14:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. The article has become vastly better since I requested its expansion. It is balanced, has illustrative pictures and its sources are okay.--Jyril 16:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the weasel words have to be removed or cited (see WP:AWT). Some examples:
    • The Orion Nebula is considered to be one of the most scrutinized and photographed objects in the night sky
      • I added a citation to a source that has comparable wording. Hopefully that's sufficient. In reality virtually every site on the Orion Nebula says something along these lines. — RJH 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The Orion Nebula is considered to be a primary example of a stellar .
      • Reworded slightly.
  • Additionally, I usually don't see terms in bold, and I'm not too sure if this is commonly done. Thanks, AndyZ t 21:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Bold removed. Thanks.
  • Object at the moment. I'm really sorry I wasn't able to get involved when this was a collaboration effort, or in its peer review - ionised nebulae are my area of expertise. The article is looking far better than it did a few short weeks ago, but I don't think it's quite comprehensive yet. Among the things I think are missing are:
  1. little discussion of abundances and temperatures in the nebula. It's a long standing puzzle that two different ways of measuring the abundances give quite different results. This is mention in H II region, and the Orion Nebula is the best-studied case.
  2. No mention of X-ray observations - Chandra showed that a lot of stars in the nebula are strong X-ray emitters.
  3. A mention is made of how Trumpler's distance estimate was close to the modern value, but there's no discussion of the ways in which the modern value has been derived.
  4. I think more discussion of proplyds would be useful, a bit more about their properties (mass, size) and a citation about how they vary with distance from the Trapezium.
  5. For an intergalactic context it could be worth mentioning that although Orion is the most intense star-forming region known in our galaxy, if the Tarantula Nebula was where Orion is it would fill the constellation of Orion and be about as bright as the full moon.
  6. You could mention the speculation that the inclusion of such a bright and obviously non-cometary object in Messiers list was the result of rivalry with Lacaille [14]
  7. Also definitely worth mentioning is the strange fact that it apparently wasn't noticed by any pre-telescopic observers, which led to some suggestions it had only become bright enough to be visible at about the time telescopes were invented.
I am also a little bit concerned about the quality of some of the references. For example, I don't think an Astronomy Picture of the Day is a good reference to cite for the size of the nebula, and I'm confused as to the meaning of footnote 3, which gives a different value to the value APOD used anyway. You also might want to use a reference more recent than Balick (1974) for some of the info you've got from him.
I removed the APoD reference since the diameter of the nebulae is already covered in the table data (based on distance and angular diameter). Were there other specific references that were of concern? Most of them appear pretty legit. publications, AFAIK. — RJH
I mentioned to RJH that I had put together some content offline a long while ago - I'll add what I can from that to the article shortly. Worldtraveller 10:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore

See also: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 2, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 3, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 4

After reading it, it's clear that many of the objections have been addressed, and I was concerned that, as Mandel said, the article deteriorated as a result of the feedback it was getting. (For example, Neutrality - And I don't mean to call him out on this, his was just one of several along these lines - objected that it didn't have a section on the communications of Singapore. However, to my knowledge, no city articles have such a specific section on something so relatively unimportant). As such, I'm restarting the nomination. Raul654 15:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment would support providing redlink is stubbed or removed. - FrancisTyers 15:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Tried to replace it with two links. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment would support once the duplicate wikilinks, redundant wikilinks of simple words have been corrected. --Ragib 15:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I've removed the extra/some duplicate wikilinks, and hence I am changing my vote to Support --Ragib 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "the article deteriorated as a result of the feedback it was getting." You'd think we'd have figured that out after two or three nominations ago. Johnleemk | Talk 15:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Object. I'm convinced that this article really needs a major copyedit. There are grammatical mistakes in the lead, and the third paragraph jumps from one thing to another -- no wonder Mandel got a headache! Why is "Singapore's National Days are celebrated with annual parades and other festivities." in the history section? "This elevated Singapore into a developing nation and subsequently to developed" reads poorly. Why is Lee Jr. securing the confidence of Parliament relevant? IIRC under the Westminster system, Parliament does not pass votes of (no-)confidence regarding potential PMs; it only has such motions for sitting PMs. At best, this needs a clarification, if not a rewrite. The normal procedure for the appointment of a new PM is simply the head of state appointing said PM. The first sentence of the 4th paragraph in politics is unwieldy. The last sentence is also out of place. I see at least one {{fact}}, so obviously this article isn't fully referenced yet. I need sleep now, so I can't comment on the rest of the article. I will try to work on these issues tomorrow; from my experience, the article probably needs a partial rewrite, but such rewrites are quite easy to handle if you know how. Mandel is spot-on that the article is a bit too dry, and some (but not all) of Tony's concerns merit a look. I hope to God this isn't going to be another fiasco; the past four FACs have all failed because as I pointed out in the third one, apparently nobody is ever satisfied with Singapore, and in the process of trying to satisfy all, we have satisfied none. Johnleemk | Talk 18:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
