Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lindsay Lohan

I'm not the original author but, since so much of the current work is mine, I'm calling this a self-nom with appropriate credit and thanks to its other constructive contributors. This article received very little attention in peer review, but the help offered there was huge. I say this article is ready, and I hope you agree. RadioKirk talk to me 15:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. May need some lengthening in some sections, but meets all technical requirements. RyanGerbil10 16:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Lead-in is too short, recommend expansion. - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It's supposed to be a brief overview; anything specific you would suggest? RadioKirk talk to me 18:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that the lead is too short. It does what it needs to do. Andrew Levine 19:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've added the only other sentence that made any sense—to me, anyway... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Alrighty, not a problem then. Perhaps I'm just too used to seeing long lead-ins for FAs. ;) - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It should be 2-3 paragraphs, based upon Wikipedia:Lead section. AndyZ 01:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
When I went through this process a couple of weeks ago for Karen Dotrice, I read where it recommended 1-2. So I go back and read it again... and I forgot this is a bigger article... ;-) RadioKirk talk to me
  • Support. Well-done! (due to personal preference) I'm not sure I like the number of sub-sections. Why are biography and career under one section. I think they can be split up. I'm just looking at other FA actress, like KaDee_Strickland, and how they're sectioned off. It just looks better, IMO. Gflores Talk 22:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh, I just noticed another user told you to format it to look like Britney Spears. You can't please us all. ;) It's up to you. :) Gflores Talk 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL well, I checked out a few different pages and used the format I thought looked best. Even then, I tweaked it a couple of times afterwards. :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I did just separate Biography and Career but, given the dearth of details about her personal life, I'm going to either keep looking for encyclopedic information or, perhaps, revert it back! After reread, I changed it back. RadioKirk talk to me 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, please explain the reference: "born Lindsay Dee Lohan[1]". --maclean25 03:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
That was her name at birth; she said so on TEENick. I have a request in to Nickelodeon for a transcript of the program; in the meantime, the only Internet references are the contemporaneous accounts of those who saw it. Oddly, the footnote no longer works... (Edit: Okay, not so odd; the ref was intentionally nuked by someone [I know because I removed it altogether, and the next ref no longer worked when bumped up to the top]. There's no explanation for this move that I can find; not here, not on the talk page, not in search. Can someone bother to enlighten me so I know what I did [theoretically] wrong? Thanks...) RadioKirk talk to me 03:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This appears to be a discussion thread about some people who saw the referenced piece of information "born Lindsay Dee Lohan" on TV. I don't think that counts as a reliable source. --maclean25 15:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit: Fixed. RadioKirk talk to me 18:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; I want to support, but it's just too short. Everyking 06:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
And to think, I considered that article an elephant for a 19-year-old... anyway, if you know of anything I missed, point me there, please. RadioKirk talk to me 13:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ObjectNeutral for various reasons. First of all, several quotation are misquoted. For example, "and the children are delighted that this chapter in their life is over" should be "...and the children are delighted that this chapter in their lives is finally over." and "looks forward to rebuilding his relationship with his children" should be "look forward to the opportunity to rebuild my relationship with my children." and inappropriate headings like "Personal" and "The beginning". --maclean25 06:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Issues discussed on RadioKirk's talk page. --maclean25
If maclean25 will allow me, I'm striking the issues already addressed. The remainder are on my talk page. RadioKirk talk to me 01:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
That's bloody weird; those quotations match verbatim the first version of the story I read (they were c+p, in fact)! Fix on the way... RadioKirk talk to me 13:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. RadioKirk talk to me 14:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the "where she delivered more dialogue..." quote referenced to filmbug.uk? --maclean25 15:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, rats, they paraphrase the exact quote... I'll get a better link. RadioKirk talk to me 16:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Please fix maclean's objections, though. —Nightstallion (?) 07:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wow, I have a dislike for the girl, but that article is great. Well done. Forever young 08:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. 18:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Object. A solid article, but not comprehensive enough. There are quotes from critics regarding a few of Lohan's film and television productions, but not others. Hardly any material on her music career; featured articles on recording artists should try to include substantial discussion about the subject's musical styles, influences, themes, etc. (as well as critical appraisal), but this article fails to go beyond classifying her music as "pop" and providing a description of her fluctuating popularity on the charts. Additionally, what have the mainstream press said about Lohan's celebrity status? I've seen her compared to (amongst others) allegedly manufactured "starlets" such as Hilary Duff, Ashlee Simpson etc., but you wouldn't know that from reading this article. And regarding herself: what are her ambitions, what does she think about her career and body of work, and why does she say she chooses the projects that she does? Lohan is a prominent celebrity, and there's more to be said about her than the article's current state would suggest. Also, the rationales of fair use on the image description pages aren't that strong, e.g. regarding Image:ALMP pub.jpg, why is this being used than, say, a promotional photo from the Speak photoshoot? There are also a couple of sloppy sentences here and there, such as "Eventually, her persistence paid off, including more than 100 print ads for Toys "R" Us". I'd also like to reiterate that I think it is a good article, and it's nice to see pages on contemporary celebrities free from POV. I suggest looking at featured articles in the categories of "Media" and "Music". Julia Stiles, Sharon Tate and (in particular) Kylie Minogue are the ones I usually refer to. Extraordinary Machine 19:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Some people, I tell ya... [grin] Seriously, I'll keep at it. :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the improvements, but I don't think that the article is anywhere near substantial enough yet. There's detail, yes, but not in all the right places. For example, exact dates and box office figures aren't necessary. Additionally, no offense to the writers of CommonSenseMedia, liveDaily or All Music Guide, but there are more authorative sources out there to quote from (they shouldn't be hard to find on places like metacritic.com, especially with modern high profile recording artists like Lohan). Overall, still not enough critical appraisal; I always try to include at least two quotes (and often three) from critics when writing about each major project (film, television and music) that the subject of an article (if they are a singer or actor) has participated in as that's what the authors of featured articles about entertainers have done. The "Media spotlight" section is a little superficial; Lohan's alleged "party girl" lifestyle and weight loss have been widely publicised, and a lot more could be written about this kind of stuff, especially if her (arguably) less notable car accidents are given an entire paragraph. The lack of substance makes the section read a little like a string of factoids; I just don't think it flows perfectly well. Also, the image fair use rationales are not adequate: on every image description page you have to explain exactly why you chose to use the image in the article instead of another, and not just leave the rather general description of "Its use is designed specifically to provide a pictorial representation of the accompanying text". E.g. if the second screencap in the "Early work" section is from The Parent Trap (or a specific scene in the film) for a reason, then say so on the description page. It's a good article as I said, but I think it has quite a way to go before it becomes FA quality. Extraordinary Machine 00:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment.I agree somewhat with some of the things that you said. However, I disagree completely with you opinion that All Music Guide is not authoritative. In fact, it offers some of the most comprehensive and authoritative music reviews out there (even Wikipedia recognises it: Wikipedia:Notability (music). A.M.G is certainly better than most newspapers (yes, even N.Y or L.A Times). This is because while it is totally committed to giving reviews, the others simply offer a small section where (often inexperienced) news editors and journalist give their opinion of a piece of work. The former is much more indepth and comprehensive — atleast that's what I've been taught in Lit and media studies etc. Moreover, try not to be too subjective. This issue of too much subjectivity on FACs was recently discussed by Raul654 and Tsavage. See here. Orane (t) (c) (e) 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realise about AMG, I apologise. But obviously there will be some degree of subjectivity in FA nominations, since the criteria can be interpreted in different ways by different people. Extraordinary Machine 18:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, EM, if you'll forgive me, I have to disagree with virtually every point. Much of what you're describing ventures into the redundant, especially critical quotes, and particularly when those cited tend to represent the consensus. Meantime, I've seen sites like All Music Guide quoted often in articles; the alternative, really, is "Rolling Stone says this and Rolling Stone says that." Sources should represent a wide view, and I tend to think "authoritative" is subjective, anyway. Regarding "Media spotlight", what you're asking wanders out of the encyclopedic and into the sordid, in my very strong opinion (besides, weight-loss and boob-job articles were mostly confined to tabloids and blogs while the wrecks made Network news). An encyclopedia (again, IMO) should explain what's relevant and why in as few words as possible. As for fair use rationale, would I be out of line to suggest you're picking nits? ;) RadioKirk talk to me 00:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment→ actually no, he is not "picking nits". Detailed fair-use rationales have really become important requirements for pictures, and one to two sentences just won't suffice. Typical ones would look like these Image:IBT.jpg, Image:SmallCelineDion.jpg or Image:CoolCap2.JPG. Orane (t) (c) (e) 05:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, given the text within the copyright box, I seriously believe this is a case of overkill; nevertheless, I'll adapt that text for all images within the next 10 minutes or so. RadioKirk talk to me 05:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It's good to have a critical quote corroborated by another as that way, the reader gets the sense that it really is consensus rather than what one specific critic said. Using more than one quote is especially useful in cases where consensus is divided. I didn't necessarily mean Rolling Stone magazine, there are countless other sources to pick from. I don't mean to demean people's work in any way, and it's a nice article, but I still believe that it could be more comprehensive. For example, I don't get a sense of how the media considers her a "manufactured" artist outside of an implication from the AMG review quote, when (from the articles I have read) she's often criticised for this (even if it isn't true). Even if the material on her alleged "party girl" status isn't expanded, I think Lohan should be directly quoted rather than it just saying "repeatedy denied the various rumors". Also, instead of "Fully Loaded did moderately well at the box office, earning US$66 million in domestic release and US$144 million worldwide" for example, you could write "Fully Loaded did moderately well at the U.S. box office, and became Lohan's most widely-seen film appearance elsewhere with US$144 million generated in ticket sales" as it gives more meaning than the figures by themselves may do. Good work on the image fair use rationales. Extraordinary Machine 18:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks on Fair Use. On the other points: I'll continue looking for appropriate quotes for consensus, and perhaps a quote from Lohan on partying and breast enhancement rumors. However, I cannot justify your statement re Fully Loaded: That would require a comparison of all worldwide currency in the respective years of film releases to make that statement with encyclopedic certainty. ;) RadioKirk talk to me 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You should now find this to your liking. RadioKirk talk to me 19:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I still feel that the article could be a little more comprehensive and that some of the detailed parts (exact dates, box office figures etc.) should be removed. However, I appreciate the attempts to remedy my concerns, and as it stands it's a great article. It appears to meet the criteria, and I now vote support. Extraordinary Machine 18:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose —per EM. Orane (t) (c) (e) 21:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns addressed? Please reread. RadioKirk talk to me 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

::*Comment. Definitely better. Just a suggestion: how about including something about media spot-light/controversy into the intro? It is discussed at such great lenghts in the article. Orane (t) (c) (e) 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. RadioKirk talk to me 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

::Comment→ Very good. I know that it seems like I'm a bother, but just bear with me :D. There is still the issue of Lohan's music. You have not given any indication of what her music sounds like. Examples of this "music" issue can be discovered by reading Kylie Minogue, Rebecca Clarke or Céline Dion. Just give indication of themes and sounds of her albums, plus critical appreciation from experienced critics. I've gone ahead and cited a source that gives reviews— All Music Guide. Here's the link: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=LINDSAY|LOHAN&uid=CAW030601272331&sql=11:wy09kextdq7c~T2. Hope this helps. Orane (t) (c) (e) 04:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. RadioKirk talk to me 18:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support— my objections have been addressed. Orane (t) (c) (e) 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - the article is well written, well referenced, and I really think for such a young performer it covers all the major points without delving into trivia - congratulations on that. My only concern is tidying up the image description pages - the fair use rationales are way, way better than most. (What exactly is wrong with the public domain image that's been identified? Is there no place in the article for it? Just wondering.) As per Wikipedia:Image description page, source and copyright should be provided. This simply means linking back to the original webpage etc that the image was taken from, or for a screenshot say explicitly "screenshot taken from DVD copy of ..... " etc. The examples that Orane mentioned (Image:SmallCelineDion.jpg) contain exactly what's required. If you can just tidy up those small but important details, IMO the article will be ready. Rossrs 11:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Done—and, to date, I have not been able to find a single PD image of Lindsay any older than, say, 12. RadioKirk talk to me 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Support aah, that explains why no PD image. Yes all my concerns are addressed. It is well written, well referenced. Looks good. Rossrs 20:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: As much as I disapprove of her personal life choices and whatnot recently, this is a really informative article. Great work! --Buchanan-Hermit™..contribs..speak! 00:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article should really use a different image in the infobox. That picture is hardly recognizable as the red-haired schoolgirl that the name Lindsay Lohan conjures up in most minds. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL well, if I may disagree, that's one of her most recent pics, and I don't see why the reader shouldn't say, "oh, so that's what she looks like now, huh?" ;) RadioKirk talk to me 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

This is a partial self-nom. Recently completed its run through Peer Review with several suggestions for improvement. Bear in mind that this article is largly historical, and that details on things like this ships engines and main armorment are discussed at length in the article Iowa class battleship. Also, school just recently restarted, so have some patience if I seem to take a long time to respond to a post. TomStar81 06:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: the inline citations seem disproportionately concentrated in the final few sections; much of the article is entirely devoid of them. —Kirill Lokshin 04:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a very good reason for that: Most of the material in the article begining with WWII service and ending with the Post-Korean War was copied almost exactly from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, but the entry in DANFS for Wisconsin condenses her reactivation and gulf war service to less than 10 lines. As a result, most of that information had to be obtained elsewhere, so most of my edits and the bulk majority of the independent research begins with Wisconsin’s 1986 reactivation. Because that material is not present in the DANFS version of the ships history I included the bulk of the inline ciatations toward the end of the article. TomStar81 04:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

SupportMinor object You need to fix the caption to the bow damage photo the letters "irls" appear after Wisconsin and make no sense. Also, here is a link to Nauticus, you can use it to get rid of that red link (click on the Wisconsin photo too). I live in this area and have been to Nauticus and BB64. It's quite interesting. When these are fixed, lv msg on my talk page and I'll change my vote for this excellent article.Rlevse 15:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Rlevse 11:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, its not "irls" its "n’s". This illusion is the result of the apostrophe between the "n" in Wisconsin and the "s" after tle apostrophe. This is needed to denote ownership, ie "whose bow? Wiscosnin’s bow", only when Wisconsin is written in itallics the apostrophe appears to catch the "n" in wiscosnin, making it look like its misspelled. TomStar81 16:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Nauticus now has its own article. Its a stub, but the red link is now out of the Wisconsin article. TomStar81 16:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think it will be better to create "history" headline and place WWII etc. as a sub-headlines. Brandmeister 15:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What exactly do you mean by this? From my standpoint, the page is already set up this way. TomStar81 19:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Support I think it is a great article, done very well. I have seen the Wisconsin many times and the article does it justice. I know some Wisconsin vets really thought it was a good article too.Coffeeboy 16:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support It looks very good to me. Seems to cover all the bases and be reasonably well-written. Tuf-Kat 08:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob McEwen

Self nom. Third time's the charm? I've nominated this before here and here. I've got a photo--taken from his campaign site. I've got an annotated bibliography. I've noted, using parenthetical cites, material from articles. General information, such as his background and his district, aren't specifically cited because they are drawn from general resources of first instance such as the Congressional Directory. (Those books are, however, in the bibliography.) Some material from the Congressional Record and Thomas is cited via web-links. PedanticallySpeaking 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Footnotes have been added throughout the article. PedanticallySpeaking 18:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment That's quite a references section. Might I suggest (given what Wikipedia:Inline Citation says about Inline Citation being mandatory for FA's) that you convert it to inline citation? Ex: STATEMENT[1], and in References 1. ^ REFERENCE INFO. Staxringold 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. If inline citations are added, I will support, otherwise, looks very good. RyanGerbil10 20:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply of PS. Okay, I'm converting references to footnotes. But I'm out of time today so I'll pick it up later. Is what I'm doing so far what people are looking for? PedanticallySpeaking 21:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Yep. Basically use each source to confirm something in the article, and if it doesn't confirm anything it's not really a source (or if it's a general information site it's an external link). Staxringold 02:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay. I'm done with my notes. I've added some material too. I hope those conditional votes will switch to unconditional support ;) PedanticallySpeaking 18:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Now I support. My concerns are taken care of. Sorry about the delay, I am setting up a new computer at my house and things are kind of hectic at the moment. RyanGerbil10 03:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Although a nicer image would be nice, and that annotated bib is pretty long for none of them to confirm anything in the article (and therefore belong as a ref). Staxringold 19:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I was taught in school that if one used footnotes, there should still be a list of references in alphabetical order. I have asked for his official House photograph from the U.S. House Historical Office but I am awaiting a reply. This photo is from his campaign site. Thanks for your support vote. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support The short paragraphs and sections should be made longer or worked into the rest of the article. Specifically, "namesake", "Challenging Schmidt in 2006", "Following the primary, McEwen campaigned", "Returns to private life" (that's a poor title too, IMO), "Following the primary, the Dayton Daily News criticized", "Strickland said, "I ran against Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan" and "Miller decides to run" (also bad title). Tuf-Kat 02:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I merged a couple of the sections and paragraph per your comment, but the "returns to private life" section really ought to stand alone. Thank you for your support vote. PedanticallySpeaking 18:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Support - right degree of detail, references look good, very well written. Rossrs 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Support; a perusal of this massive article reveals good work. -Litefantastic 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, very well done. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raney nickel

This is a self-nom, although I have to thank the fellows over at WikiProject Chemistry for their help, specially Physchim62. This is a somewhat technical article on a useful catalyst, although we've tried very hard to make it accesible to the general reader. It makes use of the canonical references and it makes good use of images. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome as well. It had a very productive Peer Review a couple months ago. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. May need reformatting of references section, and a check of picture copyright tags, but otherwise, appears to be clear, lucid, and concise. We need more high-quality chemistry articles on the Wikipedia just like this one. RyanGerbil10 20:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I uploaded/created all the images except for the safety labels, so I believe we are safe on the image copyright side. Do you have any suggestions for improving the references section? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Usually, the references section doesn't have subheadings, and the notes section is seperate. Those things don't bother me personally, but some people are fanatically picky with their FA votes. More of a cautionary tale than direct imperative. RyanGerbil10 22:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't know much about chemistry, so I can't personally verify that this is comprehensive and accurate et al, but it certainly looks that way. Has references, lead is good, prose is brilliant. Looks like featured quality to me. Fieari 21:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Like the last commenter I'm not a chemist, but the article is interesting and well-written. My only immediate issue is with the references section, as previous comments have noted. --NormanEinstein 03:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Per increasing popular demand I just went ahead and sorted the references out. Should make everyone happy now :) Thank you for the input. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't want to actually oppose, because it is a cool and well-written article, but... The References are just thin, somewhat. First, the references you do have should be converted to inline citation. Second, even if you do that for every source you have listed, that's only 8 references. If that's enough, ok, but today's featured article (another science article, Planetary habitability) has 28 references all with inline citation. Staxringold 14:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comment. I can convert the citations to whatever format you want, but I don't see the point in cluttering the text unnecessarily. The reference section has subheadings pointing out where everything specific came from. Also, adding more references for the sake of it would be superflous since the "general" reference provided covers the vast majority of the topics in this article. This particular reference is "canonical" because it is the starting point for anyone who wants to get a general idea before starting to do research on Raney-Ni. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Some of the newer inline citation systems can be easily hidden with a change to a user's stylesheet. That removes the readability problem and allows implementing the verifiability policy. FA's simply must be easily verifiable with inline citations. - Taxman Talk 16:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ok upon reading there are many very short paragraphs that should either be expanded or merged. They make the text flow poorly. The last reference should be formatted properly with as much of the author, date, etc, information that is available. WP:CITE also calls for access dates on websites used as references. Finally I echo the other's concern about the amount of references used being a bit minimal. The article is on the short side and I'd think additional research may yeild more important info that should be covered. - Taxman Talk 16:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I concede the thing with the inline citations and I'll get around it as soon as I learn how to deal with the new style. In addition, if you had followed the (only) weblink that has no access date you'd have realized it is a link to a database query, for which there is not much point on giving one (although I'll have to provide the name of the database, maintainer and such).
      • Actually that's a perfect reason to list the last access date. - Taxman Talk 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, it would be nice of you if you could point out specific paragraphs that are too short (except the last one in the properties section, which is one line). More importantly, I'd like to know what more important info that should be covered is missing. I did a full thesis on this material and I'm pretty sure I covered all the basics and the peer review, in which fellow chemists took part, did not point out any missing material. Now, if what you want is PhD material, well, just tell me and I'll see what I can do. Thank you. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • There's virtually no reason for any FA to have any one or two sentence paragraphs. That some may have them is a failure, not a reason to justify having them. - Taxman Talk 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Specific examples please? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
          • The paragraphs starting with "After leaching...", "Macroscopically, ...", "Raney nickel is notable...", "The solubility of...", and the first two paragraphs in the Safety section are all examples. I reallize it is a technical article, but the prose should still flow well where possible. All of those are possible by judicious merging or adding a bit more context for someone not familiar with the subject. There's probably nothing you can do about the one's around the reactions, so that's fine. Also considering flow, the first paragraph of the lead is a bit choppy, and unfortunately I couldn't think of a way to immediately fix it myself. - Taxman Talk 20:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks, I'll see what I can do. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I fixed the paragraphs the best I could. They may need a slight copyedit but overall they should be fine. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Good improvements. I made a copyedit you should check. The last paragraph of the lead is still short, and it leaves me wondering if the rest of the article is using the term generically and just telling us the pedantic way it should be used or is it really referring only to W.R. Grace's product? Clarification on that would be helpful. - Taxman Talk 14:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
No, the article is only about W.R. Grace's product. The paragraph is there because in the literature the term "skeletal catalyst" is starting to be used more often now. I'm also planning to start a separate article on skeletal catalysts later on, so this is also a way to tie in both topics. The copyedit you made worked as intended, btw. Thanks. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

SupportCommentrefs are few. Are there more? Using ref/note system will not clutter the article and will tie refs to the text. Rlevse 18:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Refs are much better! Rlevse 11:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comment. I explained above that I'm hesitant in adding references for the sake of it, since this is not a controversial subject. About the inline citations I should be done converting all the refs to the new style soon. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The new citation style is done. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Support. I have helped out a bit on this, but the article is mostly down to Rune.welsh. I don't think it is under referenced for the subject matter, but I will see if I can dig out some more if that's what people really want. The most important point is that the important refs are there: this would have been picked up at peer review were it not the case. Physchim62 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Support. Good article. ~K 18:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

I have worked on this article quite a bit, adding text, images, and sub-articles to fill out and further explain sections (changes from my first edit to current). Then Cheers went through a peer review and really got organized. I have tried to stay in keeping with previous Featured TV show articles (Arrested Development and The West Wing), and I hope I can have your support! Staxringold 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and Support. Staxringold 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work, this is one of the best sources of information on the show I've ever seen.--Cuchullain 03:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not ready to support just yet, though the writing is good, and it's structured and balanced well, something many candidates here lack. I'm a little worried about the Shelly long suicide bit. That source is a little sketchy, so I think it would be better to say, according to ___ it appeared..., or similar. A higher quality source would be better there too. I'm assuming there are some books written on the series. That would make a valuable compliment to the online sources. - Taxman Talk 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportComment. Overall I think this is an excellent and well done article. I have one question: in the second paragraph, the reference for Gary Portnoy is an external link whereas the other refs are all use the ref/note system. Can this Gary Portnoy ref be formatted like the others?. Rlevse 14:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Issue fixed, and promptly. Rlevse 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Response. Added a second source for the Long overdose, and ref'ed the Gary Portnoy link. I looked for print sources, but really couldn't find much (my school's library archive of old magazines JUST skips over the Cheers run, so not even magazine reviews or something). Staxringold 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, though I wouldn't mind further development of the critical reaction section, and I agree with Taxman's comments about the value of print references. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I found a couple possibilities: The Cheers Trivia Book (Paperback) by Mark Wenger (0806514825) and Toasting Cheers by Dennis A. Bjorklund (0899509622). They look useful, and might be in a library somewhere (they don't appear to be on Google books yet). --Spangineer (háblame) 22:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Fantastically enough, the Toasting Cheers book is in the Perry-Castañeda Library. I will get it tonight and take a look at it to see if it can help. — Scm83x talk 00:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Added and further confirmed a ton of stuff with the book, big thanks to Scm. Staxringold 00:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and support Is it ok to link to a blog? I'm referring specifically to reference 13. [1] Gflores Talk 22:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Yowza! Thanks for pointing that one out (upon further digging the guy actually later references the Cheers article and that reference on his site to try and point out flaws in Wikipedia's credibility). I know I've read about the spitball fight somewhere, but I'll reword it for now and cite a different source. Staxringold 23:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. We need more well-sourced articles about popular television shows, like this one. — Scm83x talk 23:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is certainly refreshing to see a good TV article, not based solely around bulky and pointless plot summaries, like many current FAs are. Spangineer's comments are, without a doubt, worth taking into account for additional improvements, though I believe this article meets all FAC criteria already. -Rebelguys2 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Object. Great article, but the structure strikes me as being odd, and not flowing particularly well. It starts off logically enough, but then delves into things like "critical reviews" before really trying to tell us what the show is actually about. Secondly, I think it does need an actual plot section, explaining even briefly some of the storylines and character dynamics. While the themes section is interesting, it seems to delve somewhat into trivia, and really doesn't tell the reader all that much about the actual show - crucial things like the Sam/Diane relationship are skimmed over in one tiny (and quite oddly-worded) paragraph. Ambi 06:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Response. All perfectly fair statements. I'll move Critical reactions down below the themes section. I'll also go fatten up the Romance section and try to build up some kind of plot summary there. However, the reason I went with a themes section rather than a plot analysis is that Cheers is a sitcom. There really wasn't much of a cohesive plot to the show, nor was there much of a "standard episode" the format of which can be discussed. Sitcoms rarely have episode-by-episode summarys or season summarys, and even TWW's article (which has signifigantly more plot) has them on the subpage for articles. Staxringold 12:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I know that you're not going to have great dramas to write about, but it'd still be nice to have more explanation of the show's dynamics, whether it be through trying to cover the show's history or having a section about the characters or such. I'm just not convinced the thematic breakdown works very well here - it seems to leave a rather incomplete picture. Ambi 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, the more I think about it I think I can see where you are coming from. I'll try using a paragraph of general episode breakdown as the lead for the Plot section, so that Romance is an actual subsection...