"Lee Jr. securing the confidence of Parliament" is somewhat relevant because there were questions about Lee's support among the PAP's cadre before and during the leadership transition period, but there were mostly answered when PAP MPs openly expressed their support to him. I'm not sure how this can be reworded better; according to the Constitution, the PM does need to have the confidence of the Parliament. --Vsion 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It might be better to just have a sentence stating he became the next PM after the agreement of PAP MPs. "Confidence" has a special meaning when it comes to the Westminster system. I haven't forgotten about the article; I've just been exceptionally busy, by the way. I'll see if I can copyedit it this weekend. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the {{fact}}problem. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support looks good. No problems that some copyediting can't fix. Rama's Arrow 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support when you fix the templating problem. - FrancisTyers 22:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the images are a mess and leave giant holes in the article because there are too many. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Addressed together with the second image-related objection below. Please have a look now, and reconsider your vote. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A well-written article, and is comprehensive in information on various aspects of the subject-country including history, culture, transport, etc. Most of the "outstanding objections" in the previous nomination are not serious and are often due to subjective preference on style and content coverage. This is expected for such an article which is heavily edited by many users with different interests and is frequently updated with new information. I don't think the aim is to satisfy every user on every detail in the article as that would be unrealistic and impractical; but rather to accommodate their good comments while keeping the article concise, balanced, and updated. --Vsion 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It was impressive in other FAC's and I hope to see it finally achieve FA. As a whole, Singaporean contributions to wikipedia are outstanding and usually a fantastic read. I would like the images corrected however. michael talk 08:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, good article. --Terence Ong 11:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very well referenced article, very readable, and as an aside it has the best placement of a panoramic I've ever seen. Staxringold 11:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many images, and some used inappropriately. The availability of free images does not mean that everything available must be used. 4 images depict modes of "transport" although 2 of them appear in the "culture" section – water taxis and trishaws are not mentioned in the article. Why do we need images of them? Surely there must be something more specific to illustrate culture that actually relates to the text, but this section would be better served by having no images, than these images. The military is illustrated by a picture of soldiers with an interested bystander strolling past (and ruining the photo unfortunately) and Image:RSAF Aircraft.JPG which is taken at an odd angle, illustrates a display rather than the military itself, and has a lot of wording that can't be read. Not sure what this image is intended to convey but it does not add to an understanding of Singapore's military. Finally, Image:Tenyearseries.JPG is a photo of 3 books. I don't believe that seeing a photograph of 3 text books offers further understanding of Singapore's education system. The other images are great, but these ones are so out of place and so unnecessary as to lessen the effect of the good ones. Rossrs 13:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't really think the photos by themselves have a problem, it is more of the captions that needs to do more explaining. I've replaced them with a new set nevertheless. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree that it was only the captions, but I think the changes you've made are very good. Thank you. Rossrs 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, *much* better than what it used to be previously. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with Vsion. Objections have been addressed quickly. I fixed the BATTLE OF SINGAPORE date, it was in 1942, not 1945. Rlevse 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • The last paragraph of the lead needs a copyedit, and could probably be split into two. The first two sentences are (somewhat) related and could be a paragraph, and then the end is on a totally different subject. The last sentence needs work too.
    • The pic under "History" squeezes the text unattractively. Since Raffles isn't mentioned until a couple paragraphs down, could the pic be moved?