Staxringold 22:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks great now. Fantastic work! Ambi 02:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. If external link section is expanded with reviews/fans sites (aren't there any?). I see some used in notes (which are entitled references). This is kind of confusing: notes should link to references, and references should have a list of sources used - currently the notes, whole well done, duplicate many sources making it difficult to quickly tell how many different references were used. Once this is sorted I'd gladly support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not completely sure what you are looking for.. Currently every single one of the links under references links up to a sentence that was unknown enough that it needed confirmation from an outside source, which is what the outside links are for. I'll go expand the External Links section with Cheers sites I haven't used as references, but Wikipedia style dictates (I thought) that you don't duplicate links in references and in External links (hence the thin links section). Staxringold 22:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You are right that MoS gets kind of confused when it comes to foonotes and such. My recent attempt to deal with this here has been judged by some as 'too long'. I wonder what's the Golden Middle here...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues)I'm sorry, I think this article really needs more work. The lead is longer than it needs to be, includes several repetitions (for example, do both C-B-C and its three principals need to be mentioned),
  • (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) I have no idea what CBC means, and the lead covers exactly what leads are supposed to per WP:LEAD, in that it recites the show from creation to it's finale and gives a short synopsis. And there is absolutely no repetition, so I don't know what you are referring to (unless you mean mentioned Charles-Burrow-Charles twice, but the name of the production company and the name of the show's creators are seperate facts). It goes Intro Sentence-Creation-Reactions While on Air-Finale-Show Summary, exactly as both Arrested Development and TWW do (in fact, as all bio articles for people do as well. Intro that says who they are, birth, lifetime achievments, death).
I still think the lead could be tightened up substantially, but the only repetition I see after rewrites is the 11-season run mentioned twice (in consecutive sentences!). Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed that (actually reworded the sentence a little bit). I'm happy to rework these things if you can show me examples of what you mean. Staxringold 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • includes information (for example, regarding the themesong) that's not otherwise referenced in the main text.
  • (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) The theme song is one fact, as is in fact mentioned at the end (that the intro sequence has become infamous enough to be a target of parody), but I'll add on the themesong just to make it clearer. The purpose of that information in the lead, however, was to further explain the plot summary of a neighborhood bar where everyone knows you.
The lead should be a summary; when information is mentioned only in the lead, either the information should be moved to the main text, or expanded on there. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said, the song is mentioned in the main article. And as in my previous response, examples are more helpful than blanket statements (as I don't see any examples of this). Staxringold 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The table of main characters is a particularly bad idea; it should be converted into text and substantially beefed up (and the years the players were cast regulars should be added).
  • (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Text would be unreadable. The West Wing has a character table (which you didn't seem to have a problem with when you commented on its FAC), and the only reason Arrested doesn't have one is the characters don't have sub-articles. As for the player's years, that is a very good idea. I tried it once on the infobar but it screwed up formatting, it would work better here.
Strongly disagree. I know tables are used like this in other articles, and it hurts those articles, too. Too many editors use tables for the sake of using tables, and they impeded the presentation of real information. The "Arrested Development" article uses a text format, and it's much more effective than the "West Wing" article. A general description of the show's set of characters, with a more detailed paragraph for each major character, maybe bullet-pointed, would greatly improve the article. The existing treatment is greatly inadequate. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's fine, and if you disagree with my formatting choice I apologize, but each main character is sufficiently deep that to discuss them on the main article would be crazy, hence the split-off'ing with the character table used on other FA TV articles (like TWW). Staxringold 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The "post-Cheers" section isn't terribly appropriate, and is, frankly, not very good. Not good at all.
  • (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) I included the section at all as I feel it's important to see how a show that lasted this long affected people's career (we're talking about more than a decade of work for some of these people). I'll deal with your issues on particular sections now.
  • Woody Harrelson has had a very successful film career, including an Oscar nomination, but gets only a single sentence.
By the time you get through with post-Cheers, and crossovers, and spinoffs, etc, barely half the article is actually devoted to the show itself. That's a bad idea, and expanding these sections doesn't help. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The effect of a show on society is just as important, if not moreso, than the show itself. Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
But you're not talking about the effect of the show on society. You're talking not-terribly unusual events in popular media. TV shows refer to other TV shows; TV shos spin off from other TV shows; actors keep acting after they leave one TV show or another. Kirstie Alley's weight gain and Shelley Long's depression aren't exactly earthshattering changes in the social fabric. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
None of the actors, being so young (save maybe Alley with her appearance in a Star Trek film) was particularly widely known. Most of them owe the very notability that has them on Wikipedia to begin with to Cheers. Staxringold 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) The point of linking on Wikipedia is that every topic mentioned doesn't have to be cover 100% as there are sub-articles for it. I added the Oscar nod as it was a big deal, but you cannot have whole careers for each actor/tress on the show.
Just adding boilerplate sentences about players having "numerous" theater/film/TV roles after appearing on the show makes the section even mushier and uninformative. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Again, you don't provide complete bios of every single person involved with the article's topic, but is important for a show completely (since Colanasto died) cast with young people to see how the actor's careers moved after the show (Seinfeld and the Seinfeld curse). Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Another example of what I mean by inadequate research; I don't know why you describe a cast like that of Cheers, who were mostly mid/late-thirties to early forties when originally cast as regulars, as "young" -- they certainly weren't "young" by TV standards. The average age of the Seinfeld regulars when that show ended was pretty close to the average age of the Cheers cast members when their regular roles began (and most of the Cheers cast, except Harrelson, were undisputably Wikinotable before joining the show. And I recommend the Seinfeld article as a good model for discussing the main (and recurring) characters in a TV show. You know, the Seinfeld article was better than this article when it came to FAC, and was rejected. The editors who proposed it seems to have been working hard on improving the article, rather than responding defensively. Monicasdude 20:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Bebe Neuwirth has had significant film and Broadway theatre roles, entirely unmentioned.
  • (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Added.
  • The implication that Danson had "a rocky history in finding work after the hit series" is pretty silly; after a few years of 8-figure salaries as the series wound up, it's not like he's out there pounding the pavements. And his imdb entry shows him as pretty active -- he just doesn't do much movie work while he's got a TV series on the air any more (and that's probably his choice).
  • (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Reworded the rocky history bit as it was a bit POV.
  • Too much space is given to the Wndt/Ratzenberger lawsuit -- and the most recent citation is to 2000 events, surely something has happened in the last six years!
  • (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) It's a potentially groundbreaking lawsuit! As for time passing, I did search long and hard when it was originally added and couldn't find anything. I found something just now, on another look, that said Paramount settled (so I reworded the section).
The current version is disproportionately long; it's factually inaccurate (for example, Wendt and Ratzenberger didn't ask SCOTUS to hear the case, since they'd won the immediately prior lower court decision); it really wasn't very important, and it has next to nothing to do with any important aspect of the show. Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
That is simply an out and out lie. They did ask SCOTUS, as sourced by two seperate sources (actually several more with a simple Google search, I just didn't think we needed 10 sources for every sentence[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]). Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what has provoked this incivility, especially since you're dead wrong. Wendt and Ratzenberger won their appeal, and Paramount asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. It says so quite explicitly, for example, in one of the E!Online pages you cite. The side that wins a case doesn't ask a higher court to review/overturn their victory. That's not an obscure point. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I've now fixed it. I was not trying to be mean, but you seem to purposefully (in TWW's FAC as well) attempt to derail FACs. The fact that the suit was brought to SCOTUS by Paramount and not the men was in the very final sentence of the article. I did miss it. I'm not going to even try and deny that fact. What bothers me is that had you merely said that rather than continuing with these vague complaints, only showing examples when pressed, the thing would have been solved days ago. Staxringold 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Kirstie Alley's professional work (a moderately successful TV series, quite a few miniseries, and roles in almost a dozen films, including the female lead in a Woody Allen project) is dismissed in favor of a discussion of her weight.
  • (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Added.
  • The Shelley Long discussion is also malformed, suggesting that her divorce and depression followed soon after she left the show, rather than 15 years, after her successful (if not sensational) film career tailed off.
  • (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Reworded and added.
  • In other areas, the show was noted as well-written and well-directed, yet the off-camera craftworkers are almost entirely unmentioned. (They won just about as many Emmys as the stars, too, and that's also unmentioned.)
  • (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) I'll add further notes to the awards section.
Writing and directing awards aren't technical awards, and the winners should at least be named. It's too often standard Wikipedia practice to deprecate the work of off-camera talent/craftsworkers, and it's bad practice.Monicasdude 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Then tell me what you want. It is not the job of Wikipedia to bend to your personal will, and everything cannot be provided on one page. If it was, Wikipedia itself would be one page. Each of the writing and directing awards are given to several different people, and different groups each time they are awarded. Half of your complaints are about sections being too long, and this complaint would require a section as long as the article is currently to fully credit everyone who won an award. That's why the table says it's a summary of those who won, with a direct source link to a full table. Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You are, again, dead wrong about the writing and directing awards; just refer to the listings at the IMDB, via the link you cite. It's mistakes like this that provoked my comments about inadequate research. Monicasdude 19:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As others have noted, the discussion of the show's critical reception should be expanded. The article really needs a coherent narrative history of the show; right now, the article is like a tree that's virtually all branches and no trunk.
  • (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) Of course expansion would be nice, but the important piece of critical reaction (that it saved the show) is mentioned. Anything further is just going to be fluff, and hard to dig up fluff at that.
Now that's just wrongheaded. Nobody would say (I hope) that, in an article about an individual performer (musician, actor, whatever), that only the initial critical reaction that made them notable should be covered. If critical reaction is important -- and nobody disputes that -- it should be treated comprehensively. Monicasdude
I'll add some more information from Toasting Cheers. Staxringold 18:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And David Angell and Tip O'Neill (among others) are more worth mentioning than a barely notable incident on Australian television. Monicasdude 23:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (please note Staxringold is breaking apart Monicasdude's large comment to respond to individual issues) How is a producer who died on 9-11 or a Democractic House member related to Cheers? Staxringold 16:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Well, David Angell appears to have been a writer and producer on the program [2], and Tip O'Neill played himself as a guest on the program [3]. Whether or not Angell's contributions are significant enough to be in the article I'll leave for others to disucss, but having the then-current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives appear on a television sitcom as himself should be included in a serious article about the program, as it is illustrative of the show's reach and popularity. I also seem to remember that a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (maybe Admiral William J. Crowe, but I'm not sure) played himself on another episode. Gentgeen 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I knew about Angell, I couldn't include everyone on the crew. As for O'Neill, that is interesting. Think I should add some kind of "guest star" section? (I know John Cleese actually won an Emmy for his guest appearance) Staxringold 22:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Dismissing Angell as part of the "crew" on Cheers is like dismissing Philippa Boyens as part of the crew on "Lord Of The Rings." The on-camera performers don't write or stage the shows by themselves, and comprehensive articles about TV shows should appropriately reflect the important contributions of off-camera talent. Not getting my reference to O'Neill indicates, frankly, inadequacies in your research; as Gentgeen noted, it was an extremely unusual event.Monicasdude
I find that a little insulting. First off, no article on Wikipedia has comprehensive information within the article on every crewmember, or even every major crewmember. Heck, you brought up LotR, the The Lord of the Rings film trilogy articles don't discuss Peter Jackson, and I'd say he's rather important. As for O'Neill, yes it's an interesting phenomenon, but I don't know what you are expecting. He appeared in one episode, you expect me or anyone else to have guest stars from every episode memorized? And you dodged around my question of if you think an actual guest star section is appropriate (because, if not, where would you put O'Neill?)
The LOTR movie articles aren't very good, and, despite what you say, pay more attention to Jackson than to any of the on-camera cast members. As for guest stars, I expect the editors contributing to an FA to do adequate research, and I think expecting them to, at a minimum, review the information in the IMDB is not out of line. The number and prominence of real-life figures appearing on the show as themselves is much more noteworthy, in the context of an article about the show, than events in the actors' lives a decade or more later. And your continued deprecation of off-camera creative talent as "crewmembers" is wrongheaded; the contributions of directors and writers are generally as important as the contributions of most performers. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 :) You can try to insult my research all you want, but no one would take an off-the-cuff remark about a Speaker to mean that he had guest starred in the series at some point... And you still haven't commented on which complaint you actually feel is correct, that the non-show elements to the show are too long, or that guest stars need their own section because they are notable enough. Staxringold 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
More generally, I still don't think the article is close to FA quality yet, despite improvements. In terms of writing, it needs a thorough cleanup to remove unencyclopedic text -- e.g, phrases like "Sam's wacky antics," "sassy waitress Carla Tortelli," "whatever relationship troubles he was in that week," "her original rich dreams," "some other legal scam," and "he got her pregnant." There are still some dubious if not clearly wrong comments which at the very least need sourcing -- e.g., "Cheers didn't show any action outside the bar until later into the series"; "some other legal scam that grew out of [the Tortellis'] divorce"; "However, she encountered a glass ceiling." Some critical opinions/interpretations are written into the article as factual (e.g., "each of the major female characters being a flawed feminist in her own way") -- even when sourced, opinion is opinion. You really should take a look at the list of prominent figures who appeared as themselves on the show -- aside from O'Neill and Crowe, there were also two presidential candidates, one Kennedy, and several sports figures. But the most important problem is the lack of substantive information about the show itself -- while the "Arrested Development" article needs work, its structure is much better than one for this article. Monicasdude 18:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm happy to go through and fix these things, but these examples are much more useful than blanket complaints. As for sourcing on the action outside the bar, it is absolutely sourced! What's the very first source listed under references? "Cheers. Created by James Burrows, Glen Charles and Les Charles. 1982-1993. Broadcast and DVD." Not everything requires outside sourcing when simple viewing of the program shows something.
If you're saying that you watched the the first however many seasons yourself and are making observations from your own viewing, that's a violation of WP:NOR, whether those observations are correct or incorrect. And, given that scenes in Season 4, relatively early in the series, were set in Diane Chambers' apartment, the observation is incorrect. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
NOR applies when it is original research. It is not OR when the show is cited as a source and you include information from that show (again, Carla is a waitress is not sourced, because it is in the show very clearly). And the 4th season is later into the show, exactly as the article said already. Staxringold 19:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you should review the NOR policy more carefully. The NOR policy is fairly clear; statements like the one at issue here violate the policy unless this exception applies: "where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge." I don't think anyone can fairly say that a statement which requires someone to watch (at a minimum) 24-36 hours of a television series, keeping track of the location sets involved, is "easily verified." Monicasdude 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You don't source that Homer Simpson is the father of The Simpson family, because it is simply known from watching the show. And again, do you think a guest star section (maybe sub-section of the cast section) is appropriate? What you seem to have done is complain, rather than suggest fixes or comment on suggested fixes, which is a lot less helpful. Staxringold 18:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Please reread the FA candidates page. What I've done is object, and stated a rationale for my objections. That's all that is called for. Too many editors pushing FA candidates believe they have a Wikipedia-given right to have "their" articles promoted unless editors who object also do the work of fixing up the articles. That's not policy. Monicasdude 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Wikipedical 06:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I went ahead and added the guest star section, just so you guys know. Staxringold 18:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.Cool page. I am a big fan of Cheers, and you covered all the bases. Great job, my definite pick for featured page.Afrohead 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose. The internet links in the references section need to have correct dates attributed to them. For example, the article about Long attempting suicide was not written in 2006 as the section says. You need separate dates for when it was written (or no date, if it's not dated) and when it was retrieved as a source. Andrew Levine 18:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Response. Added all the available dates. Staxringold 23:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentObject The production info satisfies my main objection, so, while I'm not supporting, I am no longer objecting. This simply reflects my current approach to FAC, where I'm attempting to interpret FA in a practical manner by only addressing things that I see as really out of sync with a basic application of FA criteria, when they don't seem to be being addressed by others (e.g. I have read/reviewed about half of the current FACs, and where I have no comment, I am explicitly not objecting.). My other Cheers suggestions would IMO still further improve the article. :) Thanks for the extra material. --Tsavage 23:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
(Apologies for the "late" objection, but since this is still open, and an initial round of FAC improvement edits has been made, here's my contribution to the review based on the current version...) On the main grounds for objection, I find this article not comprehensive. In general terms, it covers only certain aspects of a "TV series", while entirely omitting others, notably, series production. The coverage here principally concerns only three areas:
  • cast (not crew) Specifically, the actors and their characters are covered at length, to the exclusion of other participants in the making of this show.
Comment No television article substantially covers the crew. The reason? There are hundreds of them. Give me some idea of what you want and I'll add it. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • storyline and episodes - including "social impact" of aspects of same.
Comment As I said to Monicasdude, the documented impact of episodes is as important as their actual content. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • awards and other show rating/ranking data
This may be fine for entertainment media coverage, aimed at consumers of the show, but it is certainly incomplete for encyclopedic coverage, where ALL the basic aspects of a topic must be considered. One of those aspects is production information: how the show was actually put together. The "product" is a collection of stored audio and images. HOW those were...configured is naturally part of the fundamental nature of the show. I made the same objection to the (recently promoted) The West Wing, where it was ignored (although that article did have some production information). One comment there was to the effect that "we don't need to know what aspect ratio it was shot in". I agree. What is required is simply basics. For example:
  • where was the show shot - apparently, the interior of the Bull & Finch was recreated in LA studios, while the Boston exterior was used in the series.
  • was it shot in front of a live audience?
  • was it considered innovative in any way for a sitcom, at its inception or later on? Usually, hit series do innovate in production areas (handheld camera, use of a signature shooting style, largely one-take, reliance on ad libs, novel approach to writing, etc etc). Putting this series in context with other similar series is necessary. If its production was entirely unremarkable compared to others, that in itself is notable.
  • I'll try to add what I can find. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not an unreasonable expectation, nor is production information somehow self-evident and therefore unnecessary, as the numerous "making of" documentaries for TV series and films helps demonstrate -- there is general interest in such info, beyond the simple logic that "what something is must be described, and a TV show is more than just actors and scripts that magically make it to tape". In an apparently appended section, a list of technical awards is included, which only begs the question: What exactly were they for? What was so great about the editing in 1984 that won it an Emmy? And so forth. An exhaustive technical breakdown is NOT REQUIRED. A balanced coverage in addition to actors, plot and awards is.
In addition to my main objection, I find some additional coverage of the music used/soundtrack, and the absence of any treatment of the business aspect (was this a particularly big moneymaker? how much did an episode cost? etc etc) also missing aspects. Again, excruciating detail is NOT required and not even desirable, simply, a summary of the most important facts.
Given your requests, I may just add a "Production" section that includes all of this. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I also find the prominent and early use of tables to present lists is essentially "poor writing". A list, if at all necessary, belongs at the end. If the content is centrally important to the development of the core article, it should be incorporated as such. A list provides no summary, no context, and detracts from readability. One doesn't simple run into a huge table and "read through it", tables are generally (and very much so in this case) and obstacle.
Tables are not an obstacle. Come on. Summarizing the information in the awards or cast section into text would take far more room and be far more confusing. The only reason Arrested uses a textual coverage for their cast is that none of the characters have sub-articles. The cast table is just a more complete version of the For complete ____ see ____ split-off links, and the awards table would be crazy as straight text. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Finally, the overall balance of detail is uneven. What is included and what is not included often seems arbitrary. Specifically, with I categorically agree with Monicasdude's itemized objections. Some overlap mine, others, I wouldn't necessarily have listed if they hadn't already appeared. That said, I find none of those simply...whimsical, they all address the core FA criteria in a reasonable manner. --Tsavage 23:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Such as what though? The impact of the show is important. The largest complaint I saw from Monicasdude was too much focus on that lawsuit, but that's one measly paragraph on what might have been groundbreaking legally. Staxringold 13:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Additional note: I just read for the first time Arrested Development. As far as content, it is so much better: if that outline were applied to this article, maybe less than half the areas covered there are dealt with here. With that as an example (and "FA standard" of sorts), it should be easy to understand the shortcomings mentioned here... --Tsavage 04:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I just added a production section that hopefully deals with most of your issues. Staxringold 14:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, good article. --Terence Ong 06:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: shoudn't be difficult to sort these things out though:
    1. First issue is that the reference to critics of the way the show dealt with alcoholism is from MegaEssays.com, a school essay cheat site. It's both unsourced and, IMO, an unreliable opinion. Our references must be verifiable and notable. Suggest that another reference is found for this point.
    2. The lead section should introduce any facts that aren't in the main article. This means that there is no need for any footnotes (except with an exception such as clarifying birth date or the spelling of someone's name). Suggest removing these.
    3. Any chance of moving to the new footnote scheme? <ref> and </ref> are better. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Removed the sentence, as all the refs I could find were just links to that essay, and replaced the ref system with the new one. I have left the few refs that are in the lead in the lead as I think removing them would require some really awkward wording... Staxringold 15:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Australia

Comprehensive article on the flag of Australia, with multiple contributors, on par with other featured flags. Comments welcome.--nixie 04:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Appears to be adequate.
  • Support. Very good article in line with the recently promoted Flag of Mexico. One thing more I would like to see, under the Protocol section, is what the recommended way to salute the flag is (if any). Andrew Levine 05:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • [4] says that all should face the flag, no hand salute is given unless a person is wearing a uniform. Head-gear should also be removed too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • At least in some uniformed organisations, (uniform) hats are kept on and only officers salute. On the whole, I'm not sure that most of the protocol suggestions on that page are official in any sense. JPD (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good reading and informative throughout, well done. A minor comment, the last paragraph of the Other Australian flags section could probably do with a little information or even a link as to how those flags are officially recognised, given that the article puts some emphasis on the flags act. --darkliighttalk 06:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, meets the criteria.--cj | talk 08:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done, great work. —Nightstallion (?) 09:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Let's hope it gets FA in time for Australia Day! - Gt 11:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This looks great and kudos to the major authors of the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 14:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done, Aussies. We poms must get the Union Flag sorted out. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice and well written. —BrianSmithson 03:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well done. Forever young 10:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nicely done. Australia's pride in flag form as a well-done article! Uncke Herb 10:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting reading and a great article. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - well written, well referenced, comprehensive. Rossrs 14:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, good charts with explanations, interesting history section. Brandmeister 15:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and weak support: I notice that the National Flag Day and Centenary Flag sections are painfully short. Could they be added to the "history" section, or better yet, expanded (probably not). Thank you. --Trevdna 16:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Painfully short is a bit of an overstatement. There really isn't much information about these subjects, but they both warrant mention and are distinct topics from the history of the flag.--nixie 22:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 18:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes! KILO-LIMA 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political integration of India

Salute to All - After an intensive peer review, this article has improved in quality and content by over 50% - it is a balanced, informative, comprehensive and well-structured account of the most important series of events in modern Indian history - the story of the integration of a nation. I hope you will enjoy this article. I welcome all your comments, and ask for your vote to make this a Featured Article. Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. Rama's Arrow 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments' a few cosmetic things before I read the article in more depth, quotes shouldn't be in italics as it makes them harder to read, see the MoS. What is the purpose of see alsos at the begining of a section, are these main articles (if so use {{main}}) or could a link within the section text suffice? Please don't include links in bold text in the opening sentence.--nixie 04:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I'll likely end up supporting this one once I've read this thoroughly. Some initial comments:
    • There is no mention of accession of Kochi (Cochin) and Travancore. I think this is needed.
    • There should also be no single-paragraph sections (this is evidence of somewhat poor topical organization) — please break up their contents or merge the sections (i.e., if there is one paragraph in a section, cleave it into two more more paragraphs, with each dealing w/ a facet of the section).
    • Some slightly awkward phrasing and syntax: e.g., "significantly diverse" — this is binary, a population is either diverse or it is not; these should be easily fixed.

— Saravask 04:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

All the above points have been presently addressed. Rama's Arrow 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now. The nominator and authors have done an excellent job on this. I've read the whole thing carefully and done some minor copyedits. I can see no major problems. Thanks for addressing my above concerns quickly. Good luck. Saravask 06:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A very informative and well-written article. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support truly and well deserved. Some minor quibbles and they would be easily addressed. --Gurubrahma 06:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-written. utcursch | talk 09:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Very well written and with comprehensive coverage of the facts and events of the period. --Bhadani 13:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well referenced, well written, comprehensive article.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Comment. It's very good. I removed one problematic POV statement from the lead, but it mostly reads fine without it. One thing I noticed is the only place where it is mentioned the states that did not join India is in the map in the conflicting agendas section. It seems at least a paragraph or so should be dedicated to discussing areas that were not integrated and why. That's nearly as important as a discussion of what was integrated. Perhaps something else needs to be shortened to summary form to make room. - Taxman Talk 16:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Taxman - I'm a little unclear what you mean - in the CA section, apart from Pakistan there is no mentioned state that stayed away - Indore, Jodhpur etc. joined India. The main discussion about the creation of a separation of states from India is in the Partition of India. From the beginning this article makes the impression of taking over from the partition article, in the line of the history of India. It was suggested by a couple of folks to add a reference to Baluchistan and its demand to join India - but this was an India-Pakistan debate and it belongs in the partition article (besides, Baluchistan's main gambit was independence). Rama's Arrow 16:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
From our partition article: "The term partition is generally used only in reference to the independence of India and Pakistan in August 1947, which were created largely along religious lines. Ceylon and Burma were granted complete independence separately, on January 4 and February 4, 1948, respectively." Why were those not integrated into India? What about Bhutan and Nepal? Was there no effort to itegrate those? Why? The partition article doesn't discuss those so we don't really know. If we're going to discuss integration of India we need to discuss what wasn't integrated. I suspect this is something entirely basic to someone familiar with the issue, but the article should include those important bits of context for the uninitiated reader. Is that any clearer? By the way the CA section and it's caption is a bit mangled now. - Taxman Talk 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the "States" section that Nepal became independent and that Bhutan developed a protectorate relationship in 1949 with India. Ceylon was never considered a part of British India, while Burma was split off in 1936-38 I believe - thus they don't deserve mention here. On the whole I don't recommend discussing the reasons for Nepal/Bhutan in length becoz they will require an explanation that spins off into (1) why the Brits arranged for their independence, and (2) why and how are they/not considered a part of the British India, India...? Very murky waters IMHO. I don't want to go beyond India's political integration. Rama's Arrow 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I back including the 1948 map in the CA section, becoz readers should have a clear image of the subcontinent after accession battles. The maps are organized in (1) Un-integrated Indian subcontinent, (2) Politically independent subcontinent, (3) India - Union of states, theme. Rama's Arrow 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Taxman - now I feel you're right. Bhutan and Nepal are already noted in "States" section; I'll add a ref to Sri Lanka and Burma. What I'm trying to say is that getting anywhere near Bhutan's and Nepal's nationhood (...why they were not integrated) is unwise; India officially accepted this. Rama's Arrow 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Taxman's points have been addressed Rama's Arrow 22:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's fine and simple. I think it was something very obvious to you guys but important to note quickly in the article. - Taxman Talk 14:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well written. Tintin Talk 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- copyedited it a bit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — Great work, done almost singlehandedly by Rama's Arrow. There might be a scope for minor improvements here and there, but overall, it's FA material. deeptrivia (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support great article, and thanks for addressing my concerns so quickly.--nixie 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well written.Jisha C J 12:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 18:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work. --Pamri • Talk 07:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, Beautifully written. DaGizzaChat © 02:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HTTP cookie

I think this article now reasonably covers the topic of (Internet) cookies, thanks also to some comments it received in the peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/HTTP cookie). This is a self nomination. - Liberatore(T) 21:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Small objection. The lists in the paragraphs should be converted to prose, otherwise looks fine. ToC may be a tad overlong, perhaps some sections could be merged? RyanGerbil10 00:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    I have removed some lists. Beside the "Implementation" section, the only list I have left is that on misconceptions, which is a bit long and probably looks better as a list. I however do not insist on this: if you feel that it would better restated as prose, I will accept this advice. As for the "Implementation" section, here I am using lists for indicating a sequence of steps, so I believe that these lists should not be converted. As for the TOC, maybe a viable solution could be to technically remove second-level heading from the TOC (I will check whether this is feasible). - Liberatore(T) 13:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    Objection withdrawn. Sorry about the delay in response, I am setting up a new computer. The article has improved greatly, good job. RyanGerbil10 05:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Object. The article is slanted towards the downsides of cookies while spending little time on their useful applications. The lead is a small paragraph describing what cookies are, and then a large one criticizing them. In the main text, only a brief list explains what cookies are used for, and then the next several pages are spent detailing various downsides to them (with scary names like "cookie poisoning"). This is followed by a list of 4 "alternatives" which are presented as viable solutions but are in fact inadequate for most applications (track by IP address? use a nonstandard plugin? come on). It is mentioned that the CIA used cookies as though this were a sinister conspiracy, when in fact it was almost certainly an error on the part of one of their web designers (because it's so hard to make a useful website without them!). To balance all the criticism out, I'd like to see the beginning of the article include a variety of scenarios for how cookies are used (here is how Amazon uses cookies, here is how Wikipedia uses cookies, etc) and the "misconceptions" moved up closer to the lead. The lead image would also be better replaced by a screenshot of a shopping cart or something. Redquark 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    After reading your comments, I realized that the article may look slightly POV against cookies. However, I believe that the main problem was with the initial sections (the Implementation section is more balanced). I have therefore addressed your main objection by:
    • adding a third paragraph in the lead, explaining the misconceptions about cookies
    • moving the "Misconception" paragraph much higher (it is now the third paragraph)
    • expanded the purpose section a bit (this is also to follow the suggestion above to remove lists)
    I think that these changes address the main point of your objection. As for the other points you make:
    • For the lead picture, your idea is good, but I would like to use a free image. Any suggestion?
    • Cookies have some drawbacks that need to be explained; note that the very first drawback is that cookies are not precise in tracing users, which attenuates somehow the privacy concerns; "cookie poisoning" is a technical term; I do not see how I can go without it;
    • The drawbacks of the alternatives are explained. For example, the section on IP addresses begins with "An unreliable technique for tracing users..."; I would also like to remark that this section should clarify that tracing can be done without cookies, and therefore rejecting cookies does not completely eliminate the privacy concerns. I have slightly modified the lead of this section, to make hopefully clear that these alternatives have drawbacks.
    • How cookies are used for shopping carts and preference/authentication is explained in the Implementation section.
    • I have explained that CIA stated that cookies were set unintentionally.
    Actually, there should be a point somewhere saying that this is an actual possibility because of the use of software libraries or tools that set cookies by default even if they are not used. Any suggestion as where this could be said? - Liberatore(T) 13:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Much better now, I'm satisfied. I'd still like a lead image showing an application rather than internal representation, but don't know where to find a free one either. Redquark 17:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support..presents good and bad points of cookies, misconceptions, and how they are used in terms many laymen could understand. Rlevse 18:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Kevin baas 18:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Thorough.
  • Comment - I was expecting to be told why they are called "cookies". Magic cookie does not tell me either. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Good question. "HTTP cookie" comes straight from "magic cookie"; as for where "magic cookie" comes from, these Web pages [5] [6] offer a possible explanation. I have not added it to the article because it seems to me not to be verified enough. - Liberatore(T) 12:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of New Jersey

Peer Review

Self-Nomination. Having undergone efforts by Wikiproject NJ and the USCOTW, I think this article is now ready for FACing. The issues on the Peer Review mainly have been resolved. The article provides a thorough exploration of the history of New Jersey. Thanks for all comments. AndyZ 21:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Andy has been working hard on this article and related NJ History articles. Regardless of what happens in this FAC, I wanted to thank him for the numerous contributions and for getting many others to contribute through the drive to improve this article over the last 6 weeks. The contributions have covered much material that was previously either not covered at all, or was lacking details or depth. I have made some edits to HoNJ, so I will Abstain from voting. Thanks all. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe this article is "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable," and so I support it. Thank you AndyZ for all your work on this! Disclaimer: I am one of the top contributors to this article and so may be biased toward it. Cmadler 00:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Extremely well-written. From a New Jerseyan, it's good to see a high quality New Jersey article get nominated. - Cuivienen 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, one minor nitpick, the reference should come after the full stop, there is a mix positions of before and after the punctuation in the article. Some of the main article links seem excessive, like those in the subsections in Colonial history, links within the sections (which are already there for most of them) are probably enough. 21st century could probably be further summarised, since the content in this article is identical to that in the 21st century article - alternatively the 21st century article could be redirected to this one, it seems a tad premature for the article given that we are only 6 years into the 21st century.--nixie 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have moved all of the ref tags to the end of the punctuation mark. I removed the two excessive detail templates you were referring to in the Colonial history section. I will also work on the 21st century section asap. AndyZ 02:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I cut down a bit on the 21st section; is it ok now? AndyZ 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support from another New Jerseyan. Although I think that the "21st century" section may be a bit disproportionately long, it's really a judgment call. Andrew Levine 03:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is slightly long, but I feel that that is necessary because 9/11 was an important recent event that was responsible for a lot of damage in comparison the entire rest of the history of New Jersey. However, I did cut down a bit on the 21st section part. AndyZ 21:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain - I want to vote in support of the article, but since I was it's original creator as well as a contributor, (not as much as AndyZ), I feel as if I am biased in the article and therefore should abstain, courteously --ZeWrestler Talk 05:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There's nothing wrong at all with voting to support an article you've worked on. Especially when it's a good article. Andrew Levine 06:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, great article. The summary is very good and it points out all the important information to a reader. --Terence Ong 05:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support very good article --Jaranda wat's sup 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. This is a good article, however, it can still improve. Specifically, I find the article to be a good summary of the events and forces that have influenced New Jersey, however the writing could use a thorough copy-edit. Many of sentences are not constructed well and do not flow well together. However, I do not find this to be object-worthy, so I remain neutral. --maclean25 20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This article has been heavily copyediting by myself and several other users- could you be more explicit when you indicate that it needs a thorough copy-edit? Is there any certain section that requires more copyediting? Thanks, AndyZ 21:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You are doing good work with the copy-editing. I hope you continue, even after its promotion. Specifically, I am referring to those paragraphs that simply state facts but do not relate the paragraph's idea to NJ. For example, the first paragraph of "Early 1900s and World War I" states that Standard Oil was created, then dissolved, controlled much oil, became 34 companies. Better ordering of facts and using transitions could better relate this to how it impacted NJ. I'll elaborate on suggestions for improvements (eg. map for New Sweden, etc.) on the talk page. --maclean25 06:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object
    • Notes and references should be separated. As it is it's difficult to pick out the references if you are looking for further reading since they're all mixed in with comments, etc.
    • The sources seem too skewed towards internet sources and while some books are used I think much more of an analysis of the history is done in books. That isn't to say that it makes it wrong... but references like this don't seem to exude trustworthy. I checked the facts with Britannica but every source cited here should be something that we can say, "oh that's a good source" and trust what it says. I don't think this article has that.
    • I think the 21st century is given too much space and isn't well cited. The terrorist attacks part doesn't seem particularly well referenced. I think that some source should be cited about job movement that gives us an idea of the scope and that there has actually been a study done about it. I also am not sure it's the best heading title but, that's not so important.
    • Early colonial history reads choppily and the references aren't there to fill anything in. My problem with that is that convenient sources were found. In my opinion the sources should give you the fact used in the article and knowledge that surrounds that to make sure the writers have the full pictures and choose what is relevant from the data. This also serves for some good further reading for people browsing the encyclopedia.
    • On some images default thumb sizes are overwritten (some are too small). I think Image:Wpdms east west new jersey.png should be redone so it's not as choppy and possible the location finder in the U.S. should be totally removed.
    • All in all this article reads better than Britannica's article. But, I don't think that's enough anymore to become an FA. I really think we need stronger sources even if they produce the exact same article... but, who knows, better sources may produce a better article. The thing is... when you look at a source it needs to be authoritative and trustworthy... a lot of these sites may be right but we can't just assume they're trustworthy. gren グレン ? 09:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Haha, it appears I am too late... Raul just featured it. gren グレン ? 09:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan State Capitol

This article has failed its first attempt at FA. However, after rereading the article, I believe that most, if not all, of the problems have been fixed (I asked Carnildo about the images, and he says that so far he has no objections with some of the images that currently can't be obtained through free means). Hence, I am taking the chance and giving this article a second shot at FA (as a sidenote this is, to my knowledge, the fourth FAC that relates exclusively to the State of Michigan). PentawingTalk 04:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent article. — Lovelac7 14:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done. Rlevse 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm sure you've tried, but something has to be done about the first sentence. There's got to be a way not to be so redundant, make it clear this article is about the building, and still link to the necessary articles. Also the bit about the filming is really out of place and doesn't make for a full paragraph. Otherwise good stuff. - Taxman Talk 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I reworked the first sentence and shortened and moved the MGTV item to a better location. You're right about that one paragraph sticking out. Jtmichcock 02:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Much better, but now the two notable trees is in a similar position. Is there anything additional important about related ceremonial items, rocks, plaques, etc that could flesh out that paragraph? - Taxman Talk 19:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added two other trees that are of historical significance that were in prior edits. These adds two more sentences to the paragraph and fleshes it out. Jtmichcock 21:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice. Gflores Talk 07:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent. -- Wikipedical
  • Support. It looks very good, and is pretty well-written. My only suggestion is to add a paragraph or two directly under "History" and "The capitol today". Tuf-Kat 15:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military career of Hugo Chávez