    • The History section is really fragmented. The very first sentence begs the question of what those records say, and implies that they are about the Srivijaya empire, which I don't think is true. As another example of a systemic problem in that section, the bit about the Portuguese burning the city down is completely unconnected to anything else there.
      • We cannot please everyone - The is a very watered down version in which has always invited objections due to its (excessive) size - the current one is the consensual size. Please refer to previous FACs for details. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree with you. This is not a comprehensiveness problem, it's a brilliant prose problem. As it is, it is simply a poor paragraph. Tuf-Kat 05:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Why are the main articles for "Politics and government" Politics of Singapore and Law of Singapore, rather than politics and Government of Singapore.
      • That's because the subarticle government of Singapore doesn't have too much material yet, the political climate is one thing, but the party and parliament which creates the government (which technically gets dissolved every general election) ... the government article mainly concerns various ministries. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 14:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
        • The solution then is to expand Government of Singapore. Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Agreed. That section, which is quite well done, has one paragraph each on politics and law, and two on government, so they should all three be "main articles". Tuf-Kat 14:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
          • But that will require lots of reorganising of the politics of Singapore article. Is this required for the FAC, or can just have most of the issues about government included in politics of Singapore now? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 16:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
            • It won't require any reorganizing of the politics article, just add the government link to the main article thing. Ideally, government of Singapore should be improved as well, but that's not related to this FAC. I'm not sure about your question -- very little is required for FAC (see WP:WIAFA). I won't support as it is; whether or not this oppose is enough to keep the article from being featured is up to Raul, if my opposition for this reason is the only outstanding objection at the end of the FAC period. Tuf-Kat 17:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Despite these political issues, Singapore has what its government considers to be a highly successful and transparent market economy" -- this needs a citation, and is needlessly complex
    • Some copyediting needed due to passive voice (e.g. "Laws restricting the freedom of speech are justified by claims that they" - "PAP justifies laws restricting freedom of speech by claiming that they"; "Singapore was hit hard in 2001 by the global recession and the slump in the technology sector, which caused the GDP that year to contract by 2.2%" ("hit hard" is unencyclopedic anyway) - "In 2001, a global recession and slump in the technology sector caused Singapore's GDP to contract by 2.2%")
    • Don't think Tourism in Singapore justifies a main article link in "Economy". The paragraph on tourism says it's "one of the largest" industries, but if any specific industry were to be linked that way, the single largest one would seem most appropriate. I don't think any specific industry needs such a link, however.
    • "Religious tolerance has been..." has no fewer than two examples of passive voice in one sentence, and the sentence following it is passive too.
      • worked this issue Rlevse 18:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Link or define durian
      • fixed this Rlevse 18:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Only one citation in the whole Culture section is insufficient; the Education section is entirely uncited. The paragraph beginning "The government of Singapore has been careful" also needs a citation or two.
    • Why the pic of the Singapore river at the very bottom? It's pretty, but certainly doesn't illustrate the section it's in.
      • Caption has been rewritten to explain why. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • It's in the external links section. It doesn't illustrate that. Tuf-Kat 05:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
          • There's no other space, really. Besides, another FAC, Defense of Sihang Warehouse has a picture in the external links section and no one is objecting to that. It doesn't detract it from being featured, and also provides an aesthetical thing IMO to the otherwise textually dense bottom (full of templates). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Overall, quite a good article. It just needs some tweaking and I think it will be ready. Tuf-Kat 00:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm now objecting based on these issues. Tuf-Kat 22:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportGood unbiased article with factual information.--cakeman 12:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am concerned that the Transport section is too prominent, it's almost larger than demographics. A well written article otherwise.--ppm 01:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support I just finished a complete copyedit that I hope fixes some of the objections and comments above (mostly fixed awkward prose, killed scare quotes, and made links explicit). There are a few statements that need to be specifically cited and I will condition my support on that getting fixed. --mav 14:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I still object. I have copyedited the article (and caught a number of grammatical mistakes while I was at it), but I'm not fully satisfied yet. There are still some {{fact}}s that need to be taken care of, and there are some questions in HTML comments (yes, in the body of the article itself) that at least merit a response here (if the issues they raise are not taken care of; personally I think they are demanding a bit too much detail). Otherwise, splendid job everyone. Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Should be done, unless I have grossly missed out anything in error. - Mailer Diablo 19:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, the article is quite good, but as I have pointed out in the article there are a few bits that need work. In addition to the notes I have left in text (1) the transport section is too long and borders on cruft, remember the audience of this article is very general and probably doesn't care about expansion to Singapore's main airport - I would cut it to about two paragraphs. (2) The education section could also be shortened as it contains quite a lot of detail not pertinent to Singapore in general, and it could be merged into demographics as was done in the Australia article.--nixie 05:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll work on your notes in just a moment. Merging education into Demographics is a poor idea, as it would make the paragraph too bulky and will raise new objections. For transport, perhaps three paragraphs is fine, but two will be too short, and will raise objections as per previous FACs. We may be able to cut a line or two from the seaport and airport paragraphs, but they can't go altogether because this is what Singapore is internationally prominent for! - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the transport section is fine as it is; I went over it with a fine toothcomb and only chopped out a few dozen words. I think getting it down to three paragraphs would be hard. Johnleemk | Talk 09:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The culture section could also do with a specific mention of fine arts, music (if there are notable examples that could be given) and media which isn't mentioned in the article at all.--nixie 05:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I eventually plan to add in things about films produced, famous artists and the like but not sure how to approach it in the parent article. The education section already has been cut down to two paragraphs. Early streaming at 10, PSLE at 12 and various aspects make it unique so I think we shoul dkeep it as a separate section. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And I thought...that the education section is already a bit too short? =P - Mailer Diablo 08:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • nixie : I believe that the notes you have inserted have been addressed. Please post any further concerns in this FAC itself. Questions that demand for further explanation may not be answered in full, as the prose may stretch too long (and trivial) and will raise objections (as per Johnleemk). - Mailer Diablo 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has improved alot, but there is still no description of the media in the article, and there should be.--nixie 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I recall an old cooy of the article has exactly that. I'll dig it up later. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think I culled material from some various subarticles to make that media section a few FACs ago. Sigh. We're on the "trying to please everyone but pleasing noone" carousel again, it seems. Just why do we need a media section anyway? Have we considered that in the first place? Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Becuase the scope of media and media are freedom (Singapore ranks pretty poorly according to Reporters Without Borders) are important things in both cultural and political terms. It only needs to be a paragraph, see the culture section in Australia.--nixie 13:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Comment I think the transport and education sections are fine. I also think this FAC is at the point where people will never agree on everything; such as length--whether these have have 2 or 3 paragraphs simply doesn't matter at this point.Rlevse 10:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for understanding the dilemna that we have been facing for this article. - Mailer Diablo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I was close to voting support or neutral a few weeks ago, but a close reading reveals more problems with this article. First there's a problem of style. It still reads awkwardly not because the editors can't write good English, but because they seem adamant at squeezing every little bit of information into the page size. They seemed lost as to whether they should summarize and link to a detailed write-up or write a complete section dissertation by itself. The writing range is too heavily compact, overly detailed at times, including lots of excessive information which would never make it into country articles elsewhere. (Examples: "During prolonged heavy rain, relative humidity often reaches 100%."; "The Orchard Road district, which is dominated by multi-storey shopping centres and hotels, is the centre of tourism in Singapore."; "A popular local film, I Not Stupid, highlights the competitiveness of the system and social stigma that students struggling with studies have to face." - Isn't there a separate article to put these little bits of very insignificant information? "Singapore introduced a Goods and Services Tax (GST) with an initial rate of 3% on April 1, 1994." - Is the GST significant to the economy at large, that it needs a long paragraph? If so, how and why?) Lots of information, the reading just doesn't flow well.