Withdrawn FAC. Peer review 1 (no comments). Peer review 2 (no comments). This article's contents were part of an article that was nominated two months ago (late November) for FAC. I later withdrew this, stating that I'd not renominate it. But of late I've been reading comments such as this. Thus, given how much effort I put into this in the past, I've tidied this back up, reformatted its referencing system, and copyedited it. Saravask 21:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Two obvious technical issues: (1) the references are double-numbered (probably due to the way MediaWiki numbering in a table works) and (2) the "Coup attempt of 1992" section isn't really a section in its own right—the link to the next article should either be removed (and left in the topic template) or worked into the text in a more suitable fashion. —Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully took care of both now ([7]; [8]). Saravask 05:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. All things appear to be in order. Seems a bit short but my new monitor has higher resolution, so it could just be my problem. RyanGerbil10 05:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Could probably use some more Wikilinks... it seems so barren as it is right now. Gflores Talk 07:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: What did he do to earn so many promotions and decorations in his early career, especially as he was sympathizing with the enemy? Also, (Chávez 2005b) link to the mp3 does not seem to work (for me at least).--maclean25 08:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The books refer to Chavez's strong on-the-job discipline and feigned loyalty — this may be all there is to it. Also, it is possible that number of awards Chavez earned is average, or even sub-par (i.e., perhaps his awards are not exactly the Venezuelan equivalents of the Purple Heart or the Bharat Ratna). About the mp3 link: yes, I checked it now — it is broken now (last time I checked/used it was several months ago). But there is a link to it on the right-hand sidebar on the Democracy Now! homepage (scroll down and look under "Hugo Chavez Special"; it's labeled "Online Special: Chavez NYC Speech"). I made fixes to the ref accordingly ([9]).
  • Further comments: the article states "by 1988 per capita income fell to a third of its previous levels." however the reference says "real wages". I noticed that this figure in the reference was itself referenced to a piece by Noam Chomsky, might I suggest this alternative reference (which suggests 1989 would be more accurate). I don't see how (Schuyler 2001, p. 10) is related to the "Such measures involved the..." sentence in "Reaction to the Caracazo". Nor, (Schuyler 2001, p. 11) for the "This continuing poverty among the poor... sentence. In the "We'd like to here more about it" quote in "Final preparations" does Gott really spell "here" or is it "hear"? --maclean25 01:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I did some fixes to address most of your points ([10]). However, I'm not sure about a few of them:
      • " ... don't see how (Schuyler 2001, p. 10) is related to the "Such measures involved the..." sentence ... ". From (Schuyler 2001, p. 10): "Pressured by the International Monetary Fund and advised by neoliberal gurus ... Venezuela transformed its development strategy from state-led industrialization to neoliberalism: open markets, free trade, exports, privatization and limited government spending and involvement in the economy." My summarization of this (in whole) was "Such measures involved the removal of state-managed development and industrialization, the implementation of market liberalization measures, enactment of export subsidies and incentives, extensive privatization of state-owned holdings, curtailed social spending, the release of longstanding price controls on many goods, as well as liberalization of capital and liquidity flows into and out of Venezuela.[1][2]" Most of this hews closely to what Schuyler says (indicated by the second inline citation); those portions that do not were taken from (Gott 2005, pp. 51-52) (as indicated by the first of the two inline citations).
      • "Nor, (Schuyler 2001, p. 11) for the "This continuing poverty among the poor... sentence." This statement was referenced to (Chomsky 1998, p. 33). It was never referenced to (Schuyler 2001, p. 11).
    • Thanks. — Saravask 03:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my points and pointing out where I was mistaken. Everything looks in order, so I support this as a FA. --maclean25 04:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Happy to support more excellent work by Saravask. 172 | Talk 11:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well done. Forever young 13:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Rama's Arrow 06:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, looks very excellent Tuf-Kat 15:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, it needs categories? I added Template:Uncat... maybe it belongs in Category:Hugo Chávez... but, I figured I'd leave that up to you... but it needs something. gren グレン ? 08:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I created Category:Hugo Chávez (a model of Category:Saffron); I think I put all those articles in it now. Thanks. Saravask 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sino-German cooperation (1911-1941)

I am nominating this article because it is very informative, has many relevant pictures, and sourced. I've spent a lot of time writing this and I think the subject matter is really cool. Self-nomination. BlueShirts 00:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. This is a substantial article on a relatively obscure topic. It counters systematic bias and is an informative read on a subject that not many people know about. (This is a semi-self-support.) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Object. Definitely an interesting article, but there are a few minor problems. While it's well-footnoted, I think you need more than two references. Your opening should also be at least two paragraphs. Finally, your article doesn't cover the last sixty years. How has Sino-German cooperation evolved over that period with both East/West Germany and China/Taiwan? Palm_Dogg 02:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with footnotes is that the subject matter is relatively obscure, and it's hard to find book sources on it, let alone web sources. I can of course use the sources used by the two sources I listed, but I think that would be considered cheating :). As for the naming, we are thinking about renaming the article to something more specific like Sino-German cooperation (1911-1938) BlueShirts 02:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
  • I'm sure there are many more sources that can be used to flesh out this article, even if said sources aren't books solely about the history of relations between China and Germany. Andrew Levine 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

*Object, there is a lot of information here, but ths article completely leaves out the entire post-WWII (and PRC) era. Of what nature were China's relations to East and West Germany? What about post-Reunification? Andrew Levine 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    • objection no longer relevant or valid as the article has been renamed--Jiang 08:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to add on, this article was never meant to be a detailed account of Sino-German relations. It simply documents this unique period of cooperation between China and Germany from 1911-1940ish. Sino-German relations could be another article, covering both normal diplomatic relations between 1911-1949 for the ROC and then 1949- for the PRC and 1949- for ROC on Taiwan, with both East and West Germany. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: They weren't really "cooperating" between 1941 and 1945, were they? Being that they were at war with each other and all. I think another rename is in order. Andrew Levine 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Bleugh... That's a good point... I think a declaration of war conclusively put an end to any cooperation that could have been going on... :) (I'll rename it and delete the 1911-1949 redirect.) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Bleugh! Dunno what's wrong, mistyped 2 edit summaries in a row just now. Anyway, done. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very good article, but a minor object on various technical issues (which should be fairly easy to fix):
  1. The title should be more specific (this should also address Andrew Levine's objection).
  2. The lead should be two or three paragraphs.
  3. The origin and copyright status of the first image are unclear.
  4. The "See also" section is entirely redundant with links in the article, and should be eliminated.
  5. The article needs a thorough copyedit, as there are numerous grammatical errors scattered throughout.
On the broader issue of referencing, it is acceptable to cite the sources Kirby is using (e.g. "Book A, cited in Book B"; see the CMS for the exact format to use here). As it stands, the article is extremely dependent on Kirby; this is not improper per se, but it would be nice to have some other authors listed, if only to demonstrate that what is being described isn't a figment of his imagination ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 03:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • okay, changed the name of article, added sources, and extended the lead section to reflect objections. BlueShirts 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article on obscure but important topic. Wikipedia needs more articles like this. The minor aspects of history, politics, and economic development help provide a framework from which other articles can expand and grow. Wendell 00:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support great article--Jiang 08:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional suport: lead needs more ilinks, for example, Republic of China is not linked. Second, make sure that all positions mentioned in notes are also added to references section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The topic seems to be interesting, esp. before WWII. Brandmeister 01:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - the recent changes make it an example of what Wikipedia should be about. It's well written, well resourced, good pictures, good links and it informed me about a subject I knew next to nothing about. •Image:Shavian-tot.pngImage:Shavian-ash.pngImage:Shavian-fee.pngImage:Shavian-eat.png U|T|E 01:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krazy Kat

Peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Krazy Kat

Self-nomination. I've spent a lot of time bringing this article up to quality in the past week. The peer review has attracted two comments, both positive; someone else put it on Wikipedia:Good articles a couple days ago, and another user left a positive comment on the talk page. The article is well-sourced (using the new Cite.php feature for footnotes), well-written, and uses several free images (along with properly tagged fair-use image where free ones were not available). Andrew Levine 21:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and Support. Andrew Levine 21:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with enthusiasm. Rick Norwood 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a great article. My only note might be smallifying those images a little, as they break up some of the paragraphs, even with my big resolution. Staxringold 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The two widest images have just been downsized from 350 to 300 pixels in width. Andrew Levine 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with some sugggestions re image placement: Intro image should go completely to top of article so the right margin of the intro graphs are consistent; also why are the two images in "Characters" on the same side when all the other images alternate as they should from left to right? Daniel Case 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I just switched all of them to right-aligned, which I think is less disorienting, and also avoids the problem of having a section header sitting directly atop an image (I think having text directly under the header looks better). Andrew Levine 05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article about a fantastic strip. I have a couple requests; since I don't have my Fantagraphics books with me, I can't add anything myself and keep everything properly cited. I think the article should mention Herriman's disinclination for multi-strip stories—somewhere in one of his introductions, Mr. Bum Bill B. tells how Hearst suggested that Herriman should start doing stories which continued over several strips, a popular practice in other comics. Herriman produced a story about the most powerful ketnip ever to grace Coconino County, not exactly what Hearst had in mind. Also, I recall several jokes about Prohibition, with both Ignatz and Joe Stork getting into the bootlegging business. Finally, I'd love to see a paragraph on the 1911 "Krazy Kat Rag" (and if somebody with a piano could make an ogg of it, that would be cool too). Anville 08:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support, Aniville. I don't have much time to do more heavy improvements right now, but in the next few days I will dive back into the Fantagraphics books and give your suggestions a try. Andrew Levine 08:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - well written, references and illustrations are excellent. I think the images look a bit uniform/ordered being all right-aligned but it looks better than it did before, and I can't think of another way of assembling them that would work. I'm impressed that the article covers such a wide scope of information in such an intelligent and concise manner. Rossrs 14:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Although I've never heard of this, it does meet the criteria to be a featured article. Captain Jackson 16:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Of kourse I suppoit this "article" about one of my favourite "kartoon kats". JIP | Talk 20:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good one. Mstroeck 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I especially enjoyed the solid discussion of Krazy Kat's lasting influence in the comics world. Great article!
    • (The above unsigned vote was added by KrazyCaley on January 19 at 18:27.) Andrew Levine 01:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object. Support. I made a few minor changes here and there, mainly wikifying full dates (I hate date links, but it's the only way to let them format correctly based on user preferences), changing general descriptions of the strip and plots to literary present tense (the strip doesn't change if you read it today), and removing some passive voice. There are a couple of places where a source citation is needed (when someone's opinion is being paraphrased or someone is being quoted); I've added edit-mode-only comments to indicate where. I'd also like to see the web references listed under "References" as well as "Notes"; there's no reason to treat them differently. Once these are addressed, I have no problem changing to support. — BrianSmithson 18:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Changing to support. Still think the web references should be treated as regular references, but not a big deal. Good job to all involved. — BrianSmithson 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, now it's a full objection. Rick Norwood is systematically undoing the copy edits I made, which, among other things, reverts us to improper use of past tense to describe plot elements in a literary work. Sorry. — BrianSmithson 19:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The source for the "Herriman was fond of experimenting..." quote was the same Krazy Kat: The Comic Art of George Herriman book cited throughout. The "purveyor of progeny" quote is simply how Joe Stork is referred to almost every time he appears in the strip. I'll add both citations when I get a chance this weekend. As for the use of the literary present, everything that takes place within the world of the comic does indeed use that tense, but anything Herriman (or anyone else) did in his lifetime needs to use the past tense. Andrew Levine 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wonderful article.--Alabamaboy 19:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ignazz, I am truly korrupted by yore sinful articall. Absolutely. Ideally, there would be articles for those redlinks in the later sections, but why hold this article to account for other article's failings? --maru (talk) Contribs 05:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Médecins Sans Frontières

I've put some work into this article over the past two months. I submitted it for peer review five days ago (see Wikipedia:Peer review/Médecins Sans Frontières), and we fixed some problems. It has 79 references for verification, and the article is *cough* 62kB in size *cough*. --CDN99 18:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent article. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is extremely long and the history section could easily be split off into a sub-page and then condensed on the article's main page. Kevin M Marshall 19:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The history section also has organizational information and content relevant to other sections of the article. Is the length really a problem? because a lot of good articles are much longer than 32kB. --CDN99 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Over at peer review we discussed the possibility of separating out the History section, but we decided it would probably be better to keep it all together, at least for now. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see the length as a huge problem, but I think the history section in the main article is too long. It is my opinion that a history section for an organization like this should give a generic overview of the group's development and very brief reference to some major operations they have conducted, not a list and description of every single noteworthy and encyclopedic intervention they have had. Kevin M Marshall 21:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. 62kb is far from being "too long," especially when dealing with one of the world's most prominent NGOs. Article is well-written and comprehensive. Andrew Levine 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A nice article, but I would have expected to see more about what makes MSF different from many other organisation (particularly the Red Crosss) - that it "seeks also to raise awareness of crisis situations; MSF acts as a witness and will speak out, either in private or in public about the plight of populations in danger for whom MSF works" which makes it "brash and outspoken in a way its Red Cross, UN and other international counterparts would not contemplate". -- ALoan (Talk) 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To comment on your comment from a Red Cross point of view: MSF is, with the words of its founder Bernard Kouchner, always impartial but not always neutral, as opposed to the Red Cross which has Impartiality AND Neutrality among its seven basic principles, with neutrality playing a central role for what the Red Cross does. Apart from that, MSF is different from the ICRC regarding its legal constitution (NGO vs. private association), and the ICRC has a unique and special role in International Humanitarian Law. Though I'm not sure whether all of these points should be mentioned explicitly in an article about MSF, and some of them are already there in one way or the other. --Uwe 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is mentioned many times in the article that MSF speaks out, demands intervention, etc. I thought saying something like MSF is "brash and outspoken in a way its Red Cross, UN and other international counterparts would not contemplate" would be a strong POV, which I tried to avoid. --CDN99 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Although I provided some of the information and sources for the article, I think it's still okay for me to throw in my opinion. I have no problem with the length of the article which I consider appropriate. The content is comprehensive and well researched, I see no NPOV issue, and the article has sufficient pictures to illustrate some points. More and better pictures are probably hard to get. So all in all, I think FA status would be well deserved for this article. --Uwe 22:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good and informative article. Tarret 22:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I think that the List of deaths and abductions of volunteers could use some trimming, including the removal of the overly long quote, it could probably be reduced to a paragraph following from Dangers faced by volunteers. Having a list at this point in the article lets the rest of the prose down, the list also make it plainly obvious that deaths of MSF prior to 2003 aren't discussed. The lead gets a bit bogged down in the discussion of organizational structure. Does anyone think MSF does a bad job? A minor style thing, the inline refs are supposed to be places after the punctuation mark.--nixie 00:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Trimmed list of deaths, remove quote, reduced to paragraph (put some of the list as examples for the paragraph ). I removed the list of "support sections," but left the operational sections. Also fixed the punctuation/inline ref order. You reminded me about the controversy over whether MSF caused the Srebrenica massacre or not....I'll look for that story and see if I can add something to the article. --CDN99 01:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Support; I agree with User:Kevin M Marshall; the history section takes up 20kb of the article, which is the same length as a number of good FAs. I'd suggest dropping it to 10kb max and moving the original text to a subpage, working on that a bit, and getting that featured as well. See? Two FAs for the price of one =). Think about your readers—the longer the article, the less attention they will have for the end of it. I personally think that it's imperative that readers' eyes aren't bugging out once they get to the meat of the article, where we actually find out what the organization does. Some cleaning up is necessary as well—periods inside quotes when they shouldn't be, inconsistent note locations, and what really kills me, all the carat signs next to the 2nd reference. You could use ref note labels to fix that problem but I'd suggest just switching to the new method described at m:Cite/Cite.php. And finally, could we mention the translation of the title of the article in the first sentence? Not a big deal (waiting until the second sentence isn't the end of the world), but not everyone speaks a romance language and thus won't have any idea what's being referred to. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed the three places where a " was outside a period/comma, but what do you mean by "inconsistent note locations"? The history section describes what the organisation does, its reason for creation and its development over 30 years; without reading it completely, you don't know about MSF. I didn't put the translation in the first sentence because part of the content is the fact that the group is known as Médecins Sans Frontières, not Doctors Without Borders, even to English speaking people. The Doctors Without Borders name is used primarily in the United States, and by some in Canada. --CDN99 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • By inconsistent note locations,[1] I mean that all notes are not formatted like this.[2] Some are here, [3] some others are here [4]. Sorry to be confusing; I never know what to call the things (citations? references? notes? Probably the first would be best...). I know it's a minor issue, so I'll gladly fix them if you're going to stay with the current referencing system. In fact, if you don't mind me doing it, I could switch the article over to m:Cite/Cite.php myself and take care of it all at once. Thanks for fixing the period/comma problem. I'll do a more thorough read through of the history section to see if I agree with your statement about its necessity; if I do after that, I'll support. Nixie's ideas for reduction seem sound, but I'll need to take a look to be sure I agree and to see if there is anything else. And again, the translation issue isn't a big deal; I like to throw ideas for minor improvement out there, and if you've got a good reason for doing it that way, I usually don't mind too much. I simply think that an understanding of the organization's name is essential context for the rest of the lead, and as such ought to be mentioned ASAP. It'd be a much bigger problem if the translation wasn't mentioned until the 3rd paragraph, but the 2nd sentence isn't a big deal.--Spangineer (háblame) 05:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There were three places where a note was inside a period. Should notes be inside a period, but outside a comma and colons? I'll change over to the new citation style. --CDN99 13:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think general consensus is that citations should always immediately follow the punctuation, with no space in between the two. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'll remove the spaces as I find them. I tried the new citation style with "show preview"... and unless I'm doing something wrong, the new style is extremely awkward. I have nearly 90 inline citations to put into the text, and they would greatly increase the size of the article themselves, not to mention being confusing when the entire reference is stuck in at the end of a sentence in the middle of a paragraph (that is, when someone goes to edit the article). I used "note_label" for the one book with all the references, to get rid of the carat symbols. --CDN99 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right, the appearance of references within the text in edit mode is one of the disadvantages of this new system. However, it shouldn't notably increase the size of the article, since all you are doing is moving the text of the note from the notes section up to its location in the article. As for my previous objection about the history, I'm afraid I must continue to propose that its size be reduced. The Biafra section should be reduced to several sentences and incorporated into the last paragraph of the previous section, and the second paragraph of that previous section should be removed (However, the Red Cross has always...). People interested in that genocide can refer to the corresponding article, but the focus here must be on Kouchner. In the 1971 section, is there an outside reference for the claim "today known for its quick response in an emergency"? Other than that, I don't mind the rest of the two history sections—they seem to be written fairly tightly, and don't stray from the topic. Perhaps there's a little too much detail, but that's not worth arguing over. I will however agree with Ambi and Maclean25 regarding organizational structure and references, but I don't think I'll object over either, especially if at least a little effort is given to Ambi's concern. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Recent changes to the article --CDN99 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Good job. I'm switching to support, though I still think that m:Cite/Cite.php would be helpful. You just added a new citation to the lead, but it's note number nine—keeping those numbers straight is going to be really tough as the article changes and other sources are incorporated. There are also two more notes that you cite twice, and as a result they each have two carat signs. To help reduce the amount of space they take up, the reference templates you are using can have the line breaks removed, so that the text in edit mode isn't a complete disaster to read. If you're too busy, I can make the change. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
New citation style switch made. You were right, it is better, and it also decreased the article size by ~1-2 kB. --CDN99 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think a good copyeditor would be able to get rid of some of the redundant text in the history section, for example the two paragraps about the red cross are completly unnecessary. The Biafra and Creation sections could also be shortened, for example the reader doesn't need a fairly in-depth recap on the political forces leading the the Nigerian Civil War, they just need to know that Kouchner was there and thats how he got the idea to star MSF. --nixie 04:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I've just trimmed and rewritten some of the History section to leave what I feel is a reasonable amount of context for the article, which now stands at 59kb. Andrew Levine 06:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I replaced the part about Kouchner being influenced by the large number of starving children, because that's the most significant thing he witnessed. --CDN99 13:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. While this is mostly a good article, the history section is too long and contains too much information that just isn't relevant to MSF. There are two paragraphs before it even gets to the conflict where the idea to create MSF came from, and three more before it gets to anything much about the actual creation of the organisation. This much background is unnecessary. Apart from that, I'd like to see a bit more about the organisational structure itself - things like its funding and staffing are covered with about one sentence each. Finally, it mightn't hurt to mention MSF's response to the tsunami - they were notable there for only asking for exactly what they needed to do the tasks they had the resources for, and no more. Ambi 06:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The tsunami relief wasn't notable because it was broadcast right away to the rest of the world, and billions of dollars were poured in immediately. I stayed with the underreported missions because they're the most important field missions MSF sets up. As for funding and staffing, what else can be said? --CDN99 13:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the tsunami relief may have been hum-drum, so far as those things go, but it's still notable. It doesn't deserve 2 paragraphs, perhaps, but it deserves a mention. About funding, the article doesn't mention (if I recall correctly) MSF's budget or annual income, or who their biggest donors are (if known). About staffing, are there many workers not in the field (fund-raisers, accountants, lawyers, etc.)? Here and here are info about MSF USA, but I'm confused as to whether the numbers they give refer to the US branch only, or to the entire organization. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I did mention the tsunami relief in passing, but only the fact that MSF is providing ongoing psychological support. I recently added MSF's budget (400 million USD), the distribution between donors and that there are 1000 permanent staff. I've been finding at various places that the number of volunteers sent to places is between 2000 and 3000, so I'll add that when I find a good source. --CDN99 19:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, currently, by my count, there are 79 references. Of those 63 (or 79%) are from the subject organization (ie. www.msf.org or www.msf.xx). The article could benefit from a diversification of sources. There are many academic resources on this subject, such as these or these here. --maclean25 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I can't believe I didn't find those sources (they're good!). I searched every medical journal I had access to and found only brief mentions of MSF. In some of those articles they cite Lancet and BMJ papers about MSF that I should have found immediately. Shit...unfortunately, I've already spent too much time, that I really couldn't afford, on this article, so if a diversification of sources is necessary (I admit, it would be very good), I surrender....someone else can rewrite it. --CDN99 02:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, c'mon :o). Don't stop short of reaching your final goal. As promised, your article will make it into the German Wikipedia in the near future, and we only accept true high quality work over there. See that as an incentive to raise your ambitions :o). --Uwe 09:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, since you put it so nicely. It will take a lot of time to go through the new sources and through the article to replace some MSF articles with some new sources. I'll do it, but I guess this effectively postpones FA status, because it will be over a long period of time. If you look at my edit count from Interiot's tool you'll see two long periods where I did zero edits, and I am (or, should be) in another one of those time periods. Sporadic minor edits are all I can handle, so I could use some help from a dedicated editor. --CDN99 16:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You could keep it as is, with a "further reading" section that includes these. I think it's featured-quality, even if it could be improved. (Even featured articles could be expanded.) After all, Maclean25's comment was a comment, not an object. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's what I was going to propose too. Lots of articles have a "notes" section and a "references"/"further reading" section. So this would be all right?--CDN99 19:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article. --WS 23:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adriaen van der Donck

Self-nomination. Biography of a very interesting character from an underrepresented part of America's colonial history. I think I've addressed all the suggestions from its peer review. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I will support the article if a few small fixes are made.
    • "Some historians have argued that had it been written in English, the Description would have become a classic of American colonial literature." This claim should be H-noted.
    • ""her father was remembered as a national hero for helping free Breda from Spanish forces during the course of the Eighty Years' War." If he was regarded as a national hero at the time, van der Donck's grandfather should be named (and wikilinked, even if it's just a redlink) here.
    • ""he attracted the ire of Van Rensselaer with his independent ideas on how to enforce laws" Which of van der Donck's ideas in particular were contentious?
Andrew Levine 00:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The full quote for that is given further down. I should really just have another go at integrating the quote into the lead.
    • I've simply moved the quote up into the intro, but am unsure whether to use Hnotes or the inline external link in this situation. Optimally I'll be able to find the original source of the quote if it's in print. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. I'll eventually translate the rather short nl:Adriaen van Bergen to bluelink it.
  • I'll dive back into my sources tonight to find specifics. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added specifics including quotes from Van Rensselaer's letters. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. All of my objections have been fixed. Andrew Levine 15:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Really great article, fits the FA criteria. — Wackymacs 08:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Indeed a great article that fits FA criteria. Maartenvdbent 10:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor oppose - would prefer to see a ref/note system used, or an explanation of what kind referenceing system is being used added. It's the first time I've come across this system and it is not intuitive - innote articles normally have the - specific notes are in text detail in the reference secton. Please remove the html link from the lead into an external links section.--nixie 04:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you haven't known already, check out Wikipedia:Footnotes for more information on ref/note system. :) - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • After some comments from others I switched from the ref/note system to the Hnote system because I reference Shorto's work many times and preferred to not deal with the severe numbering hassle that tends to cause. I rather think the result is much neater, but I'm willing to switch it back if preferred. — Laura Scudder ☎ 06:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, as much as I dislike systems that require manual renumbering for repeat references, I switched the article back to ref/note. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Suppport. Well-written article that should be FA. Gflores Talk 18:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music of Athens, Georgia

Old peer review and old FAC. This is the second try, and a self-nom. Most of the objections last time were on style, and the article has been significantly copyedited (see diff since last nom). No major expansion on content, but a few tidbits here and there were added. I've also put some sound samples in and removed the poorly-licensed image. Tuf-Kat 21:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I like it, but it feels kinda short. Everyking 05:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm inclined to Support. It's well written, structured and illustrated. It's concise but still seems to cover the major points sufficiently. Rossrs 00:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC) My only concern is the excessive number of red links which create the appearance of an article "under construction" rather than a "finished product". I think a featured article ideally should have zero redlinks. I think these should either be "delinked" until there are articles, or stub articles should be created for them. I won't object on that basis but I hope you'll look at it. Rossrs 05:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've delinked/removed a few, filled in a bunch with stubs (mostly). There's still a couple (14, specifically), but I think this helps (I will try to fill in the remainder in the next few days). Tuf-Kat 07:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes I think it helps. It'll be good when there are no red links, but it's definitely improved it already. Rossrs
  • Support, well-written and thorough. Andrew Levine 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment The opening section left me wondering..."Only two bands made this the Liverpool of the south? (REM and B52s)". I'd like to see this fleshed out more with more famous bands upfront. Rlevse 21:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

    • The lead does not claim or imply that two bands made Athens the Liverpool of the South. There are no other bands anywhere's near as famous as those two -- I guess Matthew Sweet comes closest, but he's from Nebraska anyway. The source for "Liverpool of the south" only mentions REM in connection to that quote, and I think that mentioning any specific bands in the first paragraph is placing a lot of focus and should not be done lightly. Every source (or at least most) used in the writing of this article mentions those two, so they should be in the first paragraph, but no one else is such a standard reference point. And there are five other bands mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead as well. Tuf-Kat 00:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Hang on, y'all! Ok, bands "from Athens" (remember that the "Seattle bands" weren't actually from Seattle; a "scene" is a critical more than geographical term) include Indigo Girls, Guadalcanal Diary, as well as the B's and REM. Additionally, for underground music, Pylon is very important (nationally very, very well known among the college rock folk of the 80s). Another very famous band "from Athens" was Drivin' n' Cryin'. Ummm, there were many more. Ok, Mitch Easter's band...forgotten their name, but they were MTV stars in 81-82, were from Charlotte but "from Athens" in the scene terminology. Compare to the grunge "scene," where, other than Nirvana, there is really only Soundgarden that everyone can remember. The point being that local scenes generate big buzz, produce 4-5 nationally famous bands, and then, when the dust settles, have 2-3 long term national bands. Geogre 14:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Note that Pylon is already in the lead, and I'll replace the very obscure Side Effects with the Indigo Girls, who are much more well-known. I stand by the claim about "Liverpool of the south", which is an opinion cited appropriately and without putting specific examples in the author's mouth. Tuf-Kat 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment.Support. Quite good, but I'm concerned about comprehensiveness. Is there an opera house in the city? A hip-hop scene? A music school? The article seems to be focused on the twentieth century and on popular music. Jkelly 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If there's an opera house, I can't find any evidence of it on google. The article has a paragraph on the University of Georgia's music school, and various other mentions of University-related music stuff. The article also mentions Bubba Sparxx, the only notable rapper from the area (AFAIK), and I haven't found any evidence of a particuarly notable hip hop scene in the area. I agree that the article is focused on modern popular music, but then that's the only reason this article exists, IMO -- the average 100,000 person American city probably doesn't need a "music of", but Athens' modern rock scene is exceptionally notable. That doesn't mean some more info on music history and folk music wouldn't be nice, but I think what's there is adequate (though any folk music from Athens is part of the regional tradition, and thus would be more appropriate elsewhere). Also, since the only book published on the subject AFAICT is on rock, and there's no evidence of any other resources, I don't think it's possible to expand significantly. Tuf-Kat 23:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Further note that this article mentions a historical opera house, but this presumably no longer exists, and if it was all that notable, surely I'd be able to find at least a name somewhere on the web. Tuf-Kat 23:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, there is the Morton Theater, but it was closed during the scene. When the scene was happening, there was very little urban music, and musicians used to say that the reason Athens happened was that there was nothing to do in the town. You went to class, and then you went to parties. At the parties, the artsy folks would get into camp and strange music, and the people in the town with money to pay bands didn't have the redneck bias against "weird" music, so the "New Wave" and "Punk" bands could play fraternities and get decent pay (which was not the case most places). What else? At the time, UGA wasn't an awfully, awfully difficult undergraduate institution compared to the brains of the people going there. Nowadays, the school has upped its standards a great deal, but the point is that people had more brains and time than they could occupy, so they started bands, and art movements, and creative writing communes, etc. This was helped along by certain professors in the Studio Art Department, as well (e.g. many early REM videos were directed by Prof. James Herbert, an art professor there who was a focal point for a lot of the musicians). Geogre 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah-ha! The Morton Theater is apparently the same as the "historical opera house in the Morton Building" I alluded to above. I hadn't been able to find the name, but since I now have, I've found this, which Ishould be able to use to expand the history section of this article a little later today (or maybe tomorrow). Tuf-Kat 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Expanded a bit on this topic. Tuf-Kat 20:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I've changed my comment to support. Jkelly 17:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electrical engineering

A self-nomination, I sincerely believe this article has grown to be one of the best it can be. The article has previously undergone peer review. Cedars 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Previous so called peer review has nothing to do with the present article nonmination. THe article is now quite different from what it was.--Light current 00:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I really dont feel this article is upto scratch yet for FAC nom. It needs a great deal more work to make it interesting enough to the general readership. I feel that one of the sub fields may be more of a suitable candidate where the presentation can be made more punchy and glamorous. After all, electrical engineering as such is not really that appealing to the general public unfortunately.!--Light current 03:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The level of interest the general public may have in an article is not valid grounds for an objection. Shoe Polish was on the main page not long ago. - The Catfish 00:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes I think shoe polish is actually more intersting than EE! 9its certainly less controversial!--Light current 00:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well written. Coming in knowing little about the subject, I found it easy to read and navigate. Forever young 10:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a good start. As I noted on the talk page, the Terminology section must be removed, and its content implemented into the lead. There should also be further development in the lead of the general history of the profession, in my opinion. I like the inclusion of electrical engineer information in this article. The subfields section I think should be converted to normal text, with subsections and no special background color. Finally, the lead needs a picture of some common EE-related product or structure. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, the big box should be converted to normal summary style text.--nixie 00:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the suggestions. The editors have now removed the big box, incorporated the terminology into the lead and added an EE picture to the lead. Cedars 05:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with this suggestion too!--Light current 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think User:Spangineer has a reasonable suggestion, and Im prepared to run with it to see how it works. In fact Ive already changed the lead to his proposed format. I think we ought to watch the size of the lead tho, as large blocks of text can be very turbid to read.--Light current 22:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article. Someone might want to tighten the language a bit (there are some informal style sentences like "may or not be certified..."), but in general, I believe this is a valid FAC. Phils 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Some more specific issues: the last paragraph of the "Early developments in electricity" section doesn't seem to have a good topic sentence, and its last sentence begs the question of who were the other important people of the era. If the people mentioned in the following section are the people that are meant, a better connecting sentence would be helpful. The paragraph also seems to suggest that Tesla's work had an impact on EE while Edison was only a mercenary out to make money. Another thing—I've just combined the demographics section into the newly renamed "Practicing engineers" section, because that section already covered professional societies, which was largely unrelated to training and certification. Anyway, most of the statistics in that section focus on engieners in general, not on electrical engineers. While there may be some correlation, it'd be better to have numbers specifically stating the number of EEs in those countries. Finally, I'm a bit disappointed with the inconsistency of the notes: there aren't any in the second half of the history section, nor in the education section, nor in the sub disciplines section. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have made some adjustments to the Edison/Telsa paragraph but more improvements are welcome. Statistics specifically for electrical engineers are very had to come by (if they exist). The 0.25% figure is specific to electrical engineering but the others are not. I have added an extra sentence to clarify this. The general statistics are included to give an idea of where in the world engineering is growing. As for the notes, they were only added when there was a need for details outside of the main body of the article. As such I'm not sure if there's any need for them to be placed consistently through the article (most times the necessary information can be represented in the article's main body). Thanks for your comments. Cedars 03:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll take a look at this some more and see if I can fix the problems I see, but for now I'll formalize my vote—object. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I have further revised the statistics paragraph and would be happy to investigate further sources for the revised comment. Is the statistics paragraph the main outstanding point of your objection or are there other parts of what you mentioned that you still feel have not been addressed? Thanks. Cedars 00:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
          • My main outstanding problem is the lack of inline citations. I'm not sure I understand your comment about the "main body" of the article—in my opinion, all articles should be verifiable, which means that sources are needed to back up everything in the article. I would think that an introductory EE book with a chapter or two on the history and application of EE would serve the purpose quite nicely, but until then there is a lot of unreferenced material in this article. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
            • If I provided citations for the text on each of the sub-disciplines would that be sufficient to address your concerns? Cedars 05:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Equally important, if not more so, are the education and history sections. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Citations are now provided for all the facts in the History section. The Education section is based on a general survey of universities. I can provide a citation for this section if need be. Is that neceessary and otherwise is there anything else required to take care of the objection? Cheers. Cedars 00:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
                • I have now added a citation for the Education section and expanded the History section slightly. Cedars 02:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote at the moment, although I just changed the lead so that pictures are only on one side. Having a picture at the top-left and top-right makes it unreadable in 800x600, so I would have to oppose if that returns. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment (and edit) Christopher. I have now removed the second lead picture since one lead picture should sufficient for the article. Cedars 02:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support great article, very detailed. --Terence Ong Talk 04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose ==Sub disciplines== uses a table to display images and content. Is there a valid reason for using such a markup? It is considered bad style to wikify headings. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason for using table formatting was that it helped ensure the pictures aligned with the related content. The links were important becuase they link to articles on the sub disciplines. However I have now removed the table and hopefully this helps resolve the objection. Cedars 00:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Note 1 does not return to the section. Also check the links. One of the links points to a dead resource: [11] =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you Nichalp. I have fixed the note link and corrected the citation. The citation now points to data from the 2004 NSF report. Cedars 07:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A ton of effort has obviously gone into this article, and looking it over in the most cynical manner possible, I can still find absolutely nothing about its content or layout that would prevent it from being a great featured article.User:KrazyCaley
  • Comment. Is it just me, or are there a ton of blue wikilinks in the article? Does it really need all of them? I'm sure you could at least remove some of the year-links. Gflores Talk 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gflores! I have removed all the date links as you suggested because they are inconsistent with the current Manual of Style. I will take a closer look at the other wikilinks soon. There are still date links in the web reference template but unfortunately this template is protected and therefore this cannot be changed. Thanks for your suggestions. Cedars 00:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks better. But it can still be better. :) I noticed that United States in linked 3 times. Australia as well. Automobiles, physics, appliances, Canada, and several others are linked more than one time. If it's really necessary for the links to be there, that's fine. But in my opinion that doesn't appear to be the case. It's ultimately your decision. P.S. I can give you a list of the things linked multiple times, you'd like. Keep up the good work. :) Gflores Talk 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, with the suggestions that you very briefly explain circuit theory and VLSI (rather than just relying on the bluelinks) and that you put in a couple of lines about where electrical engineers usually work (consulting firms? universities?). -- Mwalcoff 02:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestions Mwalcoff. I have now explained those terms in the article. The article already contains the sentence "Electrical engineers may be found in the pristine lab environment of a fabrication plant, the offices of a consulting firm or on site at a mine." Is that sufficient to cover the workplaces of electrical engineering or would you like more details? Cedars 07:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, sorry, I missed that. I reaffirm my support. Good job. -- Mwalcoff 00:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding citations. A few in the subdisciplines section would be nice, but I'll support now. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well written. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose on historical/ bias grounds. I believe the history section is woefully inadequate for an encyclopedia article indicating, as it does, that nothing happened in electrical engineering duing WW2. This is a denial of the facts and should be rectified.--Light current 06:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The history section is only meant to give a brief overview of the history of electrical engineering. More detailed discussion will be placed in the history of electrical engineering article as it evolves. Cedars 09:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, looks very good. My only suggestion is to put a couple paragraphs directly under "History" -- just a brief overview. Tuf-Kat 20:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shielded metal arc welding