    • Most of that information appears relevant to me. Apparently Southeast Asians tend to take the notability of these things for granted. Orchard Road is a famous Singaporean landmark, and it is a very very very busy tourist district. In Singapore, Orchard Road = tourism. Perhaps this would not be notable for another country, but Singapore is both a country and a city. I Not Stupid was a very popular film not just in Singapore but in Southeast Asia for how it highlighted the immense pressure Asian educational systems place on students. The article apparently doesn't make either of these facts clear, but then we are trying for brevity...Sigh. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Nobody's denying those information a place in Wikipedia, but the right place they should go is to the respective sub-pages, not in this overview on the country. There is an article on tourism in Singapore where you can boast talk about Orchard Road all you like. Also, it is misleading. Orchard Road is not a place strictly for tourists; 90% of the people who shop there are Singaporeans. If you try to add every little niggle on Singapore, this article will be 100KB long, not 50. Chewing gum, ban on oral sex, ban on homosexual sex, capital punishment, strict drug enforcement, relations with Malaysia, Orchard Road, I Not Stupid, GST, Total Defence, casinoes, Ten Years series, EZY Link, Fort Siloso, bartop dancing, bungee-jumping, Carlburg Skytower, Singapore Girl - Singaporeans are greedy aren't they? They want all these things within an article and keep the 50KB limit. Possible? Mandel 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I wasn't aware of a hard and fast limit concerning article size. The important thing, IMO, is to maintain the flow of the article. If it's 500kb long but everyone is so enthralled with the article that they can't take their eyes off it, it's hardly reasonable to argue for trimming the article. We need to keep sight of readability, which is the purpose of the guidelines concerning article size, not article size itself. If a 100kb article on Singapore is easily readable and enjoyable, what would be wrong with that? Most of the things you've mentioned are valid material for inclusion, IMO, excepting anything I don't know about e.g. Fort Siloso, since much of it is stuff a person living in the developed world would have heard of. Regardless of actual statistics on Orchard Road's patrons, the fact is that it is synonymous with shopping and tourism in Singapore. Likewise, Singapore is famous for its chewing gum ban, and to a slightly lesser extent, its laws concerning sexual intercourse. Singapore Girl is an image almost inextricable from Singapore and SIA. If we can't have these things in the article, what can we have? Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with your thoughts on article size. But I guarantee there will be plenty of complaints once the byte size exceeds 50KB. If you think all these details should be in, then I can safely assume the limit would be ~100KB. Also, not everyone will share your view that things like the Singapore Girl should be in this article. Mandel 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Secondly, it lacks astute observations about the country, which a good encyclopedia article should make. For example, in the economics section, they should indicate how the local economy is viewed, classified and observed by social scientists in the world, and its interaction with the world at large, not include government-cruft like Economic Review Committee (!) and the fact it has a goods-and-service tax (which is not unique at all in the world - even if it is important, I fail to see how the section shows it). In fact, this is true of the whole article - meaningless government-cruft like 'gateway between the East and West' adorn the writing, and too much nonsense about what and how government organizations function - Land Transport Authority etc etc. too much subtle boasting and inflated sense of self-being (is the fact SIA flying the Airbus A380 important?). In defence, I need to know how Singapore's military is similar to the rest of the world, and in what ways they are unique, not silly propaganda like Total Defence.
    • While I agree a more in-depth analysis of both the economy and military is necessary, I don't see things like the LTA as cruft. In an article about a city, it would be mandatory to have something about the local transportation system, and I see only one sentence — of certainly sufficient notability — devoted to the LTA. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Finally, the writers of this article have not use enough good background reading materials. The reference section is abysmal. They have not done sufficient research and read-up on books about Singapore, and they rely too heavily on Singapore government materials. This will take lots of time, effort, and needs probably at least one intelligent editor to do the job. I'm not sure all three are present at the moment. Mandel 05:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The above is a wrong argument. Data on education, economy, demographics are primarily from the government. There is nothing wrong in using sources such as Singapore Department of Statistics, the Economic Development Board, and Ministry of Education; in fact this is the best practice. Why should we use other sources with more chances of errors, since the information ultimately traces back to these agencies? For topics such as human rights and press freedom, the article does use sources like Anmesty-International and Reporters Without Borders, for a broader perspective. --Vsion 02:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • too heavily does not mean I prohibit anyone from using any government data. Mandel 10:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see this as a pressing issue. IMO, if you can find the right content and source it, this problem will naturally resolve itself. Let's not encourage unnecessary footnote-cruft (which just sidesteps the problem of an imbalanced article) and concentrate on the meat. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Pressing or not depends on your priority. I reckon once this article reaches FA consensus the rot will sink it. Seriously, do you think anyone would do research after FA status is reached? Mandel 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • So you're speculating on what might happen to an article after it reaches FA status? I note that your comment as it now stands provides no rationale for this belief, but the original one with its reasoning included appears to be an unnecessary sweeping statement and (quite possibly) an assumption of bad faith towards Singaporean editors. It also assumes the only people interested in maintaining the article would be Singaporeans. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Please assume good faith. - Mailer Diablo 15:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm merely saying if no one does reading or research when it is not a Featured Article, it will be idealistic to assume editors will do so after. Nobody likes to be a prophet of doom, but obviously Cassandras are never welcomed. OK, maybe we shouldn't speculate. But I am voting for the article as it is now, not as in the future. As of now, I don't think it is FA status yet. Personal view. Mandel 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, I think you miss my point. The focus is not on more citations, but on more references, and more research. Mandel 12:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Like I said, these issues will sort themselves out if we can get the content we want. Finding analyses of Singapore's military and economy from non-Singaporean perspectives will naturally broaden the horizons of the citations/references/etc. Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Just curious, how are we to do that without further references? Mandel 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I thought I made it clear -- in the process of expanding the article, we will have to address this problem anyhow. Johnleemk | Talk 20:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please remain civil and refrain from making ethnically disparaging remarks. - FrancisTyers 11:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou for removing them :) - FrancisTyers 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I better say that I did not make any ethnically disparaging remarks. But so as not to fuzz the issue, I've removed them. Mandel 12:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Mandel's remarks were definitely not ethnically disparaging, although they were a blanket generalisation about Singaporeans. (I have no comment as to whether they actually hold water or not.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
True or not, as it stands, it's a totally pointless trajectory. I apologize. This kind of thing must never be said. Let's move on. Mandel 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Mandel, did you read the wrong version of the article? I don't think the current version mentions chewing gum nor oral sex. Surprised? itching to put it back? I wonder who is the greedy guy here. --Vsion 01:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Not the current version. Please read carefully before you make any comments. Also, please refrain from making personal attacks here.Mandel 10:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The article has been nominated for FA status multiple times, and a consensus has never been reached simply because any edits the editors have made to address a prior objection has been objected to by somebody else who preferred a different "style." In many cases, this "style" had been corrected out to address previous objections to that particular style. Overall, the article is well-written, well-referenced and adheres to wikipedia policy. Understanding that it will be impossible to please everybody, and understanding that despite the above objections, the article remains well-written and factually accurate, I vote to support FA status. yueni 16:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Battle of Kharkov

Self-nom. This article failed its previous FAC because of quite legitimate, yet not major, reasons. Following a major overhaul, a lot of points were taken care of.

  • References were expanded (more books used) and a lot of inline citations added.
  • A map of the offensive was drawn.
  • The lead was expanded
  • The conclusion section was dealt with its possibly POV points.

I think this article deserves an FA star. Comments? :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent article; all the issues raised in the peer review have been addressed. Kirill Lokshin 21:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support easily now that everything has been nicely fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Needs proof-reading by an uninformed reader and explanation of some of the difficult terms. What is Stavka? What is Izium salient? Also, pic captions could be extended to include not only the names of the people, but also a brief mention of why are their pics there. Finally, could do with some more sources from the outside world. Don't get me wrong, but the article seems to be written almost entirely with books by three of the Soviet commanders, which is quite one-sided. Some on-line sources could also be nice, but it's just a wish, the "term explanation" is the basis here. //Halibutt 06:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Response The article is written using primarily two Western books (Beevor and Glantz) and two Soviet (Moskalenko and Zhukov). Anyway, since the battle was a Soviet defeat, I don't see nothing wrong with using Soviet sources, since the bottom line of all three books is "yes, we got owned big time by the Wehrmacht, and it's our fault". Propaganda does not matter here. I know you don't like Soviet Union Halibutt, but you should admit they sometimes go beyond propaganda.
As for captions and explanations, I'm going to take care of that. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Update: I added a pic to illustrate what the Izium Salient is and added an explanation for Stavka (it was already there but I made it simpler).
As for sources, I insist that a) They're mixed and b) Most important information (strength and casualties) are either Western- or double-sourced to make sure they weren't minimized on Soviet side. And since the most interesting aspect of the battle is actually centered on psychology, the sources can only come from people who oversaw the operation at Stavka. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support --Ghirla -трёп- 10:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose ==Conclusions== needs to be reworked. The big quote could probably be cut down and/or summarized. However, my biggest issue is with the phrase "the truth is". Per WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth The wording throughout the section needs to be changed to make it more clear who is drawing these conclusions. Currently, it reads like the conclusion of a paper on the battle, not an encyclopedia article. - The Catfish 21:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, you're quite right. Wasn't me... :( Anyway, I reworked the conclusion section by summarizing Zhukov's quote and by rearranging a few thing. Tell me what you think please! :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Much better, though I have one last question before I strike my objection. Is this this the only significant interpretation of the events, or are there other notable interpretations? Do the western sources (not cited in this section) have a different view? I ask merely becuase I am not very familiar with the subject. If there truly are no competing views, consider my objection struck. - The Catfish 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, this was a stinging defeat for the Soviet Army, there can be no doubt about that. You will note that the article uses Western authors, too.
I daresay that in these books, Russian commanders make (a rare thing, but still) a honest analysis of the situation, recognizing their own defeats. Starting from that, the risk of POV and propaganda is almost non-existent, since even Stalin censorship could not transform a defeat into victory. And to top it off, most important information (strength and casualties) are either Western- or double-sourced to make sure they weren't minimized on Soviet side.
As I said to Halibutt, the main interest of this battle is psychological, involving dangers of armchair generalship and interference between propaganda and military. And I daresay there is no better view sources than those used for this article.
Hope I managed to convince you :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, I meant that the Western authors should be cited under ==Conclusions== if they had a different point of view about the causes and effects of the defeat. I was not refering to the rest of the article, where, as you say, you used both Russian and Western sources. So, since I'm still not quite clear, do Western historians have a different view of the causes and effects of the battle than the Russians? If so, please add their interpretations in. If not, maybe cite them as well to emphasize that the view in the section is widely held. - The Catfish 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not fundamentally, but in my opinion the article is not there yet. I think a lot needs to be added in terms of the conflict between Soviet command levels, and I think at the moment the conclusion is far too generous on the Red Army's performance. I strongly recommend the use of Ziemke for the German side and Erickson for the Soviet side for this article, to improve it further. Also Bagramyan's memoirs, since he was Chief of Staff to Timoshenko, IIRC. If I did not have my books in storage I would add things myself. Andreas 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Although mostly written well, there is not much on the Germans as the article reads as if it is written strictly to cover the Soviet perspective. Entire article should be written to give both sides equal time or as close as possible. Tombseye 16:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Chicago

I strongly believe this article should be featured. After two peer reviews and many edits, this page is certainly one of the best university articles on Wikipedia. I am nominating it again to be a featured article. -- Noetic Sage 22:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive of first nomination in April 2006

  • Comments — The article mostly cites Web pages, magazine, and newspaper articles and fails to cite books and journal articles (for example, Harper's University by Richard J. Storr and various books and articles on the Chicago Schools of Economics, Sociology, etc.). Sometimes the article reads like a marketing piece; for example, the section on the Economics Department doesn't mention the various controversies that have been associated with the Chicago School of Economics. The history section skips over the important controversies during the 1950s and '60s related to urban renewal and student political activities. The sequence of 9 footnotes after "...one of the world's foremost universities" looks strange—wouldn't it be preferable to consolidate them as one long footnote? — BRMo 23:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The student protest activities of the 1960's seem kind of cliche. They occurred everywhere and Chicago was not really an exceptional center compared to say, the SDS' presence at Columbia or peace movement at Berkeley. Meanwhile, as for the urban renewal controversy, I am not saying they don't exist, but in the grand scheme of thing again they are rather mundane. Nearly every major urban university, big ticket or not, gets into fights with its neighboors over how to allocate land.

  • Comments Listy, notable alumni not cited, does not follow WP:MOS on section headings. Sandy 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Alumni list is now cited. Can you please elaborate on why the article does not follow the section heading guidelines? -- mcshadypl TC 05:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't strike comments from other reviewers: wait for us to come back and strike ourselves. I do not see references for the notable alumni (where are they?), and the article is still very listy. An example of sections heading which don't conform is Faculty and alumni, followed by Notable faculty and alumni.