An article on one of the world's most common welding procedures, and one of the simplest. As a result, this article is somewhat shorter than the other two welding method FAs, GTAW and GMAW, both of which are more complex processes. I am of the opinion that this article is sufficiently comprehensive, but if you disagree, let me know what you believe should be added. --Spangineer (háblame) 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment/Weak Support - While this article does seem to be well referenced, one of the things I like about most articles in wikipedia is that I can instantly fact-check the article by clicking links to other internet sites. In this manner, I can determine for myself whether or not what I'm reading is true, or whether it has recently been the victim of "sneaky vandalism". Other than this, the article looks great to me, well written, all that. I learned quite a bit. Fieari 23:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm of the opposite opinion. Websites are cheap, and anyone can create them, but print references get much more verification. Furthermore, there is no online resource that I'm aware of that approaches the comprehensiveness and detail of this article, making it difficult to cite much at all. In any case, some of the references I've used (at least the Jeffus one) can be checked on Google books, and as that program continues to expand, more of them will be available there. Even so, I've added a couple external links that give good (but short) overviews of the process; let me know if that's sufficient. And, for what it's worth, I'll be watching this article like a hawk to keep sneaky vandalism from getting in. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, by no means would I want the text sources REPLACED by web links. I just wanted a few in addition to the text sources, so I can quickly verify things. What has been added is plenty sufficent, and any mild reservations I had have been met, so I can now whole heartedly support this as a FA. Fieari 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I actually prefer book sources— more authority. Books are used in the accademic world, even though the teachers might not have access to them for fact checking. Excellent work, Spangineer. Orane (t) (c) (e) 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Everything appears to be in order. References and footnotes are used in line with current guidelines, layout is thoughtful and logical, picture copyright status is flawless, and the prose is well-written. RyanGerbil10 06:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The footnotes seem to be there to reference every single paragraph, yet the article is supposed to be about the basics of SMAW. Is every single paragraph about something overly complicated or controversial? If not, dump most of the notes. / Peter Isotalo 10:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Are they hurting anything? Some articles have 100+ footnotes to verify everything in the article, but I've done it with fewer than 25. I don't think any of this is "common knowledge", so I'd prefer to make sure the entire article is verifiable. And I don't think the footnotes greatly hurt readability—nearly all of them appear at the end of a paragraph, thereby not contributing an extra break in the prose. Please take a look at User:Spangineer/inline citations for my opinion related to inline citations. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Agree with Spangineer, having more footnotes is not a bad thing, and 25 footnotes isn't an exceptionable amount. AndyZ 13:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, it looks excellent, though I note a few sentences here and there that could use a copyedit. Some examples follow: Tuf-Kat 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "However, they must be kept dry" - not immediately clear what "they" refers to, and that whole paragraph seems to have some needlessly complex sentences. (good work fixing this paragraph!)
    • "Typically, the equipment used for SMAW" -- why not "SMAW typically uses"
      • I've addressed these examples; hopefully the new text is an improvement. I'll keep an eye out for other issues, and will attempt to correct any other wording problems that anyone notices and mentions. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Support: The article twice mentions that nonferrous materials such as nickel and copper alloys may be welded by this process, but provides no further information. Could you add one or two more lines about this? I am guessing that electrodes with a mild steel core may not be appropriate for these metals, but the article is not clear about the existence of other types of electrodes. --Allen3 talk 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A valid point, though one surprisingly not addressed to a great extent in my sources. I've added a new paragraph in the electrode section that talks about the composition of the electrode core, but I can't seem to find too much more information, especially related to the nonferrous materials. I suspect that that is due to the fact that the process is most frequently used for welding steels. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work - I am just worried what you will do when we run out of welding topics :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, don't worry, there are plenty of topics to go—besides all of the processes, there's the equipment. However, I'm mostly limited to the topics for which we have good free-license pictures, and those are beginning to dwindle. I'm actually not sure what I'm going to work on next... --Spangineer (háblame) 05:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Nichalp 07:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice work on another welding article! -Rebelguys2 03:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indo-Greek Kingdom

Obscure, fascinating historical subject. Essentially self-nom PHG 13:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: A brillant outpouring, but it is rather long. Certain sections would benefit from being spun off into their own articles and summarised here (for example, the first section, history, and the last section, timeline, could be combined into an excellent - probably featurable - article on the History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom). Otherwise, bravo. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I have added a few bits here and there, but the main work is of others - mostly PHG. There are few works in existence about this fascinating subject, and certainly none this comprehensive and multifoil. The Indo-Greeks are a great lost civilisation; their influence is subtle but traces of it remains in most Asian cultures; something which is reflected here, especially if one browses through the many "sequel" articles on Nomad kingdoms. I do agree with the previous speaker: a few spin off pages might be good. I suggest one for the kings (Rulers of the Indo-Greek kingdoms): the sequence is not quite established. A list of the most important kings could still be on the original page. --Sponsianus 15:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. I have few recommendations to make for the article - possibly, as proposed by Sponsianus, a separated page for the list of rulers. But as for generating a History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom page, -- I'm not so sure, as I feel the "Historical outline" section suits quite well where it is. Aldux 16:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Holy crap. I'll vote after I actually read it all, but in the meantime, it certainly looks impressive! :) My only comment at the moment is please take a look at it in Safari or Firefox. There are a lot of images bumping into each other and/or that simply have clunky layouts. This sounds weird, but instead of thinking about illustrating the text, think about illustrating the article. They are two (slightly) different things. Anyway, shutting up now. :) jengod 16:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Improved particularly problematic layout portion by removing two coin images.PHG 01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Magnificent. Although it's on the long side, I think that the potential readers of this article have more stamina than most. Mark1 16:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OpposeNeutral. Magnificent in length, detail, and with decent citations, good pictures...but:
The article is entitled "Indo-Greek Kingdom" but the introduction neither describes that subject nor uses that term (it describes the Indo-Greek people or their Kings). It should be re-written to reflect this.
  • Done. Thanks for the comment. PHG 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The pictures are great, but IMO rather cluttered, especially toward the middle of the article.
  • Done. Improved particularly problematic layout portion by removing two coin images.PHG 01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Better, although I would still cut more coin pictures.
The entire "Indo-Greeks and Buddhism" probably should be its own article, with the main article focusing on the Indo-Greek Kingdom and this subsection truncated substantially to reflect the overall point about cultural syncretism, with less detail about every coin, icon, deity, etc. IMO the article should include sections 1,6,7,8 with the interior cultural sections shortened and moved to subarticles as indicated. Alternatively, expand the introduction by another paragraph to include an overview of the cultural/religious subject addressed in those subsections.
  • Please check the re-organization, which I think makes the article clearer now.PHG 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a great article, just a bit unwieldy and long. It could probably be two FAs. Kaisershatner 21:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Much improved! Thanks. I also exported the timeline section into its own article. I moved the history sections around because the major cultural paragraphs dealt with Menander, so they follow chronologically now with the post-Menander history sections coming before legacy. I still have concerns about length & density of pictures, but maybe that's just a matter of taste. From the standpoint of references and breadth of information, it's very impressive. Kaisershatner 15:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments – 1. I have concerns on the length of the article. Perhaps the lists and quotes should be cut down and a summary provided. Although I agree that most sections are written in summary form, I still feel that the length should be cut down. Summarising entire sections perhaps? 2. Reduce the linked text. Punjab, India and other words have been excessively linked. 3. To the south, the Greeks occupied the areas of the Sindh and Gujarat down to the region of Surat (Greek: Saraostus) near Bombay Use the new name Mumbai and on the first instance use Mumbai (Bombay). According to Plotomy, Mumbai was also known to the greeks as heptanesia. Could this be mentioned? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed the mention of "Bombay" to "Mumbai (Bombay)". PHG 11:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Although I do find it a little long, and some of the images, especially the large number of coins, could be formatted differently or the number displayed reduced, these minor issues should not stop this excellent article from being featured, Gentgeen 22:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Improved particularly problematic layout portion by removing two coin images.PHG 01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportObject: A great article, and I'd like to support, but there are some issues that should be addressed brfore it becomes a FA. First, there are quite a few tiny paragraphs - expand or merge. Second: we need to decide whether this is an article about a former state or history of it, and format it accordingly (compare: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a FA, and History of Poland (1569-1795), history of that state). If this is supposed to be article about a state, format it like a state - meaning history should only be in one section - at the moment, it's spread throughtout the article. Economy section is missing - it should be added to a state article. If it's history, then format it chronologically, rename to 'History of...' and move geography and culture sections to state article (or its subarticles).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Thank you for the great feedback. I have mostly restructured the article along the "State" format, with History/ Culture/ Religion/ Art/ Legacy/ Timeline... for Economy... well close to nothing is known about it. PHG 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. I have added a "State" box at the top of the article, and even added a paragraph on Economics. Thanks for the suggestions.PHG 10:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Great! I support now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It's looking too long, some information is redundant, the ruler's list can be moved to another article or organized as table, but it is a great article TheNeon 09:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I have re-incorporated the "Nomadic invasion" paragraph into "History" so as to avoid a major redundancy... this also allowed to shorten the article slightly. PHG 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The map in the lead has no source. Also, it shows Sialkot as a box, and other places as circles, but there's no explanation why this is so. Is that a convention for capitals?deeptrivia (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I wrote the sources, and changed Sialkot to a regular city (it only later became Menander's capital). PHG 22:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A beautiful article. Linguiste 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is very well done, but there are a few cases where a theory (presumably from someones original research) is mentioned but not backed up by a source, which makes the text sound weasly:
Menander is considered as probably the most successful Indo-Greek king, and the conqueror of the vastest territory. According to who?
  • Done. "Numismats and historians are unanimous in considering that Menander was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, and the most famous of the Indo-Greek kings. The coins to the name of Menander are incomparably more abundant than those of any other Indo-Greek king" Bopearachchi, "Monnaies Greco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques", p76. PHG 09:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Among others, Foucher, and more recently Boardman have taken the contrary view that some of the most purely Hellenistic works of northwestern India and Afghanistan, may actually be wrongly attributed to later centuries, and instead belong to a period one or two centuries earlier, to the time of the Indo-Greeks in the 2nd-1st century BCE. - cites for the research please
  • Done."The beginnings of the Gandhara school have been dated everywhere from the first century B.C. (which was M.Foucher's view) to the Kushan period and even after it" (Tarn, p394). Foucher's views can be found in "La vieille route de l'Inde, de Bactres a Taxila", pp340-341). The view is also supported by Sir John Marshall ("The Buddhist art of Gandhara", pp5-6). Also the recent discoveries at Ai-Khanoum confirm that "Gandharan art descended directly from Hellenized Bactrian art" (Chaibi Nustamandy, "Crossroads of Asia"). On the Indo-Greeks and Greco-Buddhist art: "It was about this time (100 BCE) that something took place which is without parallel in Hellenistic history: Greeks of themselves placed their artistic skill at the service of a foreign religion, and created for it a new form of expression in art" (Tarn, p393). "We have to look for the beginnings of Gandharan Buddhist art in the residual Indo-Greek tradition, and in the early Buddhist stone sculpture to the South (Bharhut etc...)" (Boardman, p124) PHG 10:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, it has been suggested that these works of art may have been executed by itinerant Greek artists during the time of maritime contacts with the West from the 1st to the 3rd century CE. suggested by whom?
  • Done. "Others, dating the work to the first two centuries A.D., after the waning of Greek autonomy on the Northwest, connect it instead with the Roman Imperial trade, which was just then getting a foothold at sites like Barbaricum at the Indus-mouth. It has been proposed that one of the embassies from Indian kings to Roman emperors may have brought back a master sculptorto oversee work in the emerging Mahayana Buddhist sensibility (in which the Buddha came to be seen as a kind of deity), and that "bands of foreign workmen from the eastern centers of the Roman Empire" were brought to India" (Mc Evilley "The shape of ancient thought", quoting Benjamin Rowland "The art and architecture of India" p121 and A.C. Soper "The Roman Style in Gandhara" American Journal of Archaeology 55 (1951) pp301-319) PHG 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There are several short paragraphs and single sentences that should be merged with other relevant sections.

  • Could you be more specific? PHG 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agjusted the only one that was still there.--nixie 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please dont put quotes in itallics, see Mos. Would it be possible to have the notes in text like (Tarn 1951) changed to ref/note so that a consistent system for notes is used throughout the article.--nixie 04:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Done PHG 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. thanks for addressing all my points so quickly.--nixie 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The lead map has border POV issues. Please fix them. deeptrivia (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Deeptrivia. As far as I know, the borders on the map are in line with general knowledge regarding the territorial expansion of the Indo-Greeks (Tarn, Bopearachchi, Westermanns "Atlas der Welt Geschichte" of 1955 etc...). The only contentious issue among historians has been about whether the Indo-Greeks actually took Pataliputra or not (although everybody agrees that they besieged Pataliputra, as described by the Indian record of the Yuga Purana). This doubt has been reflected in the map by stopping the border line at the level of Pataliputra (it used to be around Pataliputra), so that the question remains suspended. Best regards PHG 10:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I was talking about the current borders of India shown in the map, with reference to Kashmir. deeptrivia (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Deeptrivia. Honestly, I have no clue about how I should modify this map to avoid 20th century border polemics. Any specifics about which lines should, for example, be pasted out? PHG 13:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi PHG. I think the easiest way out would be to remove all modern political borders. That's not too bad, I guess. deeptrivia (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
That's going to make the map very hard to read. I would have imagined that taking away the two small lines around the Sialkot dot would solve the Kashmir border issue. Can you confirm? PHG 13:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You can use this NPOV map as a reference and see how best you can resolve this issue. deeptrivia (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kerala

Self-nomination. Peer review. This article has been changed in terms of copyediting, referencing, comprehensiveness, and layout. Got much-needed help and critique from User:Tintin1107 and User:Raghu.kuttan. Saravask 09:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Object – sorry to have missed PR.
  1. I think the article needs to be summarised further since it stands at about 44kb (raw). Most sections are long, and it would be more productive to copy the same into main articles and sumarise the same here. It should not take you more than a day.
  2. A light copyedit is needed.
  3. Reduce the image size and avoid starting images with left aligned images.
  4. The history section should come before geography.
  5. District map needed
  6. Kuttanad (below sea level) feature missing.
  7. I personally feel that matter in the lead should not be interrupted by footnotes.
  8. Nothing on sports?
  9. Kerala borders Tamil Nadu and Karnataka to the east and northeast and the Indian Ocean islands of Lakshadweep and the Maldives to the west. -- I think the Maldives lie to the south. You also missed Mahe (Pondicherry).
  10. Is the great Hornbill photo taken out in kerala? There are some great nature photos on Marayoor btw.
  11. Sundar also has a great fishing nets photo.
  12. Ernakulam is the judicial capital of the state. plz mention

=Nichalp «Talk»= 10:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe I addressed all these points here. Saravask 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In response to Nichalp's first point, I have the article (minus the infobox/Notes/References/Ex.Links) currently clocked at 28kb. --maclean25 06:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well done on the copyedit, a few points: 1. The =Trivia= material should be integrated with the text 2. =Related topics= renamed to ==See also==. Can you also link to wikiquote and wikitravel? The portal is repeated twice. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Its an awesome, awesome article. Its beautiful. Rama's Arrow 17:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. As pointed out by Nichalp, some things may need tweaking, but this article has improved greatly in the past few weeks. Not that long ago, I took out a superfluous and poorly dones section on festivals while thinking to myself that the article had degenerated into a specious collection of one-line sections and hopeless lists. Excellent work bringing this article back, but may need just a few minor adjustments at the moment, but nothing so severe that it shouldn't be able to pass FA in a week of conscientious editing. RyanGerbil10 06:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, greatly improved from a short while ago. Andrew Levine 15:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Small Finnish cities are not notable enough. Oh, you meant Kerala. Support. This is much better than Helsinki, which I nominated for a featured article myself. JIP | Talk 20:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I didn't know that such a nice article was brewing in my backyard! -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: can you get hold of the state's extreme temperatures? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Such a great article. Gflores Talk 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. B-e-a-utiful. --Khoikhoi 07:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Translating Image:Caminho maritimo para a India.png into English and using it in the History section would be appropriate. Also, consider using images from commons:Kerala. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I think Image:Caminho maritimo para a India.png is too specialized to appear in Kerala — this was also true (by comments others made) of figures/maps I drew on the Geography of Kerala — two of the three were too specialized. Also, I am the one who loaded up and overhauled commons:Kerala (check the edit history, for example); I'm familiar w/ all the images there, and I think I choose the best images. Let me know if there are even better ones elsewhere. Thanks. Saravask 03:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OpenBSD

In the previous attempt to feature this article, only three opinions were ever given - during that time the complaints were taken back and one even converted to a support, however this was not enough to get the article a passing grade. So here it is again for another attempt, here s the old peer review and previous FAC attempt. Janizary 08:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Article contains a great deal of information, well-referenced, seems quite well-written. The order of later sections may need a slight tweaking, but besides that, I can't think of any other wide-scale suggestions for improvement. RyanGerbil10 14:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Same as above, and it seems to have a good balance of history and technical information. Rst, Fri Jan 6 14:48:36 UTC 2006.
  • Neutral. Much better after the rewrite. I'm concerned about meeting the stability criteria after changing that fast, but what is there is good. Object for now. Sorry, as I know you guys are really trying to get this one featured, but the writing is simply not very good. There's lots of short paragraphs and choppy sentences throughout the article that makes the text flow poorly. I know that's a hard objection to handle because it's pretty fundamental, but good writing is clearly fundamental to a FA too. I can pick out examples if you want, but there are literally so many, that I'm not sure listing them would be fruitful. I'll see if I can set aside some time to work on fixing what I see, but honestly I'm not sure I'll be able to. 2) There's really no mention of the downsides of OpenBSD. For one, it's really not terribly usable by someone without significant technical skills. That of course is a downside to some and not to others, but it is an important facet. Saying a desktop can be run kind of glosses over that important bit. Performance. Pretty much all head to head tests put it way behind the other BSD's and Linux for most general tasks. The developers will generally admit this explaining performance is secondary to correctness and security. But the fact it is way behind is also ignored in the article. Another tidbit: is DJB's software still out of the ports tree? The article doesn't seem to know unless I missed it. So the article suffers from lack of balance. While spending great detail (about 4 full paragraphs) on the split from NetBSD, it hrdly mentions some of the most commonly cited advantages of OpenBSD, the integrated cryptography (which is not even linked to in the article, much less discussed well, and one sentence on the high quality of the documentation. So there's a lack of coverage of the important advantages and disadvantages. Overall it suffers from being edited by committee. - Taxman Talk 15:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
* No apologies needed, being critical is the core of these reviews - it's how we separate the wheat from the chaff. I can't deal with your points just now, but I will be going over them in like 6 hours or so. As far as usability goes, I completely disagree - I went from using Windows 2000 to using OpenBSD with nothing but the man pages and a friend telling me to keep trying and to read the man pages, there is no special technical skill required to use OpenBSD, just the willingness to read the documentation. Performance, yes, we could even mention the lack of a UBC. Janizary 17:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. I was going to suggest UBC as an example too :-). NicM 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Thanks for your comments; I think your points are fair, in general. Restructuring the article layout and text so that it flows better has been on my list for a while, although I make no comment on whether it is too bad for a FA, just that there is scope for improvement. Unfortunately, it is quite a big job that needs to be done carefully and I can't seem to find the time. I'm not convinced that the text itself is as bad as you say, but perhaps we have different ideas of style; it may help if you would be good enough to list some of the most egregious examples.
I had also thought about the lack of detail about cryptography and documentation but a) as the article already covers the technical security topics in some length I was reluctant to add more, b) given the current structure, I wasn't sure just where to put them, particularly stuff on documentation, c) to my mind, they are less interesting and important than the unique security features OpenBSD has developed, but I'm not really interested in crypto so I would think that :-) d) as I'm not interested in the topic I don't really know what to say about crypto, so I was hoping someone else would do it :-).
DJB's software is still gone and will probably never reappear; the article doesn't say this, but nor does it say there was a reconciliation and it was put back in—it may indeed be better if it said this explicitly, I'll probably fix that now. The split from NetBSD was perhaps the most important event in OpenBSD's history (and a significant one in NetBSD's) so I don't think four paragraphs is too much. A section about criticism/problems is a good idea, notably, as you say, performance and usability; however, I don't think there is practically that much criticism of OpenBSD in these terms, most people (both users and non-users, and developers) seem to understand that speed and ease of use are not top priority, so I'm not sure how long such a section would be :-)... I did try to gather material for a section on criticism of OpenBSD's security record but I found it impossible to seperate real allegations and evidence from trolling :-/.
The biggest problem at the moment is probably the flow and structure. I think I'll start a discussion on the talk page to try to get a layout sorted out before trying to fix it. NicM 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC).
Oh, never mind about pointing out examples in the text, I see what you mean now. NicM 18:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Neutral (was: Oppose.) I think the fact the article contains a sentence like "The only available records of these events are an incomplete set of emails, published by Theo de Raadt on his personal site" is a rather concerning problem. The article indicates that this is a rather critical matter, but seems to concede the source used is unreliable. This wasn't something added just now. While I hate to be picky, frankly given recent extra attention/concern lately for verifiability and reliable sources at Wikipedia, I think it would be a mistake to endorse this article, and thereby accept it's sourcing standards. I think we want to feature articles that cite reputable published sources. This is especially true when saying something that reflects on a person's character (which the relevant paragraph does). I see other notes/references that are apparently from mailing list discussions, which have never been published (as far as I know) outside the mailing list. Now admittedly, this article is better sourced than most Wiki articles, there are many worse articles, and maybe there's good justification for everything. But, we shouldn't use it as an example of what we think is best. --Rob 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, most of the OpenBSD discussion and development takes place online, so almost all of the available historical sources are mailing lists and online articles. I understand what you are saying, but I do not think this criticism can be realistically met. Without expressing an opinion on whether or not they are good enough for a FA, I think the article's standards are as good as they can be—the section in question does explain the source is not backed up and provided by one side of the events. NicM 18:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC).
  • So you oppose it based on the fact that we cite an archive of e-mails? That archive used to be complete, but someone edited it, back when Theo still ran NetBSD. Hmmm, perhaps we could add the bit about some NetBSD developer cracking Theo de Raadt's webserver and removing some of the mail from that archive, not the nicest bit of history - but it was one of the reasons there is such bad blood between NetBSD and OpenBSD and is part of what got OpenBSD going into security. I don't think it the best thing to go into because that brings a bit more POV than I am able to neutralize. And I'd not say the source is unreliable, that it has been tampered with is a bit closer to the truth. It's a dump of e-mails that someone with a grudge took parts out of and it's hosted by the guy who was on one side of the argument - that there is noone saying another side of the argument more lends to the validity of the mails than anything for me. Anyways, as NicM says, everything done for projects like this is done in e-mail, not press releases unfortunately, so we can only deal with what we have. As it stands there is one source of information regarding it all, and that is the one from Theo - not citing it would probably be worse than not covering the matter. Janizary 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • When it comes to negative characteriztions, that can harm a person's professional reputation, and be deemed defamatory, email archives, are even less adequate then normal. Now, if a investigative journalist for reliable publication were to examine them, analysis them, and publish a report, supporting what's said here, then that would be an adequate source. But that hasn't happened, and we can't do original research, which is what would be required. I've also put a note on the talk page, as I do now feel, that no only should this not be FAc, but much of it should be removed. --Rob 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral (was: Oppose.) I gave a rather complete peer review months ago, which didn't go over well with them, so I'm not going to go into many specifics this time. I can on request take a closer look if they desire.
  1. POV/comprehensiveness issues - and I'm particularily dissapointed with the history section as I really wanted to see more here. A lot of the conspiracy theories are gone, which is great, but for such a pivotal event it is really kind of bare... also, IIRC the DARPA grant was revoked because Theo was working in Canada and grants were techinically supposed to fund US-only endeavors.
  2. writing issues - i.e. "The reasons for this event have never been fully and publicly explained"
  3. flow problems (esp. in the "Highlights" subsection).

WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • History was a lot less bare about the fork but was reduced because of repeating damaging claims with lack of sources. I've made a lot of structural and flow changes, and efforts to reduce the length, at User:NicM/OpenBSD that I'm going to use if nobody objects within the next few days, detailed comments on it would be appreciated if you have time, on my talk page for preference. NicM 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
  • GREAT! The beginning history is a lot better in terms of comprehensiveness but the writing isn't too good though :\. I'll try to change it myself if I have some spare time. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, any improvements are welcome. I do my best with the writing but I know it can end up a bit clunky :-). NicM 21:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
It looks a lot better now... WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral (was: Oppose.) The article is too focused on the social circles and personalities involved in the early history of OpenBSD, and not enough on its technical qualities or its architecture. OpenBSD is not a social club; it's an operating system. I've made a first shot at cleaning up and summarizing some of the history, but this article needs a lot of refocusing before it's featured. --FOo 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The personalities, particularly that of Theo de Raadt, is a very important and widely known aspect of the OpenBSD project, and most people do think (with some justification) that the fork was due to social issues (the core NetBSD world was small and tightly integrated at the time, and Theo was a skilled and very active contributor). In any case, I've already made a lot of alternative changes here, which I intended to merge this evening, please let me know what you think. I'll take a look at your modifications and see if I can include them, I do prefer parts of your simpler text. NicM 08:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
    • On another note, OpenBSD may not be a social club, but Wikipedia is equally not a technical manual, it is important to discuss social aspects where they are relevent. Particularly as so much of OpenBSD, and open source in general, is social. It is analogous to Wikipedia: the goal is to produce an encylopedia or operating system, but since it is being done by people, often in their spare time and often based on their beliefs, it can develop a large social component and personalities and relationships can become very important. NicM 08:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
      • I keep rereading my comments above and I'm not convinced I have really made my point: forgive me if I have and seem to be trying to hammer it home, I'm not. The thing is, OpenBSD is a unix-like and a BSD, all of which have basically the same architecture; I think this article should focus on the specific history of OpenBSD and what makes it different and noteworthy, namely license purity and security. This is not to say I'm not interested in seeing technical material added (although the emphasis in my restructuring was to remove material, not add it), I just don't think the current focus (my new version at least) is too far off the mark. NicM 13:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
        • I agree that Wikipedia is not a technical manual, and the history of OpenBSD as a project is interesting. However, the personality politics of Theo de Raadt are not nearly as interesting as the details of what OpenBSD is and how it differs from other BSDs and Unix systems. I think your recent changes are a definite improvement, and I withdraw my opposition. --FOo 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the comments and withdrawing your objection. Its slightly difficult because, as far as opinions go, Theo de Raadt is the project, so to explain the project's, especially the early history, you need to explain his, but I take your point, somewhat. I was just going to write a list here of how there weren't many differences and most of what there are, are things that are missing in OpenBSD, but I think I've just convinced myself to write a short section on technical differences: things, aside from security enhancements, OpenBSD has (pf, bioctl, there must be more), things it hasn't (a UBC, rc.ng, dynamic /dev & no *devsw, UFS2, SMP on non-i386) and things that are different (native threads, encrypted disks, supported platforms (<NBSD >FBSD)). Although, the reason for most of these being missing seems to almost always be one or more of the same three: no convincing reason to change existing solution, lack of developer time, or dissatisfaction with the solution of the other BSDs. I'll have to think see if I can come up with any more and where to put it in the article. NicM 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment Alright, the article has been restructured. This is the second time we've done one of them, hopefully it leads to a better overall article. Please everyone who's voted take another look to make sure you still agree with your previous opinion. Those interested in that further discussion and are looking for a quick-link, see here. Rob's change is marked in the history page, so I changed the image to make it easier to follow at a glance. Janizary 08:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Detailed and informative. Support. Dysprosia 09:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The article is to the point and informative. Overall this is a good article and a great reference. I also enjoyed reading the "history" part. Cmihai 07:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Article is informative, good work. --Terence Ong 14:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Lots of references and information. Gflores Talk 23:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I would determine what other articles an OS novice would have to read to understand this article and use the {{subst:preq}} prerequisites template. In addition, I would suppose that even if someone knows enough about operating systems to understand "BSD," "kernel" and similar terms, he or she might not know the background of NetBSD. For that reason, I would remove the mention of that OS from the lead paragraph and instead briefly explain it at the beginning of the history section. ("Theo de Raadt had been working on NetBSD, another open source operating system, when...") You also might want to spell out Berkeley Software Distribution on first reference just to be safe. -- Mwalcoff 02:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comment. I've made a few changes to the first paragraph, is this any better? I'll have a think about a list of prerequisites, have you got any particular suggestions? NicM 08:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
      • Okay, I've added a prerequisites box. Not entirely happy with its contents or position. Is it possible to make it appear beside the infobox? NicM 08:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
        • I've removed it again as the combination of it and the infobox is broken in IE6 and I don't know how to make it work. NicM 10:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
          • It does work, I had an extra blank line was screwing it up. NicM 11:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
            • Yes, that was the kind of thing I was talking about. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject matter to cast a vote, but it looks good to me. -- Mwalcoff 00:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I actually added to the history of NetBSD for that purpose, but really I thought the articles linked in OpenBSD gave most of the information needed to know what's going on in it. I'll see if I can convince a few random people on #wikipedia-en to read the article and see what they didn't understand to see if there is anything to add to the prerequisites. Janizary 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, of the three people I convinced to read the article, none seemed to think it was too over-the-top or complex, one didn't think the prereq box was needed, since those were linked in the article - with the exception of computer insecurity. Janizary 21:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Computer insecurity is linked in the article. It is about what you and I would call computer security (and is linked as such in the article), but that term has more specific meanings that are covered in the computer security article and mostly don't apply to OpenBSD (they do apply to the ACLs and MAC features in, eg, FreeBSD but not to most of OpenBSD's features). NicM 22:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC).
          • I think the prereq box is a good idea. Someone who doesn't know anything about operating systems would wind up on a wild link chase trying to understand the article without it. -- Mwalcoff 03:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epaminondas

Self nom. I've researched this extensively, and its been polished up with help from a peer review. It draws on every major ancient source and several modern ones, and I think it covers the topic as comprehensively as an encyclopedia article can. --RobthTalk 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Lead as one paragraph probably would be best broken into at least 2 paragraphs, and websites should be properly cited. AndyZ 23:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead: done.
  • Citing websites: I've changed the format to list the source website for each of the texts. I didn't want to describe them as being from those webites first and foremost, since they're originally print format, and I was using many of them in print form, but I also wanted to provide an online option in the references, since one was available.
  • Oppose. Unsourced, weasel terms, makes judgements that would be better left to the reader. JoaoRicardotalk 00:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've addressed your specific requests as best I can below. As far as sourcing, there are links in the footnotes to almost every passage from a major ancient historian that deals with him--anyone perusing the footnotes is a click away from the vast majority of the material I used to write this. I tried to minimize footnote clutter by using a few notes to cover large chunks of text, but I can put more in if people think that would be appropriate.
    • It's not unsourced, I don't see many weasel words, and any judgements made don't seem POV to me; they just seem a way to write in a style that isn't so dry. We shouldn't complain about brilliant prose. Quadell 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Upon reflection, I think I might have come across as rude there. I realize you wrote that about the article before several significant improvements were made, and although I disagree with your comment, I don't want to be dismissive. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The article draws on a wide variety of sources, ancient and modern. The referenced web links work and provide valuable information on the subject. I see no weasel words or preemptive judgments, just a solid, scholarly effort at a balanced presentation. As I said in peer review, this is an interesting, comprehensive article that will appeal even to those with little or no knowledge of ancient Greece. Definitely FA quality. Casey Abell 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
1."He revolutionized Greek warfare"
  • Changed to more descriptive wording.
2."Epaminondas, perhaps one of history's greatest idealists and liberators..."
  • Changed to factual statement about contemporary opinion.
3."His musical teachers were among the best in their respective disciplines, as was his dance instructor."
  • This one is just a factual statement; he had the best teachers available, according to our sources.
    • Then the factual statement is: "Source A says that his musical teachers were among the best in their respective disciplines, as was his dance instructor". We cannot assume the opinion of one source as truth, no matter how highly regarded it is. We simply present to the reader and let he judge for himself. JoaoRicardotalk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Only if it's disputed. If the statement is sourced, and there is no conflicting source, then it's not a POV problem. Quadell 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
4."Epaminondas was also noted for his physical prowess"
  • Again, this is a fact, recorded by Nepos.
    • Then say: "Nepos said that Epaminondas was also noted for his physical prowess", or "Nepos praised Epaminondas for his physical prowess". Same as above. JoaoRicardotalk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • See comment on sources below.
5."At this hour, Epaminondas's tactical genius first manifested itself."
  • This was too judgemental; I've removed it.
6."he rebuilt the ancient city of Messene on Mount Ithome, with impressive new fortifications"
  • Changed to "formidable." The point I'm trying to get across is that the new Messene was one of the most strongly fortified cities of Greece.
    • Then just write it. Say that Messene was one of the most strongly fortified cities of Greece, and cite your source. Don't you think this is better than vague adjectives like "impressive" or "formidable"? JoaoRicardotalk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right. Done. I didn't add a new cite, since that section is already cited to Fine, who is my source for that statement.
7."who had been imprisoned by the ambitious Alexander of Pherae"
  • Removed.
8."only the grateful Messenians remained firmly loyal"
  • Removed.
9."Epaminondas ranks high among the great men produced by the Greek city-states in their dynamic final century and a half of independence."
  • Changed to a factual statement about contemporary opinion, as above.
10."Some sources credit this innovative thinking to his early philosophical training."
  • This is a factual statement regarding sources; Victor Hanson goes on about this at great length.
    • Then say which sources. Atributing something to "some sources" makes it a weasel term. Say that "John Doe and Mary Doe credit his innovative thinking to his early philosophical training". JoaoRicardotalk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Done.
11."His voluntary poverty, insusceptibility to bribery, and unquestioning generosity won him great praise."
  • This is a factual statement, but I've reformulated it to make it more neutral.
12."In some ways, Epaminondas utterly altered the face of Greece during the ten years in which he was the central figure of Greek politics."
  • This is factual. The breaking of the centuries old Peloponnesian League, the creation of the Arcadian League, and the refounding of Messene were all his doing. He radically altered the political map of Greece.
    • Is this opinion yours? If it is, it's original research. Please mention in the article which scholars think so. JoaoRicardotalk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No. Hanson, Fine, and the OCD are all in agreement on this. It also represents the broader modern historical consensus. We have to draw a line between a totally unsourced article and one where every single statement is presented in the context of its source, which would be completely dry and unreadable. See comment on sources below.
13."He was celebrated throughout the ancient world as one of the greatest men of history."
  • Factual. See the Cicero quote in the paper; Nepos records very positive contemporary opinion. It's also clear from various scholiasts and other minor sources that Plutarch's biography of him was very laudatory.
    • Then say so in the text. It is more informative. JoaoRicardotalk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The next two sentences do exactly that. One is the Cicero quote, and one is his epitath, from Pasusanias. See comment on sources below. This statement, again, reflects the modern historical consensus.
I don't think there's any "modern historical consensus" that "the ancient world" consisted mostly of Greece and Rome. Monicasdude 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
14."Beyond a doubt, the career of Epaminondas brought welcome relief to the numerous Greeks who had suffered for centuries under Spartan domination."
  • Reformulated to more neutral statement, but it is factual that the Messenians nearly worshipped the man.
15."Some modern historians have suggested that Epaminondas may have planned for a united Greece composed of regional democratic federations"
  • Strictly factual statement of a modern opinion (to which I personally don't subscribe).
    • Then say which historians in the text. Ascribing this opinion to "some modern historians" makes it a weasel term. JoaoRicardotalk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Done.
JoaoRicardotalk 02:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

All interspersed bulleted responses in the sections above are mine. With regard to the wording concerns, I see where you're coming from. It has to be remembered though, that much of what I'm doing here is relaying the information we have from the sources we have, which tend to say a number of positive things about him. J.V. Fine's book gives a balanced and scholarly account, and I've modeled my approach on his in many regards. I just checked, and the Oxford Classical Dictionary describes him similarly. --RobthTalk 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The life of Epaminondas by Cornelius Nepos, already referenced in the article, lends strong support to most of these items. It's available for inspection through the web link. I agree that the bolded adjectives could be dropped with no impact on the article. Casey Abell 03:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Robth has responded to the objections ten thousand times better than I could, because he knows ten thousand times more about ancient Greece than I do. But even a novice like me can look at the Nepos link and the other web links provided in the article and see strong support for most of the disputed assertions, not to mention the rest of the article. The ancient sources do give Epaminondas a lot of credit for his intellect, integrity and military ability. I think Robth has gone the extra mile in making some verbal changes, and I support the article even more strongly now for FA status. Casey Abell 05:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Casey Abell, I would like to point out that I notice a certain aggressiveness in your comments above that is verging on the personal attack side. Please respect the opinions of others who disagree with you. Thanks. JoaoRicardotalk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, no aggression intended. I agree we should both back off from the use of loaded phrases like "weasel terms" and "weasel words." A much better way of expressing this idea would be "unnecessary qualifiers," followed by a list of specific qualifiers that could be removed. The idea is to improve the encyclopedia, not fight over the quality of articles. Anyway, I think your suggestions have been well-received by Robth and the article has benefited as a result. Casey Abell 16:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hummm, I wasn't aware "weasel terms" was a loaded phrase. I'm not a native speaker of English, and I came to know this term through Wikipedia. I didn't think it might sound aggressive or derogatory. I apologize if you or any other perceived my attitude as aggressive. JoaoRicardotalk 15:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, Outstanding article on a great, if a bit tricky to pronounce, name of Ancient military history that should be better known. Not only a brilliant tactician but a master of strategy, diplomacy and the relationship between the three. One point, though: Nowhere in this otherwise well writ and thoroughly researched work do I see mention of the fact a young prince named Philip from a, then, minor kingdom called Macedon, was Epaminondas' pupil. He was very much Phil's "Yoda" in teaching him the arts of war and statecraft, and hence argueably was Alex the Great's grandfather in a military sense. Also, and this is only a suggestion and in no way effects my support, if you could find or add an illustration showing Epami's maneuver at Leuctra, it would help. Most general readers are unfamilar with tactical terms and unable to visualize deployments, maneuvers and formations based on words alone. Some maps would be nice too. For Ancient Greece was a small, crowded, complex place full of Greek names...getting lost is easy even for those with some familarity. But still, GREAT JOB!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought about putting the Philip thing earlier, but decided against it at the time. The problem is that although there's been a fair amount of modern speculation on the subject (most notably by Victor Hanson), the only real ancient support for Epaminondas serving as Philip's teacher is a line in Plutarch where Plutarch states that he's merely speculating, and a rather ambiguous passage in Diodorus (who gives two completely different accounts of the matter at 15.67.3 and 16.2.2, undermining his reliability). The approach of most modern scholars has been to leave it out of their accounts (c.f. Fine and the OCD). If people think it should go in, I'll find somewhere to put it, although it'll have to be described as speculation rather than fact.
  • As far as illustrations, I've put in a diagram of Leuctra, which I think does a good job of showing what happened. I also added a map that I made from the one on the Peloponnesian War article. It's less than ideal, since it uses archaic spellings for many locations, but I think it does what it needs to do. --RobthTalk 15:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Great job on both the illustrations! I was going to recommend some diagrams I found on the Spanish and Polish Wikis, but you one you made is just as good, in some ways better. As for the Phil II reference, even if he was'nt a pupil of Epami per se, he clearly studied his campaigns and had a great (no pun intended) influence upon him. The use of cavalry (which had previously been largely the bastard child of Ancient Greek warfare), the deep-Phalanx, the Oblique or Echelon order of battle....In fact all the important hallmarks of his art of war were taken from Epami. So more than just creating the circumstances for the Macedonian conquests, he provided a blueprint for the means to achieve them. So it would'nt hurt to mention him, even if it is only speculation. Again, Great job! Sapere aude--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose until thoroughly copy-edited. It's well written in many ways, but someone needs to go through it and weed out the odd turns of phrase (e.g., 'his skill as a warrior and as a general'—a general is a warrior) and ambiguities (e.g., 'disdaining the wealth he could easily have secured by using his powerful position'). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony1 (talk • contribs). [13]
    • First off, sign your comments. Secondly, a general is not a warrior - a warrior is one who fights directly while a general directs others in a battle, and they require very different skills. Many generals in history were poor soldiers (warriors) and very few soldiers would make good generals. The latter comment doesn't seem all that vague, either - wealth is easily secured through holding positions of power. - Cuivienen 14:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose until copyedited. It's a great topic and a comprehensive article, but a strong copyeditor is needed to simplify some of the language and remove unnecessary qualifiers. --NormanEinstein 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Looks better now. --NormanEinstein 20:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I attempted to copy-edit the article, but was unable to find anything that needed changing. Quadell 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • All I can see on this issue are a few long sentences with semi-colons that could be broken into shorter units. An example would be splitting:
It seems certain that Epaminondas enjoyed the company of young men; given the fluid nature of Greek sexuality, however, drawing conclusions from this fact is difficult, and attempts to apply modern notions of sexual orientation to ancient Greek historical figures is an endeavor laden with pitfalls; only the facts as recorded may be stated with certainty.
into three (or even four) sentences at the breaks. I could go through the article and do that, if Robth wouldn't mind. But I have to admit, I like the prose as is. I'm a Henry James fan, and he wrote some long ones, too. (No sexuality implications intended.) As for the qualifiers, I'm not qualified (sorry) to decide if they're necessary or not. We're dealing with a guy who lived about 2,400 years ago, so some qualifiers would seem to be in order. Casey Abell 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Robth just split this sentence up, which is a quick response by any standard! Right now the article looks to me like a brilliant blend of shorter and longer sentences, very easy to read and always moving forward like one of those phalanxes. Casey Abell 19:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've gone through and given the whole thing a copyedit, and I think the most confusing sections are now much clearer. Another user has contacted me on my talk page to say that they're going to look through it in a little while. Anyone who wants to go through it or who sees something awkward should feel free to change it or tell me what they want changed. And now I'm going to make myself stop working on this (for a little while) and go do some of the things I've been neglecting while this has had my attention, like, say, buying my coursebooks for this semester... --RobthTalk 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just noticed this article spent 14 hours on Peer Review, from 7h (PR nom) to 21h (FAC nom) yesterday. I would have made all my comments above on the PR page if only I had had the time to do so. JoaoRicardotalk 14:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I jumped the gun on moving it over here. I saw that several other articles which had been on peer review for about as long had been put over here as well, so I did the same. --RobthTalk 15:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • 2 weeks is usually a good amount of time to leave an article on peer review before moving it here. That guideline isn't always followed, but it's a good idea. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support (Comments copied from Peer Review). Wow. That's some brilliant prose. I can't see anything that would prevent it from being a FA as is, although I would request that the "Battle of Mantinea" section be expanded. (It seems shorter than other sections, when considering its importance.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some legitimate concerns are being raised about comments on Epam., particularly by Nepos, that are stated in the article; however, this is something I devoted a good deal of thought to while writing the thing, and I think I have a solid reason for keeping much of it as it is.
Every single fact we list on this encyclopedia is actually the fact as stated by some source, but we don't preface every statement with "sources say." This becomes somewhat tricky when dealing with classical antiquity, since many sources are biased (Xenophon), of variable quality (Diodorus), or not primarily historians (Plutarch). However, one of the great accomplishments of classical scholarship in the 20th century was the creation of a solid consensus on how these sources are to be used. I've followed Fine and the OCD in my treatment, and they both follow the definitive scholarly works, a series of Classical Quarterly articles by a fellow by the name of G.L. Cawkwell.
I can see why you're concerned about the "good teachers" statement in particular, since calling something "good" seems to be passing down a judgement. We have to consider the seriousness of the judgement we're making, though. We use somewhat judgemental words all the time. "Decisive defeat," for example, is a judgemental statement, but we can use it so long as we're not editorializing on our own; as long as we're reflecting a sound consensus opinion, we can do it. In the new comment I made on Messene's fortifications, I refer to "strong fortifications," and I think we can agree you can say that. Why? Because the archaeologists who dug them up have looked at them and said, yup, strong fortifications alright. A balance has to be struck between strictly, literally, stating only self evident facts and writing a smooth piece.. The logical chain: 1. Nepos says his teachers were good, and 2. Consensus among historians says that Nepos can be trusted on this, so 3. The teachers were probably good is one that we don't need to write out in full. Its a small enough point that we can just say it, producing a more readable text. --RobthTalk 18:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. One of my acid tests of FA worthiness about a subject I know next to nothing about is whether an article - assuming it is properly referenced, which this one is - makes me feel like I know a lot by the end. This one certainly does. Outstandingly written, expressing an overall NPOV in exciting but non-"potboiler" prose. An excellent article if you know nothing, something or a lot about him. Some nice pictures, which is sometimes hard for an article of this type. I agree with you about the judgements; of course Wikipedia needs to be accountable, but not at the expense of readability. If an article uses a combination of inline citations and external link sources that is fine for me. Also, writing "scholar X says" before every statement would just make articles read like academic papers. Note that even the Britannica does not do this. Anyway, overall whole-hearted support. More classical civilisations articles like this and you never know I may even take enough of an interest to start writing them! Batmanand 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is good stuff, but I suggest it spends its time on WP:PR first. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
OK - since this is going ahead, a few comments: Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece says that "Epaminondas who is considered the greatest warrior-statesmen of ancient Greece by many such as the Roman historian Diodorus Siculus had two male lovers. His lovers were Asopichus and Caphisodorus, the latter died with him at Mantineia in battle. They were buried together, something usually reserved for a husband and wife in Greek society" (and similar comments in Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece) - should this be mentioned and a cross-reference be made? Pagondas draws a link between his inovative tactics at the Battle of Delium and Epaminondas at Leucra which is not mentioned. Another famous and unmentioned Epaminondas is the eponymous character from Epaminondas and His Auntie by Sara Cone Bryant (gosh! redlinks!). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I found the Csphisodorus reference--it's from Plutarch's Moralia, which doesn't exist online and has been published only in the Loeb edition, so good catch--and added it. I've also added a line about Pagondas's deep phalanx at Delium. I threw in the children's book in the disambig header. --RobthTalk 15:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've not enough time to give this article a thorough read-thru but I will say the following:
  1. I think a pronunciation guide is necessary given the difficultly most people have with the name
    • I don't know how to make a pronunciation guide, but if anyone else does I believe the correct pronunciation is eh-pam(like the spray)-in-on-dus, with the emphasis on the pam.
  2. I'm not particularly happy with the ancient references used. It is well known that both Xenophon & Plutarch's works contain serious factual errors & hence cannot be used as authoritative sources.
    • Nobody, least of all the historians who write on the period, is too happy with them. None of the sources for this period are ideal. I've used every relevant major ancient source, though, and I've followed scholarly convention in the degree to which I credit their statements. None of them are being treated as authoritative, and the article is a synthesis of the accounts from a number of different sources.
  3. The lead section needs some serious work both wrt copyediting & removing the purple prose ("smashing the power of Sparta," for example, does not belong in an encyclopaedia). Mikkerpikker 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've changed that line. I'm trying to have it be interesting as well as scholarly, and I don't think any of the rest is too out there.
    • With regards to the point above: I was completely unfamiliar with this process before the past couple of days, and I put this up on FAC much too quickly. I'm fine with taking it back to peer review to get it polished up over a longer period before bringing it back here, if other people think that would be best. If that's done, should I remove this myself or is that something the administrator of this page usually does? --RobthTalk 22:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it's a lesson learned, and you should apply it in the future. But the process seems to be working here, so I don't think we'd gain much by moving it back. Quadell 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is incredibly well written. But more importantly it strikes me as well sourced. I have only one suggestion—that when writers like Xenophon, Pausanias and Plutarch are cited, the fact that they are the sources for the assertion should be noted in the text: e.g., "Pausanias writes that"; "Xenophon asserts that"; etc. You may also wish to relocate the section on the spottiness of the ancient sources on Epaminondas: I would suggest putting it near the front, if not at the beginning, of the article's body—so that our readers know how Epaminondas' life has been reconstructed. Otherwise, though, an extraordinary article. Hydriotaphia 02:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as saying who says it, see my rationale on sources higher up. The idea about relocating the historical record section really appeals to me. I originally had that at the very end, but I moved it, because it was a weak note to go out on; nonetheless, I'm not quite satisfied with it at the current location. At User:Robth/sandbox I've rewritten it slightly and tried it out as the very first section. It's unorthodox, but I'm tempted. If nobody's too opposed, I think I'll put it in after a bit.
    • Now to Quadell's request earlier for more on Mantinea. He was right, but I couldn't think how to expand it for a while, until it occurred to me that Xenophon has a very quotable moment right about there, so that's in the article now. --RobthTalk 03:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The work that has been done on this article is incredible: only a few days ago it was a mediocre and messy article, now it's one of the best biographies of the web. Aldux 18:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. I've changed the placement of the historical record section per Hydriotaphia's suggestion. Also, Jengod has given it a very thorough copyedit, so hopefully this will address the concerns of those who wanted the text cleaned up a bit. --RobthTalk 01:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (Weaker) Object. Detailed discussions of individual battles should be more compressed. To the extent such details are notable, it would clearly be better to create a distinct section discussing his military innovations. And the article manifests a Eurocentric bias (as with the "ancient world" comment noted above; it also is too free in concluding that absence of surviving records to the contrary justifies assertions that some claims were not disputed, or that the subject was the first to toemploy a particular tactic. Monicasdude 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've changed the "ancient world" line, and although I didn't spot anything else, I'll be happy to change anything else that shows eurocentricity. I've changed a line that indicated universal support for a claim, and I've added a citation for his tactical invention (that claim is well documented, but I should have cited it earlier). Again, I couldn't find anything else in this vein that needed to be changed, but let me know if there is. I'd like to keep the battles as they are, though, since his significance is very much bound up with his ability as a military commander, and I think it fits better into the article as part of the chronological narrative than as a separate section on his abilities as a commander. Does this address your concerns? --RobthTalk 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Mostly, although I still think that the battle discussions are too long and don't focus enough on E's role. Still a few spots where the article isn't quite precise enough in distinguishing between "first" and "first recorded," and in referring to unanimity in histories (as opposed to surviving histories); but greatly improved on that point. Monicasdude 18:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Moreover, concerns about article length are, I believe, quite premature at this point. The article is only 33 KB, and of course this includes the diagrams and photographs. Hydriotaphia 11:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support – loved it. Anville 15:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Has improved greatly. Deserves to be a featured article. Gflores Talk 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I've done a little more copy-editing to make the style less ornate and more encyclopdic, but overall it's a great article. I do think that the sections with associated main articles could be condensed more, but I'll support it even without this change; it's a matter of taste.--ragesoss 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Epaminondas has long been a hero of mine and I've done extensive research on him over the last five years. Wikipedia which back then covered half this page talking about a game, was one of my first places I learned about him from. It was one of the first articles I read on wikipedia back when I didn't even know what wikipedia was. It stayed that way for several years but I came back yesterday and wow! I just want to say that not only is this a great wikipedia article its probaly the greatest source on Epaminondas available today. Considering most ancient sources just have him in the background and even Hanson's work pretty much ignores the Theban revolution and battle of Leuctra,and the 1911 Brittanica is awfully skimy, even more so in the modern version. This is one of the greatest wiokipedia achievements I've seen only a few weeks ago it was just 1911 jibberish now its the greatest biography of Epaminondas I've yet seen having read Plutarch, Xenopohon, Hanson and numerous books and websites. The only criticism I have is that the accusations of homosexuality seem unfair, very few of the ancient sources nor Hansons seem to support it. And the love of the sacred band seems more to be the kind of love implicit in democracy and in equality than in homosexuality.After all the criticisms and recent scandals at wikipedia I think this article really renewed my faith and really shows what the wiki system can achieve. Finally I just want to say the pictures are really impressive most I have never seen before.--Gary123 01:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur Radio Direction Finding

Self Nomination This sport is not very well-known in much of the English-speaking world. This article should be a good resource for anyone to find out what the sport is all about. It has been through a peer review, as well as sought-out expert review from non-Wikipedians.--Kharker 20:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Pictures need to have succint captions. AndyZ 21:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That can be easy enough to fix. Which specific captions do you feel are too verbose?--Kharker 17:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Most of them need to be fixed, since they are all rather long. AndyZ 20:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Spangineer or I have shortened the captions for most of the images. If you still have a specific concern about one or more of them, just let me know.--Kharker 17:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, though a few minor improvements could be made. The map in the history section is quite large for 800x600 screens, though it appears that readability would suffer if the map were shrunk. Perhaps reduce the size and add something to the caption saying "coutries in darkest greens began participating in the sport first, in the 1960s and 1970s, while countries in lighter greens began later" or something like that. The caption of the second image of that section might be shortened by incorporating the tidbit about Korea's first team into the article itself. The image next to the "Receiver equipment" could use a shorter caption, and so could the image in the lead. Second, is there a general ARDF organization portal that could be linked to instead of linking to every single country's page? And finally, I'd suggest changing the footnoes to the system described at m:Cite/Cite.php. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've shortened the captions you suggest and made the map image slightly less wide.
    • I could work on a list of countries in ARDF article, or something like that, but I probably won't have the time to get to it until later this week.--Kharker 17:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The article itself doesn't necessarily need a listing of when individual countries got involved. The map does a nice job of that. The second paragraph of the history section is good enough as well. My second comment above was related to the the external links section (sorry for the confusion)—at the moment, it's got alot of links, and it'd be nice if there was one ARDF page that contained links to every country's individual page, so that we could link to that one page instead of each individual one. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I found two links that together cover links to all the countries' web sites that were originally in the External Links section.--Kharker 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Citations changed to use m:Cite/Cite.php format.--Kharker 20:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments 1. please reduce the width of the images. In lower resolutions they take up almost all the space. Keep it between 240-270px. 2. Place images after a heading, not before. This keeps the sectional [edit] button in its proper place. 3. =Entry categories= has a list that uses hyphens. Use the &mdash; instead. 4. =References= should not be split up using sections. Use the semicolon to create a non-sectional heading instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The width of the images over 270 pixels have been reduced, except for the map, which was reduced, but I think reducing it all the way to 270 pixels would adversely affect readability.--Kharker 17:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Images are now placed after headings.--Kharker 17:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • &mdash; now used.--Kharker 17:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Semicolon now used in place of subsections.--Kharker 17:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --maclean25 05:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] €2 commemorative coins

Most up-to-date and comprehensive resource on this topic available. Self-nomination. Has undergone internal peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. —Nightstallion (?) 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. No references, and this is a list. When referenced, it should be nominated to featured list candidates. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Lots of references – links to the Official Journal of the EU for every coin and for the intro paragraphs, plus external links which serve as references. Are you positive that this is a list? I was rather sure it was an article... —Nightstallion (?) 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • This isn't a list; however it is an article formed of several lists, many of which should be converted into prose if possible (especially 1st section). AndyZ 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The referencing is much nicer. . I still think that this is a list. Some other people have also thought that, such as KTC. I'd like to point out that right now there is no consensus in this discussion as to whether this is a list or not. If it is not a list, then the sections written as a list should be converted to prose if possible. The lead needs to be expanded. It should summarize everything else. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Lead expanded, 2006 issues changed to prose, Bundesländer series changed to table. Better? —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Many articles about coins and currency appear to be lists because they must cover several types and variations of the same denomination in order to maintain a broad historical and geographic perspective. This article is more than a list, and it meets the featured-article criteria. Please note that it does cite its sources via in-line citations, references for each coin in the table, and a couple of supplementary references at the end of the page. --TantalumTelluride 20:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the following concerns 1) Lacks in-line citations other than embedded HTML links. The embedded HTML links in the article need to be converted into proper citations, while sections without any form of in-line citation need citations added.
    What's not proper about them? They link to the source directly, and also clearly state where to they're linking... How would you prefer them to be cited?
      • Should be properly cited, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. AndyZ 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The key for changing the embedded HTML links is to provide enough information that if the page that is linked to is moved or deleted then a fact checker would still have a fighting chance to locate a copy of the source. This means information like the name of the cited work and who wrote it is vital to a proper citation. --Allen3 talk 02:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I've converted the in-text citations to footnotes style, and (correct me if I'm wrong) I think enough information is given for fact checkers to find alternative versions of the sources, all of which are excerpts from the Official Journal of the European Union. --TantalumTelluride 04:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          I have expanded the citations you added by adding the name of the journal that published your sources. I still do not see any references supporting the inormation in the 2006 coinage or German Bundesländer series sections. --Allen3 talk 12:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 2) The volume numbers for individual coins needs to conform with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) instead of using what appears to be a non-English language abbreviation (mio).
    I still haven't been able to find the correct abbreviation for "million" in English, neither on Wikipedia nor in the first few dictionaries I could get my hands on. I changed it to "million".
  • 3) The listings in the references section need to be converted from simple HTML links into full citations. See Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style for examples.
    Done.
  • 4) This article is composed primarily of lists and needs to either be converted into prose or else moved to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. --Allen3 talk 21:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    This is where I don't agree. The only list is the list of planned coins for the German Bundesländer series; the "2004 issues" and "2005 issues" section are not lists, but prose formatted in tables for easier reading. —Nightstallion (?) 21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Is it delistified enough for you now? —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I am removing my last objection (too list like) because of the work to minimize the list like characteristics, but things have not gone far enough for me to support the article. --Allen3 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ObjectNeutral for now until I take a stance. Following previous objections, the article doesn't contain any in-line citations, perhaps in the form of Footnotes. The references in the long list of coins should be converted into footnote format and then be referenced to at the bottom of the page; the reference column takes up a lot of space in the article. The listsbullets in the "Extracts of the Official Journal of the European Union" and "2006 coinage" should definitely be converted into prose. AndyZ 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Mh. IMHO, either of those two sections can be presented best in this way, since it makes for easier reading... IMO, they're not lists simply because they use bullet points. You're invited to explain how the two sections could be reformatted to being full prose without becoming less easily readable.
      • Okay, technically they are not lists, but they are written in list format. I still think some of the bulleted items should be converted into prose. In references, I think generally the date of the creation/last updated goes behind the website itself. Finally, the lead is way too short. One sentence isn't good enough for a lead. AndyZ 21:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Mh. WP:CITE gives the date after the name of the author. Lead expanded. —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    Regarding the references, either TantalumTelluride or I will change their formatting until tomorrow. Thanks for your input! —Nightstallion (?) 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Lead is better now, though personally I think it could use some work work. Some of the references (like the percentages) are unreferenced. And €100 in Vatican City for a €2 coin? Where's the reference for that? Just a small thing, the table is slightly misaligned with the Images column. AndyZ 20:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
        Mh. I think I can find a reference for the percentages. Regarding the €100 for the Vatican City's coins — yeah, that's true, but I don't know what to use as a reference for that; an on-line shop? eBay? shrugs I'm thankful for any ideas you might have...
        Furthermore, what do you think should be improved in the intro? And what do you mean by "the table is slightly misaliged"? Thanks for your input! —Nightstallion (?) 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
        The percentages are actually already referenced in the OJ excerpt. —Nightstallion (?) 11:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Maybe it doesn't happen on your computer; on my computer the first column for all of the coin images is slightly misaligned with the top header word "image". Nothing important though. I'll look through the article again later. AndyZ 02:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite ready to support this article yet, though this is going to be pretty difficult to completely address. Overall, the impression of the article is that it simply is a long list of coins with a bit of information about the coins and their worth and when they were issued. It feels like something else still has to be added to it in order to be further through-ed, I'll see if I can think of some things that should be added to the article. Again, I still feel that the lead is a tiny bit short, since the leads of most FAs are at least 2 paragraphs (this article is slightly different because it is relatively shorter than most other FAs), but I guess the lead could be worked on a tiny bit more. AndyZ 23:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Mh. What do you think should be added to the lead? If you could make more precise requests as to what should be added, I'd be happy to comply. Thanks for your input! —Nightstallion (?) 06:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: First of all I think this is no list. I get the impression the layout is a bit messy and hard on the eyes for reading. Are you planning to use the reference column in the "2005 coinage" section? (empty at the time of writing) Do you plan to use a similar column in "2004 coinage"? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clearing up the issue with the references column. Now, I think the first section can be converted into prose without too much issue. The lead also needs to be expanded. And leaving a space between a coin description and the next coin may help readability of the table. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Lead expanded, table spaced up. —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: TantalumTelluride has converted the article to use footnote style citations, so that should be adressed; if you still think certain sections need references, tell me which ones in specific, and I'll find some. Regarding the list issue: I don't think it matters whether information is presented with bullet points or without bullet points, the content matters; and the content is obviously not a list in either of the two sections cited above. The "German Bundesländer series" section is clearly a list, but articles can and should contain lists when called for IMO. —Nightstallion (?) 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I forgot to remove the extra reference column from the 2005 table. I moved all of the in-text references to footnotes linked via the superscript numbers at the end of each coin's description, so the column is no longer necessary. --TantalumTelluride 07:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I added references for the two last sections (please correct the format if it's wrong, and I'm sorry that they're in German, but there aren't any others I could find on short notice); I de-listified the first section; and I inserted spaces into the table. If you insist that the "2006 issues" section really should not be in list form, I'll delistify that, too. Apart from that, I don't really know of anything else that you objected to, so could you all change to support now? =] —Nightstallion (?) 13:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It wasn't clear to me that these coins were for collecting only until I read it in euro coins. Maybe it's a good idea to state the obvious? Also, that section title "Extracts of the Official Journal of the European Union" just sounds strange, it doesn't tell the reader what the section is about. JoaoRicardotalk 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Stated the obvious, section title changed. Good? —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object, one single sentence is not enough of a lead for FA. While I very much like the page, I feel this qualify more as a Feature list than a FA. If this was relisted under FLC, I'll be more than happen to support it (assuming I know it's been relisted under FLC of course). -- KTC 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Neutral, I'm still not sure about the list thing. So I'll just abstain. -- KTC 23:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Lead expanded. List issue... well. I've delistified as much as I could. If you still think it's a list, there's not too much I can do about it, is there? —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Lead expanded. 2006 issues and Bundesländer series sections delistified; the first by converting it into prose, the second by making tables. The flags in the tables are, of course, not necessary, so if you think they detract too much attention, I can remove them; I just thought it added a bit of colour. ;) If there's anything else I can do (any info that should be in the lead not there yet?), tell me. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 07:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support All my comments have been addressed, thanks. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Would like to see more prose, but I suppose this is the next-best thing. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: We now have native support for footnotes. Footnote3 should be deprecated, IMO, as this new format allows section editing and proper previewing of edits. :D Johnleemk | Talk 10:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      Even after reading that page, waiting a few days, and reading it again, I don't really understand how it works... ^_^;; Could you help me with implementing it into this article? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
      Done. I hope you get the gist of how it works now. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      Aaah... Yes, I think I got it. Thanks a lot for your help! —Nightstallion (?) 11:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is a great list (it would sail through WP:FLC) but it does not contain enough "brilliant prose" for me to support it as a featured article. On the other hand, it does what it does well, so I will not oppose it. -- ALoan (Talk)
  • Support After most issues have been addressed, this is a very nice article. Definatly not a list. The tableing is alittle awkward, but I think it makes you look at it more closely. Joe I 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    How do you think the tables could be improved? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This statement needs to be referenced: Typically, the actual worth of these coins is slightly above the nominal value (between €3 and €12). The extreme cases are San Marino and the Vatican City: Coins from the former are sold regularily for between €30 and €40, while it is nigh impossible to obtain coins from the latter for under €100. Also, there should be a little more information on how collectors have reacted to the coins; most of what's in the article is just press-release stuff. If this is included, I will support. Andrew Levine 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    Mh. If only I knew were to find info on collectors' reactions... ;) Any suggestions? Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 05:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT This article shows important coinage and numismatic information and should appear as Today's featured article ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.97.237.157 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Vivien Leigh