  • Please sign your posts. If I perceive an objection to be illegitimate and invalid, it is only appropriate to remove it. Furthermore, it does not seem that the author of the original comment has even followed up on my statement. Thus, how can I expect him to strike it out himself? -- mcshadypl TC 06:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is very unsightly in the lead of an article: The University of Chicago is widely recognized as one of the world's foremost universities.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The same thing can be accomplished by combining mention of all sources inside one set of ref tags. For an example of how that was done effectively in an exemplary FA, see Daniel Boone. This article should go to peer review. Sandy 18:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; Images are too big (800x600 resolution is still common), and a few references are weak. Don't use other encyclopedias to back up claims; go to the actual sources. Also, don't put sources in the text itself (like "adapted from the official page"); just cite sources normally. And putting half a dozen citations in a row is overkill—if they're all necessary, put them in the same note. --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: Please remove the image gallery. It is quite unhelpful. NatusRoma | Talk 05:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Image gallery has been removed. -- mcshadypl TC 05:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support rmv excessive images as per Spangineer and NatusRoma. Also, add more information on administrative structure and financials. Reduce the citations - for example, you provide so many citations to back up claim that UC is one of the best - that is excessive and not necessary. Prose require copyediting. I'm saying "conditional support" because I think you can fix this problem swiftly. Rama's arrow 19:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Send to peer review. The images are too large and unevenly spaced. Too many lists. There should not be one or two sentence paragraphs. These are just a few things that need to be improved before the article is FA. --Xtreambar 00:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object The history section is short for a school founded in 1891, and seems to need a lot of work. The current history starts out ok around 1891, and then jumps to 1947. Did nothing happen during this period? Also, the history section makes a number of claims in bulleted format yet none of these claims are cited. And towards the end of the history it starts to turn into a "in 1955, in 1978, in 1999, in 2006," not the most exemplary writing. KnightLago 13:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, references 6 and 29 don't seem to work. 6 goes to the NYT but not to a specific article, and 29 doesn't work at all. KnightLago 13:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States presidential election, 2008

I nominate this site because it shows what may be in 2008--Timorrison 19:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support-How can one show the glories of American Democracy than with a future election? I am for it all the way!--216.7.254.254 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't want to be rude, but the future I would suggest that you nominate articles based on encyclopedic nature, rather than pride for the topic. Morgan695 19:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Pride is all well and good, but there's not a prayer this could meet the FA criteria, particularly on the stability front. There is little that can be in the article besides speculation and it will change radically. Please remove the nomination. - Taxman Talk 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
And I think the page history of changing the nomination comments and from object to support by the same IP would remove any doubts of good faith. - Taxman Talk 19:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agreed with the above, and we do need an oppose in here. Also, the article is nowhere near featured article standard and is about a future event (and therefore is not stable, a featured article requirement). —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 @ 21:02 UTC
  • Oppose. article unstable by definition. asnatu 21:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- Plus, you need more of those in-line reference things. --Osbus 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because a future event can't possibly meet the stability criteria. I recommend withdrawing this nomination. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • An article on an election that does not contain the winner is "omitting a significant fact" and cannot be a featured article (see also: the FA nom for the Beslan school massacre). Raul654 01:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Although I disagree with this nomination, this strikes me as poor justification. We would have to say it omitted a significant fact insofar as facts presently exist, wouldn't we? If something already happened, then you could cite that as a reason, but in my view it's illogical to say it's omitting a fact when that "fact" doesn't yet exist. Everyking 06:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. All of the polling and speculation is just that, speculation. --Elkman - (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Anything that is verifiable and neutral is not speculation. The time frame of the subject, past or future, is irrelevant; anything that can be cited is by definition in the past. Reporting speculation by others is perfectly encyclopedic; coming up with our own is not. Everyking 06:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object: What does "average of all major polls" actually mean? Where are the many names that are listed coming from? Christopher Parham (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Highly speculative.--Yannick 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, suggest withdrawal. - Mailer Diablo 04:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object will become highly unstable. American Patriot 1776 13:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Archived_nominations_May_2006_4aff.html"