Self nomination. Biographical article on the noted British actress. I've expanded this considerably over the past few weeks, and have referenced everything. I think it's comprehensive and balanced, and I thank anyone who takes the time to consider it. Rossrs 05:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong support I nearly nominated this myself when I chanced upon the article a few days ago. It's thorough, balanced, and referenced. The writing and presentation are exceptional. Durova 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wow. I agree with Durova. That is a great article. Forever young 07:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Contains an excess amount of fair use images and copyright status of Image:VivienLeigh1958.jpg (top) is inconsistent. It is claimed as both public domain and copyrighted, free use. If the copyright issues are worked out, I'll gladly support. Also, an online source is given but there is no direct URL or instructions about how to find the image.(vote changed by Superm401 | Talk 21:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)) Thorough, well-referenced, and unbiased. An excellent article. Superm401 | Talk 21:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Image:VivienLeigh1958.jpg is actually "copyrighted any purpose". User:Rossrs uploaded the file to en: even though it is (correctly) hosted at Commons. I'll be deleting the duplicate image here in a minute. I also added that direct link to the Commons image description. Jkelly 19:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the image Jkelly. I had a feeling it wasn't quite right but I wasn't sure how to fix it. Appreciate your help. Rossrs 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Five fair use images seems a reasonable number to me given the difficulty of obtaining free ones for the subject. Andrew Levine 18:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Free image really is free, and the Fair use rationales for the other images seem correctly-done. Referencing is good, article is well-written and comprehensive without delving into trivia. Substantially better than many existing WP:FAs. "Good job!" to all involved. Jkelly 19:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, the section "Theatre and film performances" is ridiculously short and doesn't fit there—it looks like an afterthought. Incorporate the content into the article, and put Vivien Leigh chronology of stage and film performances in a "see also" section if it can't be inserted anywhere else. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
It was actually intended to be a variation of a "see also" section so that the article would not be overwhelmed by the inclusion of a list of credits, as some articles are, and with a paragraph to place it into context. I agree it looked somewhat clumsy. It doesn't fit into the article itself, so is it ok now? Rossrs 07:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks better now. Support. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; well-written; great article. (Ibaranoff24 23:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
  • Support. Gorgeous. Ambi 06:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yagan

This is the most complete resource on Yagan in existence. It is thoroughly researched, well-written, neutral and stable. Self-nom. Drew (Snottygobble | Talk) 11:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Yes, it is a really great article about an Aboriginal folklore belief and is all the things the self-nom said. --EuropracBHIT 12:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Support. Excellent job by Snottygobble. I'm certain he's correct that this is the most comprehensive coverage of the subject compiled. It contains a great deal of information, is well-structured, well-written and well-referenced. And a fascinating topic. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This looks great, but aren't there any good external links? --Spangineeres (háblame) 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The only links that would in my opinion improve the article are already in the references section (as [15] and [19]). Drew (Snottygobble | Talk) 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Would it make sense to create an external links section and include those links in it, so that someone less interested in going through the references has a chance at seeing some other online information? Just wondering. Nice use of inline citations, though I'm not a fan of reference number 3 being used twice in three lines. But as I said before, great article; I support. --Spangineeres (háblame) 05:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Personally, I think not, but we can do that if there is consensus to do so. Thanks for the duplicated reference point; that's fixed now. Drew (Snottygobble | Talk) 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support—This is good. Tony 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the most brilliant Wikipedia articles I've ever read on a subject that we wouldn't usually see covered well. Ambi 23:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support excellent article, and probably the definitive online source for the topic.--nixie 00:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It has everything necessary for a feature article. Captain Jackson 04:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A very good article that deserves to be a featured article. Bduke 05:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support an absolutely brilliant article. Great work Drew!--cj | talk 06:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent work. jengod 07:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I replaced the blockquotes with wikicoded indents and italicized them to make them stand out as quotes. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    What's wrong with <blockquote>?--cj | talk 10:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Reverted to <blockquote> per WP:MOS#Quotations -- Ian ≡ talk 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I can't vouch for the content, but it appears to be well-researched and well-referenced. Writing is fine and it certainly helps countering systematic bias. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. An excellent article on a fascinating part of West Australian history. Nachoman-au 11:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done! Kaisershatner 18:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, an excellent article, well written, interesting scope, well-referenced--A Y Arktos 19:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Astrokey44|talk 23:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - well written and referenced, contains appropriate illustrations. very good job in every aspect and meets all criteria. Rossrs 13:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • support per Rossrs et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Durova 23:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well done! - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, Bravo! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment: this and several other recent nominations appear to be setting a new standard for FAs; it's great to see! Tony 11:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good stuff DaGizzaChat (c) 03:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: this is a very comprehensive article, with the best use of footnote references that I've seen on Wikipedia. Personally I'd like to see the "Relations with Settlers" section be split up into sub-sections, but still a great article none-the-less. -- Matthew kokai 09:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Support in agreement with above suggestion that that section be subdivided. It's a long narrative that's tiring on the eyes otherwise. Daniel Case 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I have split up the section into sub-sections, though not quite in the manner suggested by Matthew at Talk:Yagan. Is this satisfactory? Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 03:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a very good article which is neither too long or short. It deserves what it has. --Terence Ong 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent work. gummAY 05:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Charming Man

Partial self-nomination. Worked on this with a few other users (notably User:Hn) and I feel it fits the criteria for featured article status. Live Forever 06:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Approval. Very well written article, should be a standard for other song/singles articles. --CJ Marsicano 06:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Live Forever has done an excellent job with this article, making it both comprehensive and well-written. --Hn 06:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Object for now. Agree that it's mostly very well written. Well written. Nice, concise style that covers everything important without going off into trivia. Well structured, well illustrated, and partly well referenced. Meets all criteria as far as I'm concerned. Rossrs 09:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) I've changed some wording to remove colloquialisms, repetition of words etc, but I think the following needs to be looked at:
  1. "Composition and meaning" - conclusions such as "The bicycle is a metaphor for the protagonist's bisexuality" need to be reworded. It's not clear who is drawing that conclusion - Morrisey, the author of the article, or someone else who is not referenced. Or does it run into the following paragraph with comments attributed to reference 6?
  2. "Music videos and performance" - "both fairly rare"? does that mean the videos are rarely seen, or were not screened very often when they were released? Please reword so that it's less ambiguous
  3. "Influence and praise" includes 4 quotes/comments, none of which are referenced. also no references for the Q Magazine and UNCUT polls in the lead paragraph
  4. "Format and tracking listings" - "These are the formats and track listings of major single releases of "This Charming Man". As an opening sentence, it reads a little bit like the introduction to a classroom presentation. It's very jarring against the otherwise good standard of writing. Perhaps it would be better at the end of the paragraph right before the formats etc, are listed.
  5. All the image pages, including the image page for the sound sample need to be complete as per Wikipedia:Image description page with regard to identifying the copyright holder and providing a fair use rationale. While these things are not enforced a lot of the time, for a featured article to be "the best of Wikipedia" these details need to be addressed.
  6. Not sure how to fix this bit, but the first paragraph is a bit overwhelming and cluttered with BBC Radio, Q Magazine and UNCUT comments all jammed in together. Perhaps they would work better at the end of the lead section rather than the beginning. Especially because from a chronological point of view, they are polls that have been conducted fairly recently looking back at the song, so putting this after an actual description of the song/songwriting etc would make it stronger. If you move it to the end of the section, perhaps including the years the polls took place would help, and of course references. Rossrs 08:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1. It does run into the following paragraph with comments attributed to reference 6, but I will add the words "widely considered" to clarify either way. Live Forever 18:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
That is an example of a weasel term. The statement needs to be backed by a comment from a prominent critic (with reference) to this affect. The Catfish 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've taken out the "weasel term" and referenced the same source as the paragraph that immediately follows it. Live Forever 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
the problem now is that the link is dead, so we can't refer back to it anyhow. was it actually said by a reviewer or a critic that can be named in the article? Rossrs 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Its actually not dead, its just that the references are out of sync because there are 10 sources referenced 13 times. Reference number 4 doesnt lead to the 4th source in the reference section but the 6th: http://www.oz.net/~moz/lyrics/thesmith/thischar.htm. I've just fixed it. Live Forever 02:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks, that link is fine. The problem is still that the reference is attributed to a Stuart James, who may or may not be someone credible. He scores zero google hits, so I'd say probably the latter. Have a look through this Manchester Evening News and see if by slightly rewording the text and using this as a reference you can come up with something that works. You could perhaps use this one also BBC to underline that Morrissey and his lyrics are frequently sexually ambiguous. Hope this helps - I've spent ages going through sites trying to find something, because "Stuart James" has me worried, and I do want to see this nomination succeed. Rossrs 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the citations - if you use the same source, you need to use the same number, and not actually "count" the number of references. ie if Rogan is number 10, he must always be number 10, so that it's clear which source is being cited. at the moment the numbers don't match up. You've got Rogan as number 10, and number 13. So if someone's looking at "cite 13" in the article it goes nowhere. It means the numbers don't necessarily run in sequence, and they get repeated, but that's ok. I used the same format in Sharon Tate - I feel I'm explaining this badly, so have a look there and you'll see what I mean - they're out of sequence in places but each one links to the right source. The main reference I used is the one at number one, and you'll see how frequently "(1)" is scattered through the article. Rossrs 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
O.k., I think that I've now fixed all problems with the references. Live Forever 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they're looking great now. Rossrs 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've searched everywhere and this is the best I can find, off of Google books [14][15]. Live Forever 03:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The google results are getting onto the right track. I'm concerned that about 25% of the article is interpretation of lyrics, and unfortunately most of it is sourced from blogs and what looks like some bloke with an opinion but no credentials, and as such it is just not an acceptable source. This is a big problem, and I'm surprised nobody else can see it. I've gone into the talk page and put a couple of paragraphs that can be sourced back to various articles. It's nowhere near as good as what you've written - what you wrote was beautifully written - but at least it can be verified. It's up to you - maybe you could keep the first and last paragraphs, and get rid of paragraphs 2, 3 or 4. Failing that, I don't know. Anyway, over to you. Rossrs 05:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually liked what you wrote on the talk page. I've taken out the paragraphs in question and replaced it with what you had. I hope its all o.k. now. Live Forever 05:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it. It all looks good now. Changing to support! Rossrs 09:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I meant "rarely seen". Will clarify. Live Forever 18:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
3. I've added references to all except Q, which I removed (even though it is credible).
4. Changed according to your suggestion. Live Forever 18:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
5. But they are... aren't they? All images give the source and copyright status / rationale. Live Forever 18:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
no, they weren't. they had the source and were correctly tagged. As far as the other - it was covered in a generic way, while it should be specific, especially for a featured article. I've added the copyright and fair use rationale anyway, so it's fine. Rossrs 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Fixed according to your suggestion. Live Forever 18:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting article. Well written with extensive research.--Dado 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight Oppose I now SUPPORT. Is there anyway you can change the "Formats and track listings" sub sections into a colourful table. If you did that I'll change my vote to neutral. If you generally expand & polish the article, maybe add a few more external links & such, I'll change my vote to support.... Spawn Man 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Any ideas as to how exactly the "Formats and track listings" sub section can be turned into a "colourful table"? Or is there an example somewhere on Wikipedia that could be used? Also if you could be a little more specific as to how the article could be expanded and polished, that would be nice. For an article on a song it seems quite comprehensive to me. P.S. Hello fellow Wellingtonian. :)--Hn 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Right now the "formats and track listings" subsections are pretty muck Wikistandard for WP:ALBUM and WP:SONG - Not to mention they're cleaner and easier to read than a table. --CJ Marsicano 06:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree, the way it stands now is excellent, no need to add a colored background to every vaguely tabular set of information. Table formatting is not very useful when the table would only contain one column. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Well my only concern is that nearly half the article is taken up by the "Formats and track listings" sections, a section where most people would find boring & not really interesting or needed. Imagine, if you deleted that part, would you be left with an excellent FA? Maybe a comprehensive article for a song, but by no means a FA. That's my sole opinion, & although I may get ridiculed for it, I'm standing by my original decision until the whole text portions of the article are beefed up. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Spawn Man, I've tried my best to "beef up" the whole text portions of the article. I've added all the information I could find on google books and a number of quotes that would fit in. I honestly feel this is about as comprehensive an article on the subject as could be expected. I hope its enough for you to at least change your vote to neutral. Live Forever 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I will never change my vote to neutral. Instead I will change it to support. Well done on a great article. Spawn Man 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well structured and well written. Faultless article.Thethinredline 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent article. Interesting, informative and well written. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 21:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for my first real test: this is an excellent article about a widely-recognised piece of innovative and influential pop music, and does indeed fulfill the criteria for FA, but... this is still an article about a readily purchasable commercial product. We may well be validating more than Morrisey/Marr's genius by promoting this article, as it may be construed as advertising better left to dedicated fan sites. This really pushes the gripe to the absolute limit, and it hurts to type this here. --HasBeen 11:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Has, you say that about every music-related article that comes up for FAC. *elbow to the ribs* --CJ Marsicano 13:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • While I think HasBeen's line of reasoning has merit, this comment should be brought up on WP:TFA if and/or when this passes FAC. - The Catfish 04:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I am a stuck record, it's true, but a consistent, direct approach might yet help deter potential PR abuse of wikip... --HasBeen 09:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article. Perhaps a little on the short side, and Rossrs' first objection could probably do with being fixed, but it's still well worth supporting. Ambi 23:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.Object over WP:NOR problems. Example: Musically, the song is defined by Marr's bright jangle pop guitar riff and Morrissey's characteristic vocals. The rhythm section of Andy Rourke and Mike Joyce provides an unusually danceable beat, featuring a motownesque bassline. Who describes that as the definition of the song? Us? Same with The "New-York" mix by DJ François Kevorkian was not a fan favourite. Also These are the formats and track listings of major single releases of "This Charming Man". needs rephrasing. Jkelly 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. FOUL! You claim that this is violating WP:NOR, but how were the writers supposed to write about the recording without listening to it?. The record itself is a primary source. As for the other objection, I don't think the line about the Kervorkian remix would be hard to prove. --CJ Marsicano 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
?!? Jkelly 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
        • [[User:Cjmarsicano|CJ Marsicano], I think you're misinterpreting WP:NOR. Phrases like "unusually danceable beat" might very well apply, but they need to have a source (and probably an inline cite) of a notable critic who expressed that sentiment. Otherwise it is original research. - The Catfish 04:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I've added sources to the sentences you mentioned, removed the questionable line in the track listing section. I really think this is taking it a bit far though. Yes: for a Smiths song "This Charming Man" is unusually danceable, largely because it features a Motownesque bassline. Yes: the song is characterized by Marr's jangle pop guitar riff and Morrisey's characteristic vocals. These are things that anybody who listens to the song and is somewhat familiar with the band can recognise. Should I also provide a reference for it being an "up-tempo pop song"? Either way, I hope you like the article now after these changes. Live Forever 05:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the citation issues quickly. I notice, however, that the referencing is now broken -- the inline external links are interfering with the ref-note system. I may, no promises, be able to fix that myself if I get some uninterrupted time. Jkelly 18:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
JKelly, I have completely fixed the references now according to the native footnoting format suggested below. I believe they are now perfectly fine. Live Forever 21:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak object. Would prefer to see the native footnoting format used, as it avoids the icky problems that the template-based workaround is very susceptible to, like the external linking problem mentioned, and section editing. Let's replace "--" and similar variants with &mdash (—). Also, is there any negative criticism of the song? Support. Johnleemk | Talk 10:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I have redone all the references according to the native footnoting format. Regarding negative criticism, of the five different original reviews I've found of the single, all were positive. The song was met with pretty much universal critical acclaim. Live Forever 21:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Superb, informative article that is well researched. --Davis "Suede" Hurley 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Solid support. I did some minor copyediting because the article drew me in well enough to read it closely and I learned a few things I didn't know. After "Layla" became an FA, it's about time a more Gen-Xy song got up there, too. Looking forward to seeing it on the main page. Daniel Case 03:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not looking forward to having to get in the way...--HasBeen 09:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Then go ahead and do it. Daniel Case 04:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Mexico

Before I got my hands on the article, it almost looked like a copy and paste job from the Flags of the World website. Now, with the help of User:Titoxd, User:Rune.welsh, User:Marcuse and User:Drini, and a few others, I managed to work my magic on this article. [16]. While it did have a peer review, with most things answered by me, I still think there could be some polishing and maybe a double check of the Spanish to English could be done. I also written two four articles on this subject, one of the flag flying days and the giant flags you see in Mexico a lot, so the article looks consise and also complete. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 01:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment; it doesn't make much sense to name the citations as numbers, since they will get all mixed up anyway as things are added or removed. They're already one off. More comments on the way, I'm nearly ready to support. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm still new to this format, it was changed to this from {{ref}} and {{note}} with my permission. I'll toy around with it until I get everything right, but I am going to go seek some help. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 02:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No problem, I see now how it's working. No need to make any changes unless you decide to use the same reference for two citations. Anyway, a few more things: according to our own article on the PRI and what I've heard somewhere else (sorry, can't remember where), it's illegal to use the colors of the Mexican flag for political purposes, such as in a logo. That hasn't stopped the PRI, however. There should be some sort of reference to this law. Also, what text needs a check from Spanish to English? The quotes that appear to have been translated don't come with the original Spanish text, so I can't verify your translation. You mention that the flag change in 1968 was based on the Summer Olympics—was that because of the increased international attention or related to something else like the Tlatelolco massacre? Is the list of example locations of Banderas monumentales complete? I seem to recall seeing one of them in one of the cities surrounding Guanajuato. It might have been one of the semi-monumentales ones though. One more thing—I seem to recall that there was significant debate over whether the eagle in the coat of arms should face right or left, so that might be mentioned in the history section. --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I do not think there was a law passed, because if that was the case, the PRI would have changed their logo. I'll check my references again. As for why the change of the flag design in 1968, I do not know why it was changed exactly due to the increased international attention or the second event you said. As for the list of the locations of the banderas monumentales, I created an article separate from this one and that one, which is at Banderas monumentales, has a full list of all of their locations. I just did not want the article to become list heavy, so I forked. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 03:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
          • The great thing about Mexico is that the PRI wouldn't change their logo due to the minor detail of illegality. All kinds of stuff is illegal in Mexico, but no one pays attention. The PRI had such a stranglehold on that country that they could do whatever they pleased. I'll try to find a reference for that in particular. As for banderas monumentales, I'd remove the list from this article entirely—maybe add a few more examples to the prose and then forget it, since it doesn't make sense to me to have a list that includes 70% (or whatever) of the members of a set.--Spangineeres (háblame) 05:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Mostly right, but there was no law passed on the issue, since it was killed in the PRI-dominated Senate of the time. At some point during the debate/scandal I believe the PRI argued that PRD having an almost identical logo to its own could confuse people while at the polls. Since PRI was the oldest party, it would have been allowed to keep its logo by the Federal Electoral Tribunal. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 23:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 1) The "Coat of Arms" section does not belong here. This article is about the flag, not about the official symbols of Mexico. 2) No source for the original and new meaning of the colors. 3) No source for the claim that the secularization of the country was spearheaded by Benito Juárez. 4) No source for the information on the Standard of the Virgin of Guadalupe. 5) No source for Morelos' flag. 6) Overlinking, such as linking for the month April or for gold when mentioning this color--which is also incorrect, since it should link to Gold (color). 7) I'm uncomfortable with this article relying so heavily on the Flags of the World website. Is that a credible source? As far as I know, people are able to add information there without any reviewing mecanism. Oh, wait a minute, that's exactly what we do here. Nevermind. JoaoRicardotalk 03:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • 1) nuked; 2) added a book that I own; 3) nuked; 4) http://www.tareasya.com/noticia.php?noticia_id=4268; 5) same as four; 6)i'll try to trim down the links; 7) While I wish to say that FOTW is pretty accurate, this is really the only sources that I have that are in English and that their links work. There were other great sites, but most of them became 404's and others just copy from FOTW. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • As for sites becoming 404, does anyone know if there is any policy regarding the use of the Internet Archive to provide external links? JoaoRicardotalk 04:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I was asked to use the way back machine when I was sending BRSM through this same process, mainly since it dealt with specific information. If you think that the article could benefit from using the way back machine to add some references to the article, then we should use it. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The coat of arms does belong here because it is right in the middle of the flag! It is ridiculous to have an article about the Mexican Flag and not say what it means. The source for the entire history section - from the Virgin of Guadalupe to the Army of the three guarantees (the whole paragraph) was all from the same source which is listed at the end of the paragraph. As far as Benito Juarez spearheading the secularization of the country, it is a well know fact in Mexican history, and it is described in the Benito Juarez article, do we need yet another reference? Marcuse 04:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Marcuse, the reference about the secularization was from FOTW, but I think I annoyed Joao with the over-use of the FOTW references. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right. My fault. JoaoRicardotalk 04:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I think you brought up a good point. Sorry if I sounded harsh, but I am seeing what you are getting at: I should try to use more sources than just one. While I am not trying to link spam, many of our flag articles are either copy and pastes from FOTW or from the CIA. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Um, sorry, I was actually replying to Marcuse about the coat of arms. :) JoaoRicardotalk 05:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Oops, oh well. An update, I have fixed 6 about the overlinking, but if you think there are still too many links, just let me know. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 05:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a new reference, I can add others later. These facts are easy to back up, I'd rather add references that start deleting. Marcuse 04:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure that Juarez spearheaded secularization of the country. I'll look for my textbook and reference that part. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. JoaoRicardotalk 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 1. Section 6.1 is considered to be bad style. Use a semicolon to create a heading, or promote the it to a top level heading. 2. The two images in the lead would look better if they were the same size. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I fixed the height of the second image by making it 280px width, and I did the semi-colon thing you suggested. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 07:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, well-written and informative prose that also conforms to all the technical requirements. Andrew Levine 11:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I'm satisfied that the breadth of the article is complete. Well illustrated and organized. Marcuse 14:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as much as my Mexican-biased vote counts. The article seems quite complete to me now. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support flag articles are rarely this detailed and informative. --Revolución (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; this is a great article. --Spangineeres (háblame) 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight Oppose. I now SUPPORT. The pictures need better placement, especially the middle section. I believe pictures make an article. If they look mis matched, then the article fails... Spawn Man 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I prefer thumbs to galleries. Shuffle the thumbs around so that the space between pictures is around 1 - 1.5 inches. I could always do it myself & see if you like the set out? Spawn Man 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeargh! I just changed the middle section around before I saw this. Ok, what I did is I made the construction sheet image a thumbnail image, and the rest in galleries. Sure, go ahead and try what you wish to try out. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. I've moved the pics around. See if you like or no like. Post me soon so I can decide on my vote... Spawn Man 23:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks a bunch. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
No problemo. I didn't really do that much. Changing vote. Spawn Man 23:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, great article, interesting, comprehensive -- Astrokey44|talk 13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support an article I can support! The intro is ever-so-slightly disjointed though, but that's such a minor issue. Excellent work and a really neat article! WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • support goes without saying -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great rewrite. However, can someone fix "The shades of the Mexican flag have not been defined by law, these following shades can be used to draw or make the flag"? The rest of the article is fine, but that sentence is certainly not brilliant prose. Ambi 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've changed it. Is that better? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Excellent. Ta. :) Ambi
  • Support, albeit with bias, as I've worked on the article. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, great article. --Terence Ong Talk 04:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Fito 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marian Rejewski

An article on the Polish codebreaker who solved the German Enigma machine, a result of a collaborative effort by a number of editors (including myself). Hopefully it's now suitable to be a Featured Article. It's been through Peer Review, and I've also asked off-site experts to look it over. — Matt Crypto 00:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. The article looks very good, has fantastic detail, ample references. The only areas where I could suggest improvement would be to redistribute the description of the Enigma machine itself into other sections of the article, if possible. Also, I'm not an expert on references/notes/inline citations, but they look fine to me. However, someone should look over them to make sure they're in line with other recent featured articles. RyanGerbil10 01:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent job by Matt, Logologist and others. Although I'd prefer for the Harvard style references to be transformed into footnotes, this is a really minor issue - the main thing is that there are some inline references.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice article. I think the organization of the enigma machine material is great, because you can reference back to it as needed. I do think the last section isn't as well written, and needs to be merged into cohesive paragraphs. One and two sentence paragraphs don't flow as well. I'm just assuming you'll do this since the rest of the article is quite well done. - Taxman Talk 03:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the lead is a too long considering the length of the article - a should probably be cut back to two or at most three summary paragraphs, see Wikipedia:Lead section. Fair use image Image:SekretEnigmyRejewski.jpg needs to be tagged {{fairusein}} and a fair use rationale provided. In text note seven hasn't been incorporated into the notes list messing up the numbering. There are also several single sentence paragraphs that should be absorded into longer sections. A question (I'm not opposing on this point) wht use the Harvard system, which is not suited to this kind of writing, in place of somthing link innote or a numbered ref/not system for inline cites?--nixie 04:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The lead is now three paras. I think the lenght of it is fine - it fits on one screen (with image), so why make it shorter? I have updated the pic with this tag and rationale, although I am not sure if it is not mutually exclusive with the current {{film-screenshot}}? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Support, all objections addressed--nixie 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support, great article very close to FA but, my comments:
    1. The whole article needs some 'word therapy' (to steal Tony's phrase) before it will satisfy 2a (e.g "who pioneered decryption of German Enigma ciphers"; "which had up to that point thwarted all the Bureau's attempts to crack it"; "After the fall of France in June 1940, following a hiatus the Polish team resumed work in southern, Vichy France until the "Free Zone" was occupied by Germany in November 1942"; "There were an astronomical number of possible configurations, changed daily"; "in his attack on Enigma"; "But first another snag had to be overcome"; "to routinely break"; "to rapidly determine" etc. etc.)
    2. In need of references:
      "After only a few weeks he had completely solved the secret internal wiring of the Enigma"
      "Rejewski worked some twelve hours a week in an underground vault, close to the Mathematics Institute, named the "Black Chamber." (several other unrefed statements in that section)
      Quotes require page numbers, so "the theorem that won World War II" (Good and Deavours, 1981)" needs a page number.
      "He would later comment in 1980 that it was still not known whether such a set of six equations was solvable without further data."
      (Welchman, 1982, p. 289) (Singh, 1999, p. 160) should be (Welchman, 1982, p. 289; Singh, 1999, p. 160)
      Most of "Post-war life and recognition" needs references
    3. It shouldn't be "used by the Kriegsmarine, the German Navy" but rather "used by the German Navy"
    4. Why is the block quote under "Methods for solving the daily Enigma settings" in italics?
    5. Note 7 is an external link (and it shouldn't be, covert it to an inline citation) Mikkerpikker 04:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Would prefer footnote-style references as well, but that may be the mtter of taste, I guess. --Lysy (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Kudos to Logologist, Matt, Lysy et al for great work!--SylwiaS | talk 12:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Although Image:Dyplom Rejewskiego.jpg has no indication as to why it is in the public domain, I think that this article is very well written and would make a great Featured Article.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 14:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Any copyright is expired. The paper depicted is (just barely) over 100 years old. (I don't know what month "sierpnia" is, but the 16th of that month 1905 is over 100 years ago.) - Cuivienen 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Sierpień = August, so it's 100 years and 5 months old.--SylwiaS | talk 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • {{Support}} Halibutt 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This is very good. I have a slight problem with the references sections. You have a notes section, a footnotes section, then references, then external links, which is confusing. What is the references section exactly, as opposed to footnotes? And in the footnotes citations section, you don't give full citations, so I'm just wondering what is what. That's my only objection though. It's a great article, and very well written. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)

Announcement pursuant to the renaming of "Merit badge types (BSA)" to History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America), and in the interest of making the prior talk more readable, remaining comments except for support votes are archived here; the clutter was getting hard to read. Feel free to move your comments back to this page if you like – see Note below, or if you prefer, I'll move it for you. Rlevse 01:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Look here for an archive of solved issues (to make the FAC readable). I have only moved objections that have been stricken and resolved, and kept, the end vote at the top of this original FAC page. Feel free to move your resolved issues to that page, or strike them here and I'll move them for you, as this page is admittedly getting cluttered and very hard to read. -Rebelguys2 16:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-submission and self-nom. The issues in the prior peer review and FAC round have been addressed; the archive is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Merit badge collecting (BSA). In addition, many other improvements have been made. I think the article is an excellent introduction about a subject on which little information is available and has a good layout.Rlevse 03:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • That's much better. I no longer object to the article being FA, but I'm not sure I support it since it seems that the organization may need a bit of work. The emphasis on the article seems to be on the types of merit badges which is definitely needed, but there are other contexts that seem to be shortchanged (such as the history of merit badges, etc.) I don't know enough about the subject though, so I'll refrain from voting. --ScienceApologist 15:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't go into the history more because that'd be at least a 100-page book. Rlevse 16:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Well done and interesting article and the linking issue has been resolved! --Naha|(talk) 17:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - While it may not seem that long to some, this article HAS come quite a long way since its first FA nomination. And while I've had a hand in some of the changes and cleanup, credit really must go to Rlevse for guiding the article. --JohnDBuell 18:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - This is my first time viewing the article and I am stunned by how good it is. I have been earning these badges while as a youth and after reading this, I was able to see the history behind these very badges. Zach (Smack Back) 19:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice improvements, article is really good. One last thing. Find some reference for this: "Careers and life-long hobbies are often the result of a Scout earning a merit badge."

JoaoRicardotalk 06:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This link was made about 31 Dec. Rlevse 15:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article overall. I found it very intresting and engaging. I enjoyed the layout due to the fact it made the article easy to read while not skimping on the information.Coffeeboy 19:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice man, glad to see this article got cleaned up! Staxringold 01:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Note I went through the talk in the renaming archive and the remaining issue(s), not counting the renaming which I did late last night, center around clarifying the scope and focus of the article, which User:Rebelguys2 has agreed to do. I found it difficult to cut out the talk on this as it appeared to me to be interwined with issues that in my opinion are now fixed, so this is why I moved that talk to the renaming archive. Rlevse 11:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, with a few comments: Tuf-Kat 03:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
the lead should have the phrase history of merit badges in bold somewhere
I prefer the more natural title history of merit badges in the Boy Scouts of America, though I won't object over this

[edit] Central processing unit

Peer review

Certainly deserves featured article status - It is well referenced and well written and has had a lot of work put into it. — Wackymacs 12:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Support since I mostly wrote it and was going to nominate it for FA status pretty soon myself. -- uberpenguin 13:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Very thorough, stable, well-referenced. AndyZ 14:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent article. The "See also" section should probably be trimmed of anything already linked in the text, though. —Kirill Lokshin 18:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, a comprehensive article on a very important topic. Good footnotes and references. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with all of the above. - Cuivienen 06:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Well written, well referanced article. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object -
  1. The article needs a copyedit. Phrases such as in the same vein; regardless of the physical form they take,; ' Here we are discussing devices that conform etc. should be rewritten. I suggest you have it copyedited by someone who hasn't worked on the article.
    You are most welcome to do so. Heaven knows I've asked other people to look over it and they've either okayed my writing or didn't really bother to do serious nitpicking on the writing. -- 206.148.144.118 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. The lead is loosely written. Its should ease the user into the topic. The second paragraph is the worst culprit.
    I agree. Please suggest an alternative since I think I've been working on the article too long to write a really solid summary. I'd much appreciate anybody who could read the article through and suggest some improvements for the intro. -- 206.148.144.118 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. The =history= is long and could definately be summarised
    Feh... Specific suggestions on what could be taken out without detriment are more appreciated. It was difficult for me to keep the article the length that it currently is; there is a heck of a lot more that could be said about any one of the sections. -- 206.148.144.118 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    Avoid details: Tube computers like EDVAC tended to average eight hours between failures, whereas relay computers like the (slower, but earlier) Harvard Mark I failed very rarely / While the complexity, size, construction, and general form of CPUs have changed drastically over the past sixty years, it is notable that the basic design and function has not changed much at all. Almost all common CPUs today can be very accurately described as Von Neumann stored-program machines / Thanks to both the increased reliability as well as the dramatically increased speed of the switching elements (which were almost exclusively transistors by this time), CPU clock rates in the tens of megahertz were obtained during this period can be paraphrased.
    Okay, I'll see if I can trim it down a bit. -- 206.148.144.173 16:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Please do not unnecessarily bold text. (WP:MoS)
    I like bolding keywords. I think it helps to bold terms that will be frequently used later on in the article, and I've seen other articles do the same. -- 206.148.144.118 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    See the Manual of style on where to use bold text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    I looked over the manual of style. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use bolding, only some circumstances where it is advantageous. It states "Make judicious use of devices such as [...] bolding." I do not believe that I've been non-judicious with bolding and I have applied a fairly consistant method of doing so. I really think this is a matter of opinion on both our parts, so until another party or two weighs in here I don't see much reason to change it. -- 206.148.144.173 16:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    I find the bold keywords useful, but toned down a little, example: "There are four steps...fetch, decode, execute, and writeback." and on the same 'screen': "After the fetch and decode steps, the execute step is performed." - I'm removing the bold on second fetch and decode there. Taking out all the syntax would be detrimental, in my mind. --zippedmartin 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Fine by me. I think the edits you made were appropriate. -- uberpenguin 16:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. PNG images should ideally by converted to SVG [suggestion]
    My graphics editor doesn't do SVG and I loathe most free vector graphics editors. I didn't produce most of the graphics in the article, and really the only one that would benefit from being vectorized is the clock timing diagram. -- 206.148.144.118 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    Diagrams are supposed to be in SVG. I've marked it as a suggestion.
    For the average end (read: IE) user, SVG is exactly the same as PNG, I don't think this can count as a valid 'objection' as such. If you prefer SVG, feel free to change the pictures, 's a wiki, after all. --zippedmartin 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    I can also provide the diagrams I create in PostScript format since presumably that's an easier route to getting to SVG. -- uberpenguin 16:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. After an instruction is fetched, the PC is incremented by the length of the instruction word in terms of memory units could be dumbed down. A brief intro on addressing and data can be added.
  7. Terms used without a brief description: eg: ALU. A sentence on the ALU is helpful.
  8. I suggest you use establised inline references: inote or ref; The current references could be an irritant for those using speech readers.
    No can do. I'm using ref templates for footnotes. I had originally used them for references as well, but it totally screwed up the numbering of both. Someone pointed out this annoyance so I changed the references over to Harvard style. Note that Harvard style IS an approved method of referencing by WP style guidelines, and until the ref system is improved a bit, I think it's the best way to go. (Some other recent featured articles have been using Harvard as well). -- 206.148.144.118 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    You can manually number them. Use {{mn}} and {{mnb}}
    Interesting... I'll play around with this, though again, I feel this is just personal preference since Harvard references are a blessed method by official policy. -- 206.148.144.173 16:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    You can also check you the new referencing system. Details are on the FAC talk page.
  9. In the case of a binary CPU, a bit refers to one significant place in the numbers a CPU deals with . In the current context: Isn't the bit part related to the number of data bits an ALU can process in one clock?
    No. The sentence as written is correct and exactly what was intended. Perhaps it could be reworded a bit for clarity, though. -- 206.148.144.118 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Avoid using sub-subsections
    Is this just a pet peeve or is there a particularly good reason? I certainly didn't go nuts with subheadings, and I've never before seen this made a big deal out of. -- 206.148.144.118 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    Bad style. None of the articles featured in the last 15 months have sub-sub sections. (L3) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'll try to eliminate them, though I believe they help a great deal with organization. Again I only see this as a matter of personal preference... -- 206.148.144.173 16:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    I think three or even four levels of heading are perfectly justified in some articles, 's an issue of style again. --zippedmartin 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. =Design and implementation= has a lot of detailed information that needs to be summarised. It should be kept simple,written in simple terms and new terms defined instead of linking.
    If I define every term that could be, the article would be twice as long and the notes section would be unbearable. If I summarize the whole section it would be ridiculous to even claim that the article is about CPUs. True, the article is lengthy, but I did my utmost to cover only the most important topics. In my humble opinion, there is no section in the current article that shouldn't be there in approximately the detail it is. Of course, nobody has given me very concrete suggestions on this matter yet, so I'm only hearing myself ramble. Point out some things that you think are covered in too much detail and I'll try to address them; otherwise I'm going to have to disagree that I should turn the detail sections into even broader summaries than they already are. -- 206.148.144.118 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    Don't define every term. Embed the terms to maintain the flow. There'll be a marginal increase, but it won't drastically increase the page size. See how the article on cricket is written.
    Again, could you give some examples? Cricket is a bit unique in that it involves many terms that are either unique to the sport or see unique usage in the sport; therefore they MUST be defined for comprehension. IMO, the CPU article doesn't contain too many terms that aren't fairly general computer/digital electronics fare. -- uberpenguin 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not asking for each and every term to be defined. Just a few key ones. There are other ways to go about it. It needn't be used in the lead (thus leading it to be defined later), or used in such a way that the meaning can be derived from its context.
  12. ==External links= should not be fragmented.
    I'd really prefer to logically separate that section. If there's a style guideline that says something to the effect "don't fragment this section" I'll change it, otherwise I'll respectfully disagree with you and continue to hold that the separation helps. -- 206.148.144.118 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    If you wan't to fragment the external links use the semicolon to create a bold heading.
    Will do. -- 206.148.144.173 16:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. I strongly feel that the basic architecture of a CPU must be mentioned before the workings.
    I strongly feel that using the basic method of a single-cycle CPU as a vehicle to introduce the somewhat complex topic of synchronous digital design is a fairly elegant solution. Showing the reader how a CPU functions first is much more useful than simply stating "a CPU contains these functional units, these control units, and somehow they all magically do something together." I did this especially because I already dealt with specific implementation over the years a good bit in the history section and a CPU is, after all, a function not a specific implementation. -- 206.148.144.118 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    Almost all books on CPU architecture deal with the architecture before the working. Without mentioning the architecture it will be difficult for a person to visualise the working.
    I am loathe to point out that this isn't a book on CPU architecture and it doesn't aim to be. As you can see, we already have another editor suggesting that I tone down the technicality, so perhaps using a book on CPU architecture as an example isn't the best idea. Note that CPU architecture books all focus on modern implementation, which is not what this article is exclusively about. One of the problems with introducing architecture first is that there is a large amount of variation in architecture over the years. I could work from the standpoint of a concrete example, but this makes the article too specific and reads too much like a book and not an encyclopedia article. I still maintain that a discussion of the principle operation of a CPU is more useful because a CPU is a functional device, not an implementation. Others I've talked to agree with me here, but I'd like to see other editors' opinions. -- 206.148.144.173 16:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    I disagree, having an article on the CPU without mentioning the basic architecture is is akin to describing how the heart works without describing its physical body. Variation apart, I'm sure you can mention something on the registers, ALU, FPU, cache etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    This goes on the false assumption that a CPU must have registers, an ALU, FPU, and cache. There are plenty of examples of CPUs that lack one or several of these items. Stating that a CPU necessarily contains any of these severely limits the scope of the article to microprocessors (in which some of the items you mentioned are more universal). I think you're coming from the perspective that a CPU is a microprocessor, which is the same perspective that a modern CPU architecture book would address because anybody concerned with modern CPU architecture is going to be looking only at microprocessors. However, this is NOT an article on microprocessors, it is an article on CPUs, and a CPU is really just an electrical stored program executing device. -- uberpenguin 14:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I may find some stuff later.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. Needs a good copy-edit. I'll try to lend a hand if I have time. Tony 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I understood the History section. After that, it got a little fuzzy. -- Mwalcoff 02:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What was fuzzy? --ZeWrestler Talk 05:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry. I meant everything after the history section was too complicated for me. -- Mwalcoff 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately that doesn't help me improve the article. I really did my best to write this so that the lay man can get a basic grasp of the concept. Note that the later sections are pointedly intended for an audience with a most basic acquaintence with digital computer architecture. If don't know very basically how computers are organized, it's unlikely that the impact of the later sections will be readily apparent. Unfortunately, I feel it's quite impossible to write a good summary of CPUs that someone who hasn't the foggiest idea of how a computer works will totally grasp upon first reading. Therefore the article will probably lose some of its audience towards the implementation sections. However, these sections will also interest a slightly different group of readers. -- 206.148.144.118 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Fair enough, but you might want to consider using the prerequisite template found at Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible. -- Mwalcoff 08:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Spiffy... Never seen that. I think a "suggested prior reading" would be better, though. Most of the article can be understood without extensive knowledge of any of the involved topics. -- uberpenguin 22:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I added the box at the beginning of the technical sections. Hopefully that helps. -- uberpenguin 22:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article has been through peer review and several of my own personal requests on its behalf. If you object to its nomination on issues of flow, clarity, or minor copyediting, PLEASE correct things as you see them or at least try to make concrete suggestions. I've been nearly solely working on the article, so I'd be overjoyed if others helped point out and repair its flaws. I will, of course, try to fix things as you point them out, but comments indicating that I should summarize what already is an extremely summarized article aren't very helpful. Thanks! -- 206.148.144.118 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Apologies. All of the previous comments by User:206.148.144.118 and User:206.148.144.173 are mine. I was on a public computer and forgot I wasn't logged in. -- uberpenguin 22:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work. --Pamri • Talk 18:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It's good. Another look over by a non-technical editor would be useful, but I don't believe in 'finished articles'. --zippedmartin 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The CPU is an important part of the computer. Maybe this article can help a couple of computer n00bs learn what it is and how to check it. Captain Jackson 20:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportObject - I feel the discussion of the word size in the Integer precision section needs improvement. For me, the section does not make the connection between how the word size affects the performance and complexity of the microprocessor clear. As I understand it most 8-bit microprocessors would be able to add two 8-bit numbers with a single clock cycle but not two 16-bit or 32-bit numbers. Where as most 32-bit microprocessors would have no problem adding two 32-bit numbers with a single clock cycle. Obviously there is a performance-complexity trade-off, 32-bit processors offer better performance with bigger numbers but require more logic gates to do so. Also important is to consider that there may be tricks to get around these limitations. For example, most 8-bit microprocessors can typically still address more than 8-bits of memory. Nevertheless the rest of the article seems good and I am sorry I didn't get to reviewing this article earlier (I appreciate last minute objections kind of suck). I also realise it's not strictly my area of expertise so I may have made some mistakes in the above explanation. Cedars 03:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Your understanding is correct, but your interpretation is slightly off. An 8-bit microprocessor can only deal with 8-bit numbers, true, but that does not in itself affect CPU "performance." One would use an 8-bit microprocessor in situations where you only need to deal with 8-bit numbers. If you needed 16-bit or 32-bit numbers on a regular basis, you'd choose a microprocessor accordingly. This is a price/features tradeoff, not a complexity/performance tradeoff. The most important thing to get across about integer precision, IMO, is that it determines the range of numbers a CPU can represent. What you perceive as a performance issue is merely a system design choice, and is appropriate content for a similarly-titled article, or perhaps one on embedded systems.
    • I think you're right that some clarification could be possibly added, but directly addressing what you've brought up would only add unnecessarily to the length of the section. For example, the tricks used to get around integer size limitations are purely software-based, and are thus not appropriate for discussion here (I will, however, add a footnote to the effect, because you're right that's it's important to at least mention that a CPU's integer precision isn't absolute for software). As for memory addressing, I do hint at paging in the Integer precision section: "many modern designs use much more complex addressing methods like paging in order to locate more memory with the same integer precision." Thanks for the comments, they're never unappreciated! -- uberpenguin 14:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I've added some details and a footnote that hopefully address your initial concern. -- uberpenguin 14:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks! The revisions make the article much better. I hope its nomination succeeds. Cedars 01:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: important article with good use of footnotes. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthew kokai (talk • contribs).

[edit] Céline Dion

Re-self nomination. This article has gone though two peer-reviews and two FACs. I think third time's the charm. Checking the Featured article page, it seems as if articles on pop singers are lacking (maybe due to their controversial nature and the difficulty to achieve NPOV). Ive taken the comments from the last two FAs and I've incorporated the changes (even the opposers of the last FAs think that it's now ready). There is treatment of Dion's music, her success, etc, all done while maintaining a NPOV style, using brilliant prose and verified with authoritative sources. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. I think its finally ready, nothing stands out to me as a reason to object at the moment. The spelling and grammar is good, I did not find any typos when I used a spell checker on the article. Good work! — Wackymacs 22:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I was glad to help out at the most recent peer review, which was a resounding success, and can say this is the finest article I've seen on anyone in the current entertainment business. NPOV, informative, not too gushing (they are naturally going to focus on outstanding achievements). Well done Orane on being so happy to accept criticism and work it through. Harro5 23:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support; my objection about references has been addressed. --Spangineeres (háblame) 23:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    Even if this does not pass, I would really like to thank you guys very much for giving valuable feedback, acquiring sources and opposing the last FAC, which enabled arcticle to be improved. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 00:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. You've done a fantastic job, Journalist! —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great job! deeptrivia (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Need at least one free use image. --Ryan Delaney talk 10:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no requirement that an article have any pictures at all to be a featured article. - Cuivienen 14:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Ryan Delaney, this is not a valid reason to object. — Wackymacs 16:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work! - Cuivienen 14:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, second Cuivienen's comments. Hermione1980 14:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Good job done! --Terence Ong |Talk 18:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support It's a really good article —factual, neutral and well written. I'm glad the last nomination failed as this gave the article a chance to be improved.Khalif 20:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support I am absolutely NOT a fan of her or her music, however, I think you're quite right about the "third time's the charm statement." Very well done, and an excellent example of the best of our collaboration processes. :) --JohnDBuell 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding a free picture. Have you contacted her fan groups (or even her through her agent) to see if anyone has a picture they'd be willing to release under a suitable license? Failing that, don't we have enough Wikipedians in Las Vegas that could go to her show and take a decent pic? A FA without a single free picture seems like a serious problem. - Taxman Talk 21:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Could someone expound on this "free image" phenom? Ive been on Wikipedia for a while now, and Ive never seen an article opposed on this ground — Ive only seen oppositions because the image lacked specific and detailed fair-use rational on the description page. Are "free images" now mandatory for featured status? Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 23:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Quite a number of FAs have had non-free images used. It's hard, though not impossible, to get free images with those still living and the recently deceased. And as pointed out above, the use of images is ABSOLUTELY NOT an FA criterion. --JohnDBuell 01:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Generally it's considered they are a bad thing unless no free images are possible. When free images are possible your fair use claim is weakened. Wikipedia is GFDL and fair use images are a necessary evil at best. The goal is information freedom, not justifying fair use. And no need to shout. Yes it's not a requirement, because pictures aren't a requirement, but it doesn't mean free images aren't important. - Taxman Talk 22:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I dont think that he meant to shout, maybe its just to put emphasis. A PD photo —Image:Céline Dion-AFR.JPG—has been added to the article by User:Pharos. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 01:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I DO tend to use all caps just for emphasis yes, especially when I COULD REALLY START SHOUTING by a combination of boldface and all caps. Sorry if anyone took umbrage. :) --JohnDBuell 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Good Job --Jaranda wat's sup 21:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to fit all criteria, polished to near-perfection. Hope this doesn't make any of the other divas jealous ;) - JustinWick 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've already supported this FAC, and won't be changing my vote, but Orane could you update us on the remaining "Citation needed" tag in the article? If it can't be found, couldn't the line it follows just be re-worded to remove the uncited phrase? Thanks. Harro5 01:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ive added the note, albiet not as authoritative as the rest. It's from an editorial review at Amazon.com. Now before anyone gets alarmed, I did not cite it as a professional review, just a source that proves that the album showed a lighter side and had a theme of "joy". If it's still unacceptable, I'll keep looking.Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 02:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the amazon citation with a reference from Larry Flick of Billboard magazine. --Spangineeres (háblame) 15:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Balcer 01:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support It's an exceptional article KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support very good article. --Revolución (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Well done! Rossrs 11:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic article. Informative, useful, well-written, excessively referenced--nicely done. If anyone ever wants to find out anything about Céline... well, this is it. Nice job! Matt Yeager 06:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article. *drew 04:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


  • Object:
    1. The caption for Image:NextPlaneOut.jpg claims "the video shows how cliched her ballads and videos were becoming". How does this image demonstrate that?
    2. The image Image:Celine Dion OC.jpg is tagged as a "promotional photo", but the site it's from gives no indication that it's a press-kit image or equivalent, and the site owner is probably not the person who holds the copyright on the image. The original source needs to be found.
    3. What point is the image Image:OHcap5.jpg supposed to be making, or is it simply decorative?
    --Carnildo 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The caption for the first image has been expanded. It does show how typical her ballads were becoming: there was the darkness, the dreary mood, even walks on the beach —the typical love cliché (I could not get a photo of that part). About Image:OHcap5.jpg. Its not decorative at all. I said that it showed a different side of Dion that has never been previously shown. The song was uptempo (as mentioned in the article), that was one of the first time she made a "party video" with such vibrant colours ( and her outfit and "dance moves" in the picture helped to portrey this). For the lead: Ill find the original page and if it can't be found, Ill just replace it. Orane (t) (c) (e) 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • May I ask how Carnildo's first objection is relevant to the nomination of the article? (The caption for Image:NextPlaneOut.jpg claims "the video shows how cliched her ballads and videos were becoming". How does this image demonstrate that?) —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I always thought that the picture said it all (I didnt know I had to spell it out). Anyway, I expanded the caption a bit. I've also uploaded a new picture Image:Celine Dion..jpg. (A photo of Céline Dion. Comes from the press kit containing other promotional photos, album pictures and public appearances. Found an http://music.yahoo.com/ar-313262-photos--Celine-Dion. Is that acceptable? Orane (t) (c) (e) 00:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ive replaced the pics with some that best reflect the article's content. You might want to check it out. Orane (t) (c) (e) 04:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Celine Dion OC.jpg has been removed, as I can't find any other sources. Orane (t) (c) (e) 08:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If the image doesn't demonstrate what the caption is describing, then the article doesn't need it, and it should be removed. For Image:ImageOHcap5.jpg, I've changed the caption: [17]. There's a difference between describing the image and explaining the image, and unless the image is being presented as a subject in and of itself (such as the Mona Lisa), it should be explained. --Carnildo 08:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough for me. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object Having spent the last half-hour reviewing the source material, I fail to see what this article adds to our knowledge about CD. Her website is heavily copied from, as are the handfull of press-releases that similarly have been taken as "gospel". The biography books mentioned have large sections lifted verbatim (albeit, not full chapters, but I might query the 10% copyright if I were a lawyer) To lead on the front page with such bland regurgitation and biased, fan-led comment is to reduce Wiki to an extention of her employer's marketing department. I doubt it'll change anything, but I think another view needs expressing here. --HasBeen 10:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll have to argue this point out when I come from school. But ill just like to comment that you are very mistaken in saying that I copied heavily from her website. Can you prove this? Please do so. "Biased"? "Fan-led"?, "regurtitating"? Have you read the article? Its more negative than positive, how is that "Fan-led"? And for her books" No source (except quotes) were used "verbatim." Do not accuse me of plagiarism. Seeing as you opened the account on the December 22 (yesterday), I think that you need to read alot of "protocols", "manuals of styles" and other featured articles before you really make a good/fair and unbiased judgement. PS: not all featured article appear on the main page. Orane (t) (c) (e) 17:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't believe HasBeen's objections can be addressed. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Object as per HasBeen. Bio, for example, includes close paraphrases from the VH1 source, for example, and the changes -- converting "working-class" to "poverty-stricken," for example, appear to introduce inaccuracies. Example: "Her brother sent the song to music manager René Angélil, whose name he had found on the back of an album" vs "which she recorded with the help of her mother and brother and shipped off to a manager named Rene Angelil, whose name they found on the back of an album by Ginette Reno, a popular Francophone singer". Example 2: "her image needed to be changed, so he had her long, curly hair cut, parted and shaved her eyebrows, and had her teeth capped to cover up the incisors that had prompted a Québec humor magazine to dub her 'Canine Dion'" vs "Dion underwent a physical transformation, cutting her hair, plucking her eyebrows, and having her teeth capped to cover up the incisors that had caused a Quebec humor magazine to dub her 'Canine Dion'". The claim that this objection cannot be addressed is ridiculous. Even if it were correct, the extensive copying comes close to justifying tagging the page as a complex copyvio, not a featured article. Monicasdude 16:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Hollow Wilerding that objection cannot be addressed. User:HasBeen says that, "I fail to see what this article adds to our knowledge about CD'. What type of objection is that? The fact that there are no "surprises" in the article is not a valid reason — "the article must surprise" is not a FA criterion. Moreover, the article is very different from other articles. Can you find any other articles that discuss her music (her lyrical content, themes, musical styles, motivation and development/transitions throught each albums), and provide critical commentry on it (reviewers' comments — both good and scathing) etc? If he can find one, Ill even object this article myself. The article is not "fan-led" or POV'd. It even presents a very negative view of her music. Would a "fan article" include a quote such as this:
"What never ceases to amaze me is how the trite-est, most cliché-ridden music often takes an assembly-line of lauded music industry professionals to perfect... Sinking ships are what I imagine as this tune ["My Heart Will Go On"] plows onward of four-plus minutes, and this album feels as if were never to end. Is it no wonder why I have such fears of going to the dentist?" [18].
I highly doubt it.
Her website has not been copied from, but used as a reference, and there are few (if any) press releases used as sources in the article, so they are not taken as "gospel". The books that are used as references are not plagiarised — in fact, most of the information existed in the article before the books were found and cited as references (the voters in the last RFA are testaments to this fact). Lastly, to Monicasdude. How can you call this copyright vio? Did I infringe anyone's exclusive rights? To tell of the events in a persons early life in this manner cannot be plagiarism. No one can lay claim to these events. If a boy was shot when he was 15, there is no other way of saying this other than "The boy was shot when he was 15." If 200 articles contain this statement, is that copyright violation?
Let me use a better example:
"In 1988, Carey met Columbia Records executive Tommy Mottola at a party, where Starr gave him a demo tape. Mottola played the tape while leaving the party and was very impressed by what he heard. He returned to the party to find Carey, but she had already left. Nevertheless, Mottola tracked her down and signed her to a recording contract." — from "Mariah Carey".
This event happened. All articles say this. It is not plagiarism; it's just relaying events that cannot be presented otherwise. The citation from VH1 fails to prove copyrightvio/plagiarism, as these events cannot be relayed otherwise: She composed her first song and sent it to Angelil. He cried when he heard her sing. She was inspired by Michael Jackson. Angelil remade her image. The only possible thing to do is change Dion's past and rewrite it to make it different from other articles. What would be a valid claim to copyright/vio or plagiarism is if the main body of the article was similar to VH1 or A.M.G (from Career break through onwards), not specific, factual events in the person's early life. both of the objects cannot be addressed, and should be considered null. Orane (t) (c) (e) 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree. Please see Special:Contributions/HasBeen to observe his actions against music-singles released by Gwen Stefani. Although this article is not a song itself, I feel as though he is against actual articles of the artist themselves as well. Monicasdude's objections are also peculiar — she needs to be a bit more specific. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Sections of the article are unmistakably plagiarized, as my citations ought to make clear. Neither copyvios nor plagiarism are limited to unaltered cut-and-pasting; what is "peculiar" is the claim that it is OK to replicate text that is so little changed. As for user:HasBeen, while his AfD requests may not be appropriate, his comments that too many pop music articles are overloaded with fancruft is shared by a significant number of other editors; there was an RfC on this issue not very long ago. You shouldn't be personalizing editorial disputes like this. Monicasdude 15:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not attempting to offend you, and I apologize if I so did. Your objection has now become clearer for me, and I'm just curious to know what lines in the article (other than the ones that you have cut and pasted above) you believe appear to be plagiarized? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's another one from VH1.com: "there were also changes in Dion's personal life, as Angélil would make the transition from manager to lover. However, fearful that the public would find the twenty-six-year difference between their ages perturbing, the relationship was kept a secret" vs "During this time there were also important developments in Dion's personal life. In 1988 Angelil crossed the line from manager to romantic partner when he kissed Dion one night after a show in Dublin. Fearful that fans would find the 26-year difference in their ages unsettling, the couple kept their relationship a secret for several years."
From celinedion.com: "becoming the first Canadian artist to receive a gold record in France." vs "In 1983, she became the first Canadian ever to receive a Gold Record in France."
From artistdirect.com: "Dion's performance at the opening ceremonies of the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games solidified her spot on the world stage. She performed "The Power of the Dream," a song co-written for her by Linda Thompson, Babyface, and David Foster (whom she has worked with on all of her English-language albums)" vs "Her performance at the opening ceremonies of the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games solidified her spot on the world stage. Performing "The Power of the Dream," a song co-written for her by Linda Thompson, Babyface, and David Foster (whom she has worked with on every one of her English-language albums)."
These all come from random spot checks of the most prominent online references. I can't check the print sources, and I haven't checked any of the other online sources, or even gone through the sources I mentioned systematically. The article needs to be rewritten from top to bottom; too much text has been copied with only superficial changes; it's a much better idea (and much less time-consuming) to write up an original text than to try and figure out exactly which current text came from which source and needs to be redone.Monicasdude 16:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll agree with you on the artistdirect.com one, but the VH1 quote doesn't look that bad to me—it looks like it was rewritten and not copied. As for the celinedion.com quote, how else could it be said? It seems important to include, and there are only so many ways to say the same thing. --Spangineeres (háblame) 20:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The last VH1 quote I cited isn't really "rewritten"; a few words/phrases have been altered to create cosmetic differences, but the essential copying is clear. If the celinedion.com were taken in isolation, I'd agree with you, but in light of all the other plagiariam/copying in the article, it should be viewed skeptically. The wikipedia copyvio discussion needs to be clarified; right now it implies that copyright violation is an all-or-nothing thing; but more complex copyvios (like this article) aren't appropriate, either. Monicasdude 15:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep, I agree with you completely that WP needs to discourage complex copyvios explicitly. --Gurubrahma 16:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Can someone here point me to an authoritative document (esp. website) which deliniates precisely what, under United States law, is considered a "complex copyright violation" - that is a copyright violation that is not simple cut/paste? Especially when one is taking a few sentences from an article, citing the source, and paraphrasing. As I understand, this is common practice in academia, and not considered plagurism. - JustinWick 18:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Forgive the late response, my computer is infected with a virus; Im at the library. I understand where M.D is coming from, believe me, but I fail to see how his quotes justify his claims. He keeps searching in the article, trying to discover any similarities that it may have with the sources. However, here's the thing: celinedion.com, vh1.com etc are all sources, and as such, there must be similarites between them and the article. Points conveyed must be similar; how else would I prove that what Ive been writing is factually accurate and backed up by another source? He keeps citing points about specific instances from Dion's personal life and keeps comparing them with the sources. These are things that cannot be said differently or they would distort the facts (the intimate relationship being kept a secret is a perfect example). The point is similar, but not the way it is written. Isnt that what deriving information from a source all about?

The quote that I find most peculiar is the one that says "Dion is the first Canadian artist to receive a gold record in France". MD, if that point can be said diferently, please enlighten me on the space provided: __________________________________. Its just like saying "Dion is the best selling female artist ever." It is just a fact. To say this otherwise would not only distort its meaning, it would also be stupid. Don't get carried away here. At this rate, I wouldnt be surprised if it was said that I plagiarised "the" from the dictionary. How can it be plagiarism if I cited the source? Aren't the writers given credit for their work? Have I ever said the information came from me? I backed up the points made with sources. That is all. I know that WPs best interest is at heart, please dont take it personal, I apologise if I seem harsh, but I fail to see validity in your argument. Orane (t) (c) (e) 21:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Question: Where is the previous CD FAC archived (I'd like to retrieve some of my previous work)? --Tsavage 20:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
[19] [20] Monicasdude 02:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is really good, and is ready to become a featured standard! --DrippingInk 14:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object The article has improved quite a bit since the last two (very recent) FAC nominations. However, I still have an objection on the basis of comprehensiveness, for the same (central) reason as in the last two noms:
  • Almost no coverage of Dion's MUSIC. After a brief mention of her genre influences, the rest is mainly the critical and sales performance of her recordings, and other details of her personal and business life. No section directly addresses her musical craft: her voice and her approach to making music. As it is now, I suppose this format represents one type of "accepted" music biography, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to promote it as a Wikipedia standard, not if it could clearly be improved as far as comprehensiveness. For example, on Wikipedia, I looked up the first dozen or so names of popular musicians and singers that came to mind, and found among them two articles which do attempt to treat the music; neither are very well done, but I think they illustrate the missing dimension that should be a part of all MUSIC articles...coverage directly related to the music-making process itself: Billie Holliday, The Edge.
It's fine to discuss discuss a notable person's accomplishments, but when their notability involves a specific skill or ability, that should also be distinctly examined. (The copyvio objections are worrisome; this objection is limited to the issue raised.) --Tsavage 22:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
You have used that objection three times without changing a single word, and I am now certain that the article has addressed those concerns. You claim that all the article does it mentions her genre/ influences, nothing more. Are you serious? I have discussed (in appropriate and accepted length) her MUSIC: There is mention of theme, mood, genres, how she derives themes and motifs from personal life, the instruments used, her lyrical content, her progression throughout each albums etc. Really, you need to come up with a new, more convincing objection, or this one might be overlooked. And you keep bringing up Billie Holiday etc. Why would I use a non-featured article as a model for a potential featured article. The article is called "Celine Dion", not "The music of Celine Dion". What makes her notable enough to include in Wikipedia is her career, which encapsulates her accomplishments, personal and business life and her music. Including anymore "music" info would not only make it relentless, it will also make it fatiguingly long (its already over 42 kb-10 more than preferable). Orane (t) (c) (e) 22:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's a little unfortunate that you choose to emphasize a point, three times without changing a single word, without properly checking the source...I did change a few words... ;) It's obvious you're commited to this article, and it has improved. However, at this point, one question comes to mind: Are you more interested in having CD make FA at any quality, or in FA representing really great articles? Because here, the two for me are becoming mutually exclusive. What I mean is, I probably don't have to write this response, because this FAC likely won't succeed based on the near-wording/copyvio objections. But then, I am interested in seeing a great pop music artist (and even song...) article. So, I take the time to reply, when that time could be spent on other FACs. At a certain point, nominators too should step back and review the situation, rather than relentlessly pound away at the process... Persistence can be a virtue, but not always... IMHO... MEANWHILE:
1) Billie Holliday and The Edge are EXAMPLES of articles where the artist's musical craft is treated as a distinct element (unlike this one); their content quality has nothing to do with their format, IOW, you CAN create a bad product using a good template...
2) Really, you need to come up with a new, more convincing objection, or this one might be overlooked. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, but this objection will do just fine for now, because it still applies. My previous objections: from the original FAC, Over-reliance on AMG and use of Amazon.com. was...fixed. From the second: Numerous typos seems to be...fixed, and Far too long and relentless for the material it covers is waiting in the wings (it reads better now, but I'd have to read it again after the new music material)... Bottom line: I'm not on a mission to block this article from FA, I'm trying help filter out articles that don't meet the FA standard. I've struck objections and changed my vote on other FACs...
3) Your suggestion that CD's notability should be separated from the skills and talents that she is notable for is very interesting: The article is called "Celine Dion", not "The music of Celine Dion". You essentially support my point: Dion's music of requires its own treatment in a comprehensive CD article (which it doesn't have now, only bits and pieces of comments from critics scattered here and there); if a subarticle is subsequently required, so be it... --Tsavage 14:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Im sorry that you think that I'm a bit overbearing, that is not my intention. I know that the FAC will fail as its now too controversial. I guess this is exactly why articles on contemporary pop stars are not featured. Tsavage, what I getting at is that, you seem to want a seperate subsection of the article that deals with "music", and you will oppose the article until that section is included (like Billie Holiday and The Edge). What I am saying is that this section is not mandatory for an article to become featured, and many of the featured articles do not have them. You think that I seem eager to have my article featured, but that's not the case. Its just that I see many articles being featured (eg Simon and Garfunkel, Kylie Minogue, Bob Dylan etc) and I think that this article is on par with them. Im am baffled when people oppose this article for something that is in a current featured article and vise versa (the music topic for example). In the article, I have isolated certain sections that have dealt with Dion's music, then critical perception of her craft. Instead of isolating "music" from her "life" section, Ive worked her craft into the prose of the article. At this moment, I think that its a matter of personal style for you, and, as you and I have different styles, your objection cannot be addressed. Orane (t) (c) (e) 23:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I wasn't objecting to the article, just that it shouldn't appear on the front page as the cream of the crop just yet. There is a tendency in a lot of wiki bios to be bland and somewhat second-hand: this is as much a fault of the wiki verification system as anything. I did indeed like the article's NPOV and balanced criticism of some of her more recognisable work, but my criticism as to sources and content for a lead piece is as valid as the tide of rebuttal. True, I dislike much of the stand-alone pieces on wiki, but this isn't one of them, and I am not arguing for that point here. Please double check some of the paragraphs next to the books cited. Also, if some of the sources do not verify the content, why have they been listed as such, should they not be "further interest" or the like? I know you have worked really hard here, and it kills me to be kicking up this fuss, but a front pager needs to be beyond reasonable criticism, doesn't it?--HasBeen 08:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for being less rigid in this response, :). I have one thing to say: not all featured articles appear on the main page. If the article does become featured, you can voice you opinion on its sutability for front page at Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article.
  • HasBeen, featured articles are not always nominated just because their nominator wants to see it on the Main Page. The article fits the FA criteria and your objection will most likely be discounted when the final outcome of this FAC is decided. — Wackymacs 09:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Featured articles are supposed to represent Wikipedia's best work. Why do you think this article, which is at best right on the border between the extremely derivative and the outright plagiarized, represents Wikipedia's best work? Monicasdude 11:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely, apologies for bad wording. It does seem to follow thought that articles that are awarded this honour are in a better position to be pushed to the front page, sort of a natural progression? From the guidelines: "The director makes selections from the pool of featured articles in accordance with these guidelines. If you want to nominate an article to appear on the front page, please do so on this page's talk page. The article must already have featured status". I appreciate it is difficult for a "pop bio" (for want of a better description) to shine brighter than their own website (for example), but it can be done: please see the Frank Zappa page. I knew nothing about FZ until I started to check the sources on this application, and I was pleasantly surprised to find the wiki article far outstripped the man's own web PR in terms of information, brevity and depth. Now I appreciate that perhaps that is not a valid criteria for this particular award, but it is what we are likely to be benchmarked against by a casual reader if you think about it. Just a thought, albeit a rather unhelpful one in this discussion... --HasBeen 09:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
IMO, there are big problems with the way FAC is operating at present. Dion is only one case in point. Three nominations in six weeks, hours and hours spent on the same points... Articles are supposed to be just about PERFECT by the time they get to FAC, yet they routinely generate days and weeks of discussion and revision. I recently posted two complaints to Raul644's page: [21][22] I've been working steadily and fairly diligently on FAC for at least six straight weeks, and it is very frustrating to see seriously not great articles getting approved, and a truly ridiculous amount of weight being put on objectors. To compound matters, (with all due respect) the FAC director is necessarily making editorial decisions (rather than procedural ones on consensus) in promoting certain FAs that have standing, actionable objections, in effect deciding what is an editorially "worthwhile" objection. And people are regularly attacked for sticking to their criticism, while "support" votes generally have no reasoning to support the basic criteria of "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable" (the usual is "Great! Excellent. Well-written! FA quality!)!?! Really, I've spent two years on WP, "keeping my head down", working on stuff I know about and am interested in, steadily adding dozens of new articles, working over time on existing ones, working through editorial battles to useful resolutions without becoming a maniac, it's all there to see in my history for those so inclined. And I'm not looking for credit or glory (who the hell is "Tsavage"?), I never even thought about FAs until I saw a really bad front page FA and started taking an interest, which is how, probably the same day or so, I arrived here. And I am really disappointed in this process. The worst of it is that FAs lead to the front page. FAC otherwise is one in a zillion things bubbling around in development on WP/Wikimedia, and there's room for it all, but the front page gets everyone, and the many issues it brings up are too fundamental to this "freedom of information" project to ignore. I'm really disturbed (well, as far as an IP number can be disturbed, which is what I remind myself...); I'd like to push for policy change. Perhaps the new article rating system announced for January will make a difference...otherwise, I'll see if I can figure out the WP system for instituting some sort of motion on improving FAC. I'm all for freedom, top quality, and particularly not having crap on the front page. Thanks for the time! --Tsavage 19:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose:
    • 42kb is too long, the writing is not concise enough
    • The TOC reads like a fan biography, particularly '2003–present: A New Day...Live in Las Vegas' - a bit more NPOV in something as fundamental as the section headings would be welcome
    • See also section should be merged into the general flow of the text.
    • Some of the quotes from reviews read as if the article is endorsing them as fact.
    • A lot of POV problems in the text, such as Nancy Miller of Entertainment Weekly, echoing many fans and critics..., The album showed a more mature side of Dion, evident in the title-track..., Dion had not lost touch with the public... and many other. Worldtraveller 21:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Firstly, A agree 42kb is a bit long, but most featured articles, being complete, are even over 50kb long.
  • The size of other articles doesn't matter - this one is too long because the writing is not concise enough. The skill of writing an encyclopaedia entry is to summarise all aspects of a topic in as few words as possible, and this article uses too many words.
  • For the headings, I dont know what to say. and for the record "'2003–present: A New Day...Live in Las Vegas'" is the name of her show.
  • OK, it's the name of her show, but why does it need to be a section heading? That smacks of PR. The headings just need to be more neutral and less promotional.
  • See also" should not be merged, or Ive never seen it done.
  • See also sections have long been looked unfavourably on. If a topic is significant in relation to the topic, it should be mentioned in normal text - if it doesn't fit into the normal text that implies it's tangential to the topic.
  • Would you cite some examples of the "factual reviews" you recognise. Orane (t) (c) (e) 23:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • e.g the sentence 'However, her stage presence improved and simpler costumes and appearance provided for an enjoyable show.'
  • The TOCs don't have to be corrected since they yield the information documented in the section that follows. I never actually noticed the minor POV issues, allow me to correct them. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't at all understand your point here.
  • Where are the comments made by Nancy Miller and the line "Dion had not lost touch with the public" located in the article? I have failed to identify them. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I expect that would be because you removed the line about not losing touch with the public... You can find the miller comment by using your browser's text searching function, it is still in the article.

The POV issues have been corrected. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure they have I'm afraid. I see in one place you replaced 'sometimes criticised' with 'seldom criticised', an example of the article getting more, not less POV. Worldtraveller 02:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes or seldom criticised. What's the difference? Also, that line is not POV whatsoever. The matter is that some music-critics offered criticism while others offered praise. The conclusion? Seldom criticised. If you don't like it, I'll swap synonyms out. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Finished. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Very little of the identified plagiarism has been removed from the article. "There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square.--Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)" Monicasdude 15:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose' as per Tsavage and Monicasdude, explicitly on the points of comprehensivness and potential copyright issues need to be resolved. Also there seem to be a few too many fair use images that aren't really justified in the context of the article like Image:ImageOHcap5.jpg and Image:Dion and Bee -Gees.jpg, Image:B&theB.jpg.--nixie 16:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are no copyright issues in this article whatsoever — also, regarding the images, had there been too many "fair use" images locating in the article, then User:Carnildo would have pointed it out. Therefore, your objection is inactionable unless there is anything else you would care to point out? —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am entitled to make any objection I want, and they are completely actionable, Carnidilo is not the only person that comments on images. And until some uninterested third party oks the text for copyright issues my objection on that count stands too.--nixie 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You most certainly are entitled to make any objection that you want, whether it be overlooked or not. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't understand why this article is here for now approaching two weeks, with such a degree and range of objections, from comprehensiveness to extensive copyvio. From reading some of the comments, it seems the idea is to give objections time to be acted on. But this surely can't refer to entire article rewrites. I think this guideline is being inefficiently used, and this complaint has nothing to do with restricting freedom or anything like that, simply with a practical interpretation and implementation of the FAC guidelines. If FAC is allowed to be a free-for-all, even a "polite" one, the chances of article improvement are lessened. Nominators are daunted, objectors are daunted, the whole thing looks like much more trouble than it's worth, and so, the general motivation to nominate an article is likely diminished (except perhaps for those whose main goal is to secure FA status, as opposed to pursue FA quality). In fact, moving things along more quickly, and requiring nominators, supporters and objectors ALL to be much more specific and detailied in their reasoning (as clearly indicated in the guidelines, only poorly enforced here), would likely result in a much more fun, fast and overall effective and rewarding process (and surely couldn't result in an even less efficient situation than at present). (A thought: With all the fuss over the recent Nature science article peer-review of WP, I wonder how the last 50 feature articles would fare given to a panel of writers, editors, researchers, English professors...whoever the experts are on basic writing quality... Is FAC REALLY promoting the BEST of WP?) Given the nature of this FAC discussion, I don't believe this post is off-topic—that is certainly NOT the intention, I simply want the energy expended here to count for all it can... --Tsavage 18:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Well said. I totally agree. But I'll add...People object and want different things and you can't please all of them; they have different opinions about layout, writing style, even focus of the article. I nominated my article to make it better, and it is; but attaining FA is very daunting indeed. Most objectors need to be much more specific; nominators aren't mindreaders. I've also noticed many, but certainly not all nominators, rarely check the status of their FACs. Rlevse 03:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it is daunting for good reason for all concerned? The FA is an award that must be earned, after all... --HasBeen 09:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • *Support I'll try to do a bit of work on this. I think the objections from the objectors are good - I just don't see it as a reason for myself to object. It's clear there has been a lot of work put into this. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object with a few fairly minor issues. The "Biography" section needs a couple paragraph summary underneath it. The last paragraph under "1993–1996: Popularity established" needs a cite, I think. Explain the outcome of the National Enquirer lawsuit (I know they gave some money, but this was apparently an out-of-court settlement. Is that right? Make it explicit). There's a couple hidden comments in the article that should be addressed. I've just done an extensive copyediting, but more is still needed. There's lots of passive voice, and a good bit of awkward wording:
    • "While in the 1990s, her albums contained many genres, sounds and moods, her later albums, drawing more influence from her life, had maternal overtones"
    • "no real connections to the lyrics were shown"
    • "Singles crossed over from fast-tempo, gospel-tinged styles to soft-rock, dance-pop and sentimental ballads."
    • "Dion's image has not played a large role in garnering media attention or selling records" -- I just plain don't believe this, please cite
    • Tuf-Kat 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I like it. -- KTC 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This is what a FA is supposed to look like. However, although it isn't a biggy, the photo in the section, "2003–present: A New Day...Live in Las Vegas" is awefully large & disruptive. Suggest reducing size dramatically. May change vote if this is not dealt with. Good work... Spawn Man 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Changed it myself, also changed my vote to strong support. Spawn Man 00:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object I feel REALLY bad doing this - but I just got done taking care of TUF-KATs criticisms and started to see the problems with this article:
  1. The prose at points is very unwieldy - I fixed up the first few paragraphs but it is going to need a good lookover by someone with some time
  2. Annoying ommissions - for example it meantions "her brother" (who apparently is nameless :\) discovered her manager's name on the back of an album but doesn't mention what album! It is kind of like saying Microsoft was founded based on an idea from "a magazine" rather than a specific issue of popular science :(.
  3. Passive voice where it just shouldn't be used... I've seen worse cases but it is pretty bad unfortunately :(.

I don't want the editors to get discouraged though - this is stuff you can fix in a few hours - especially if you work together. I'd also keep an eye out for small POV issues though as this will get an objection quite quickly, esp. on pop culture articles. WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Object Way too much fanclubish Fad (ix) 17:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Hi. I'm not sure if this is like the RFA process where anon editors can't vote, so I won't. However, after reading some of the comments here, Ive made a few changes to the article (tidied it, fixed up the contorted sentences, passive voice etc I'vealso added a source). Hopefully, this helps; I think its a really good article. 207.236.66.194 01:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Support!! Excellent! An anon comes from nowhere and saves the day!!!!! The brother and album author is even named now which is enough for me! WhiteNight T | @ | C 04:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: One month! Is this a new record on wikipedia? deeptrivia (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Yes, I'd personally like it to be closed soon either way myself. Maybe Raul is a closet Celine Dion fan!! O_o!!! Bias of the cabal of I tell you!! WhiteNight T | @ | C 04:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. You said it. I thought it was supposed to take 1-2 weeks. I think it will fail (even though I'm sure most of the objections have been addressed — the opposers just haven't bothered to return to the page to strike it out). Anyway, it will take a while before a renomination; though I personally think its "there", a few others tell me it's not— albiet with vage generalisations like "bland" of "fanclubish". I also want to distance myself from any allegations that I'm overeager for featured status.

PS: A special thank u to the anon editor. Orane (t) (c) (e) 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've come back several times. My objection about not having direct comprehensive coverage of her singing craft—vocal range, training, approach to singing, how her voice has changed over the years, etc—stands. This is a decent article, but without covering her basic musical skills it can't be called "comprehensive".
I also (still) think it is ridiculous to have CD here for so long (a month now). It creates a negative, bad vibe and it's a gruelling thing for everyone concerned, nominators and reviewers both. How many times is a FAC editor expected to read one nomination? Conscientiously keeping up with a month's worth of article revisions and comments is HOURS AND HOURS of work for one person. This seriously diminishes my taste for FAC work. It's unreasonable and unnecessary, and seems to be quite unilateral to boot. IMO, the one-week candidacy guideline should be stuck to much more closely for all FACs... --Tsavage 06:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I really wont get into a debate with you. All I'm saying is this: you really seem to lack knowledge of what an encyclopedia is/does (IMHO of course). Encyclopedias provide general info i.e a succinct overview of the singer and her career. Excluding the fact that she trains 4 days per week at 7 pm to 9 pm, and she has a 3 octave vocal range does not make it incomprehensive. (BTW, whats the deal about vocal ranges? see WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines: Vocal Profile controversy. All the necessary info is included; the specific, and IMO unnecessary, information that you require — training, approach to singing, how her voice has changed over the years— can be found on her official website, and come to think of it, much of that can be derived from closely reading the article.
I agree with you on the "one-week candidacy guideline" comment. Orane (t) (c) (e) 06:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

See also

[edit] Panama Canal

self-nom: This is the third attempt to get this article to FA status (see its talk page for archived attempts). Since the last attempt, it has been completely overhauled, and a complete series of articles created around it. It's just had another peer review, and I think it's now ready to properly represent this significant and interesting topic. — Johantheghost 16:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't be objective. My own desire to see my contribution (however small) praised balances with my ignorance of the topic; I can't judge if it's covered adequately. And "featured" is a pretty hi standard, going by the Iowa-class BB page (which I can judge). Trekphiler 17:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Mild Oppose This is certainly a good article but it still needs work: pending a small change (see note 8 below) I feel the article is good enough to be featured. SUPPORT Mikkerpikker 16:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The first sentence is rather awkward & the grammar is a bit dubious (the use of present continuous "cutting" and "connecting" especially).
    • One does not refer to inanimate objects with "whose"
    • Reference for the 20 day time saving? Reference for number of workers killed during construction? Several more highly specific but unreferenced statements.
    • The term "man-made" is gendered
    • Proper organisation of the Panamax issue is lacking - basically the same information mentioned 3 times. Mikkerpikker 17:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Response:
  • "The first sentence is rather awkward" — quite agree. I've had a go at re-wording it.
Your reformulation is certainly an improvement but I'm not over the moon with it (specifically, "cutting" in present continuous seems wrong - it is not currently, as we speak, busy cutting through the isthmus). What about "The Panama Canal is a major shipping canal which cuts through the isthmus of Panama in Central America thereby dividing the continents of North and South America and connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans."? Or perhaps even better would be to leave out the bit of dividing the continents... Mikkerpikker 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Done! — Johantheghost 21:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Inanimate objects with "whose" — re-phrased.
  • References — I've added one for the savings and disease — what else needs it? I haven't added references for the "summary" sections which have a main article, because the main article should handle that.
I'm still not happy with the references.
  1. the citation for the distance & time saving is a book published in 1913. Don't you think this figure would have changed since we were still using steamships back 1913?
  2. The article says "A ship sailing from New York to San Francisco via the Canal travels a distance of 9,500 kilometres (6,000 mi), a saving of almost 13,000 kilometres (8,000 mi)" whilst the reference (in note 2) says "San Francisco is now 14,000 miles from New York around Cape Horn. Through the Panama Canal it will be 8,000 miles nearer, or a little more than 5,000 miles distant" (Ch XX). So the article and the reference agree on the distance saved (8000 mi) but not on the distance between San Fran & NY via the canal (5000 mi for the reference, 6000 mi for the article). Which is it?
  3. Reference number 3 should point to http://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/history/end.html not http://www.pancanal.com/eng/history/index.html
  4. Something I've also just noticed: the sentence "Approximately 800,000 ships have passed through the Panama Canal since its completion" should begin with "As of ...." (i.e. "As of 2001," or 2002 or whatever, "approximately"...
  5. Reference 5 contains info for 2005 so why have the info for 2004 in the article and not the latest figures? (i.e. for the sentence "Canal traffic in 2004 consisted of 14,035 vessels carrying 203 million tonnes of cargo, an average of almost 40 vessels per day")
  6. I can't find confirmation for the statement "Mean sea level at the Pacific end of the canal is on average 24 centimeters (9 in) higher than at the Atlantic end" at http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/biogeog/HILD1939.htm (the site referenced)
  7. "Each lock chamber requires 101,000 cubic metres of water (26.7 million U.S. gallons) to fill; this enters the chamber by gravity via a network of culverts beneath each lock chamber." needs a reference I'd still prefer a ref but I see your point so OK Mikkerpikker 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. "As of July 1, 2003, this toll is $2.96 per ton for the first 10,000 tons, $2.90 per ton for the next 10,000 tons, and $2.85 per ton thereafter." needs a reference (and aren't there more up to date figures?)
  9. "52 million gallons of fresh water from the lake are dumped into the sea by the locks every time a ship transits the canal." needs a citation
Thanks for the continued feedback...
  1. Well, not the distance, at least... I've taken the time out, since I can't find a better ref, and time is meaningless (ie. depends on the boat).
  2. The book is apparently approximating, since 5,000 + 8,000 /= 14,000. I've chosen figures that add up. The real figures depend hugely on routes chosen (which depend on winds and currents, even today), so this is always going to be approximate.
  3. Done.
  4. Done.
  5. Done, and reworded tonnage to "capacity", not "cargo carried" (they don't count the latter).
  6. Darn, sorry; I've added a ref.
  7. I haven't put references into sections like this one, and History, which have a "main article" -- my feeling is that the main article should handle it (and will by the time I get them to FAC...  ;-). For this issue, I've added a reference in that article. OK?
  8. The reference for the whole Tolls section is on the first sentence. How can I make this clearer (because I see your point)? As for more up-to-date, no, those are the current tolls, which became effective on the dates shown. I've now dispensed with the effective date, which is actually pointless.
  9. Done. Johantheghost 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
for number 8 above: I have also had your problem before; one doesn't want to cite EVERY sentence... what about putting the ref at the end of the section with a blurb (under the ref section) that the website cited is the source for all the info in the above section? Alternatively, put a blurb by the current ref stating the same thing... Mikkerpikker 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I've had a go — a small change, but I hope it makes it clearer. What do you think? — Johantheghost 18:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that sorts it out... readers will (or should be able to) figure out the rest of the sub-section's info comes from the source just cited. (Although I'm changing "assigned" to "decided" - could also be "determined". Let me know if that's ok...) Mikkerpikker 19:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
No prob. Thanks again for the help in getting this up to scratch. — Johantheghost 19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Man-made" — absolutely, changed it to "artificial".
  • The Panamax issue — I see what you're saying, but:
  • It's mentioned under "Efficiency" to explain why tonnage is up, despite transits being down
  • It's mentioned under "Capacity", because it is an outstanding issue
  • It's mentioned under "Competition", because a competing post-Panamax canal (such as Nicaragua) would be a competition issue
  • It's mentioned under "Future", because it could drive future changes.
Basically Panamax is a fundamental aspect of the canal which intrudes into everything. However, I think the "Capacity" section as a whole is an issue, and yes, it does look like repetition of the Panamax thing. I mean, "the canal has all the business it needs" — this is a problem? So I've re-phrased "Capacity" to be about capacity, not post-Panamax. What do you think?
Yeah, you're prob right about the panamax issue so I'm withdrawing my opposition wrt that reason Mikkerpikker 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have another pass over to look for references needed. — Johantheghost 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC) The references look OK to me now... — Johantheghost 22:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Poorly written (2a). Perhaps start by making the measurements consistent and logical (mi is linked more than on just its first occurrence; mixed up approach to abbreviating mi/kilometers—km will do). But the whole thing needs careful copy-editing. Tony 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Re "Poorly written", perhaps you could be a little more specific?
  • Re linking units on more than just the first occurrence, I felt that in such a large article, requiring someone to scroll back to the start just to get a definition was unnecessarily obtuse. So once per major chunk of text has been my philosophy. Don't you think that's reasonable?
  • Re "measurements consistent and logical" — I don't get it. Every measurement is metric (imperial), except TEU and "PC/UMS ton" which is defined in feet by international law. How is that inconsistent?
  • Re "mixed up approach to abbreviating mi/kilometers" — in fact, it's always "## kilometers (## mi)". I just completed a major editing effort to make it that way. You'll notice that this is very consistent, even with imperial-first units: eg. "a volume of 100 cubic feet (2.8 m³)". Why? Because that's what the Manual of Style says. See WP:MOSNUM#Units:
Spell out source units in text. Use digits and unit symbols for converted values and for measurements in tables. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".
So, is this another problem with the MoS? If so, can we please get the MoS fixed? — Johantheghost 01:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a good article now—well done. Just two matters: I presume that British spelling is used (you'd expect US spelling here, but it's fine if that's the way it started). I'd still be happier with just 'km', rather than 'kilometres' throughout. I note that 'mile' is abbreviated to 'mi'. Tony 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. As the Manual of Style says, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in)" is the correct style; hence "kilometeres" spelt out, and "mi" abbreviated in the converted units — this is exactly what the manual says to do. I guess you should raise this issue at WP:MOSNUM#Units. — Johantheghost 02:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Tony 02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The Panama Canal is a great subject to feature. --DelftUser 11:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is true, but being an important subject is not one of the FA criteria. - The Catfish 04:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Now my support is unqualified, I just support. --DelftUser 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All those lists should be converted into prose, maybe with the exception of "layout". -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Lists of upgrades, lists of bridges... to me these are lists, but you're not the first person to say this, so I've made the change you suggested. As for the "Layout" section, feel free to have a go at prosifying it; I tried, but it looked like a horrible mass of words and figures. As it is, people can extract information from it quite easily, eq. how many miles of fresh water, etc. Maybe it would look better as a table? What do you think? — Johantheghost 20:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Personally I can't think of a way to make the "layout" list better, that's why I said it could be an exception. The article looks pretty good to me by now so I'll say conditional support upon satisfying the objections above. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 01:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; this looks good, but needs a few paragraphs from History of the Panama Canal. It's apparent from that article that things did happen between 1914 and 1977, but by reading this article, one would never know. --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment — that's a good point. Obviously I don't want this "summary" section to get too big, but that was a real omission. I've had a go at fixing it — comments welcome. — Johantheghost 01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice work. The level of detail of the addition is consistent with that of the rest of the section, so I'll support. Also, I just thought of something—it might be interesting to make more comparisons to the Suez Canal: compare the volume of shipping sent, the cost of shipping, and the factors involved in the comparison (maybe Suez costs more because it's longer or Panama costs more because it has locks or whatever). --Spangineeres (háblame) 14:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Here are the problems I've found on my scan of the article: Conditional Support, see below.
* Multiple statements which appear to be uncited opinions:
  • "There is no question that the Panama Canal continues to be one of the most successful engineering projects of all time." Who says so?
  • Yeah, that's pretty much just cheerleading; I changed it to "More than ninety years since its opening, the canal — one of the greatest engineering projects in history — continues to enjoy great success.". I think given the immediately following evidence that it's carrying cargo at all-time record levels, this is clearly justified. — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That still seems to be pretty similar wording to the Yankees example at WP:AWW. I would just remove the 'greatest' designation entirely and let the facts speak for themselves - similar to citing the Yankees' World Series achievements and not calling them "the greatest franchise in baseball" The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "There were widespread fears that efficiency and maintenance would suffer following the U.S. withdrawal." What polls showed this?
  • I've taken out "widespread". The reference says "the Senate chamber echoed with dire fears and warnings", so I think the statement as it is now is justified. — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I see where it says that in the reference. Is there a way of perhaps making it clearer that note [24] refers to the first 2 sentences of that paragraph. I assumed it only refered to the second The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Done - I merged the sentences. Johantheghost 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "With demand rising, it seems certain that the canal will continue to be a significant feature of world shipping for the forseeable future." Who is certain?
  • Me, of course! OK, kidding. Seriously, I have demonstrated — by quoting several sources — that demand is rising steadily, and that the canal is handling that demand. I think that that itself is clear proof that the canal will be important for the forseeable future. So I've changed the text to "With demand rising, the canal is in the positioned to be a significant feature of world shipping for the forseeable future", which I think looks less like a guess? What do you think? — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine by me. Struck. The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For this statement: "The canal is presently handling more vessel traffic than had ever been envisioned by its builders" What was the amount of traffic the builders envisioned?
  • Added statstics and references to back it up. — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Excellent. Struck. The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would go ahead and import references from the main history article. My feel is that the reader shouldn't have to go to another article to verify this one. I'd rather err on the side of too many references, rather than too few.
  • OK, I'll get to work on that.
  • OK done. I haven't put references for things which are simply Wikilinks to their own aqrticles, like invasion of Panama — OK? — Johantheghost 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was only refering to the sections with a main article. =History= looks good, but the Locks and Lakes subsections still don't have any. They could use some for the specific figures (lock chamber dimensions, etc.) The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Struck

:* I would suggest =tolls= be moved after =history=.

  • My concept there is that "History" - "Current" - "Future" makes a logical sequence; "Tolls" is more related to "Description". What do you think of that? — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, on second thought, you're right — I moved Tolls down. — Johantheghost 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The subsections ==Alajuela Lake== and ==The Anchorages== are rather small. They should be expanded. Single sentence paragraphs in ==The Anchorages== and ==Crossings== should be either expanded or merged into another paragraph.
  • The Anchorages topic is too insignificant, so I merged it into Layout. I Merged the two lakes together. The last para in Crossings is a separate topic; it doesn't make sense to merge it, and there's nothing more to say about it. Yes, short paragraphs should generally be avoided, but I think this case is justified. What do you think? — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right, it is a separate topic. If there really is nothing more to say about it, it should be fine. The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

These shouldn't be too much trouble to fix. Let me know if I can be of any help - The Catfish 04:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work in addressing these so quickly. I have changed to Conditional Support, pending resolution of my couple remaining issues. - The Catfish 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your continuing help — I've actioned those comments (see above). Johantheghost 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work. Full Support now. The Catfish 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, there's still inconsistency in the spelling: we have 'centimeters' (US spelling) but 'kilometres' and 'metres' (non-US). There needs to be a piped link on 'centimteres' if UK spelling is in fact the norm for this article. Tony 10:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed it to use SI spellings throughout. — Johantheghost 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great well written article. --WS 18:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fun article to read, I might fiddle with the layout a little, but content is all good stuff. Oh, and maybe de-number the lead a little, especially the double unit stuff... --zippedmartin 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. I think the death breakdown is important enough to stay up there. Agree about too many numbers, and nice fix; but if by "double unit stuff" you mean metric/imperial, that's as per the Manual of Style. Cheers, Johantheghost 11:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I was amazed to see no mention of the deaths in History, so I moved the death breakdown there as you suggested (see article history). Johantheghost 12:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I meant in the locale of the double unit stuff, not the units themselves. It had "x km (mi)... y km (mi)... y-x km (mi)" and the deaths bit had "french+us... french (year-year)... us (year-year)" which made for rather a lot of numbers all in a row, that repeat themselves somewhat. Being article summary 's good to keep the key numbers, but what mattered for the routes was their comparative distance rather than the exact difference between them (which is still there, for those with head calculators), and the deaths breakdown was a bit arbitrary without the explanation (were the french crueler, or just worse at building canals?). But, dealt with.
As for what to add in the extra bit of space, maybe a line bridging the end of the US construction and the current status? The third paragraph doesn't quite stand on its own at the moment.
I did fiddle with the layout a bit, but didn't get anything stunningly different with the preview button that I wanted to preserve. This minor nitpicking doesn't need to be on the FAC page really, it's a good article, whether I poke the odd bit or not. --zippedmartin 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. While the article doesn't flow brilliantly, it is detailed and informative, and good enough to support as an FA. Ambi 23:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan State University

Self nomination. (Peer review.) I've put a lot of research and writing into this page. Let me know if it's ready to be a Featured Article. Lovelac7 18:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job - support with the following comments:

  • Good intro, except for the following issues
    • Sentance 2 is a bit unweildy - might it be better as two sentances?
    • Introduction as a whole - I would switch a lot of the content between the first and second paragraph. The first paragraph is too historical - it should be pithier, get to the point more quickly.
  • History
    • Agricultural school - this section could use some stylistic improvement; the wording a a bit too chatty in places (this is true for several sections of the text)
    • Land Grant pioneer - since it's a new section, Williams' full name should be used again
    • Big Ten University: "One of Hannah's strategies was to build a new residence hall...and use the income to start construction on a new dormitory." - should the two terms, "residence hall" and "dormitory" be uses like that in a sentance? I would prefer "dormitory" both because it's the more familiar word to most people (i.e., those who have not gone through American colleges in the last 15 or so years) and because, I suspect that it was the term in use during Hannah's presidency.
    • Global leader by 2012 - the first of the three riots, the Gunson Street Riot, took place in September of 1997 [23]
  • Academics
    • Demographics - the language used here is a bit too US-centric and might be difficult for an non-American to understand
  • Student Life
    • Activism - I remember reading something about MSU students taking a leading role in the boycott of companies like Coca COla who had large investments in South Africa. If you could find a reference for that it would round out the section nicely
    • Media - the article says that WKAR AM plays talk, while WKAR FM plays classical music. I remember it being the other way around; could you double check that?

Guettarda 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Done. — Lovelac7 23:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Concern. There are several sections where the wording does not flow very well, notably in the first section of academics. It seems that the article is jumping from one idea to another without any transition between the two (one criterion for FA is exceptional prose). Also, there are a number common English words that do not need to be linked, such as "summer" and "retail." The content on the other hand looks comprehensive. Pentawing 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Pentawing, I asked Tony1 for some advice on improving the prose. He had some very helpful suggestions that I'm working on right now. — Lovelac7 17:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I went through the article and cleaned up some wording and formatting issues. The only thing I see (though this is minor) is the arrangement of images. Images are usually aligned to the right at the beginning of each section under H2 headings. Pentawing 21:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I have moved some of the images around so that the article looks better. — Lovelac7 05:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - This needs a couple of minor copyedits, but nothing major. I'm going to go make a few small changes myself. Otherwise, it looks great! - Cuivienen 03:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your help, Cuivienen. It helps to have "fresh eyes" looking at the article. — Lovelac7 17:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Tony 01:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks very good (excellent use of inline citations!), but there's a note problem—54 in the text, 53 in the notes section. The pictures seem rather large at the beginning, though that's not a big deal. I'll read over it some more before supporting. I'm rather perturbed at the sequence of events here, however—all these Big Ten schools becoming featured, while the article on the best of all of them, Penn State, remains rather pathetic. I suppose I should get to work =). --Spangineeres (háblame) 05:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Spangineer, thanks for pointing out the missing endnote. I found the one that was missing and cited it. I also shrunk a few of the pictures, especially the first one of the river, which was out of proportion to the rest. As for the PSU article, it is in better shape than the MSU article was just a month ago. Maybe there should be a Wikiproject:Big Ten to coordinate them. We'll see. Lovelac7 16:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Great. Support, though if you are looking at the article in 800x600, the map and the picture of the forest make that section look bad. Moving one of them out of the way or shrinking them would be helpful. --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice work. This article is leaps and bounds above where it was when you took over. There's still a bit of language focused on highlighting the best features, especially in the lead, but the rest of the article is about as NPOV as I think you could get. Two specific points, 1)the sentence in the Global leader section that reads "This has not been easy. In recent years, "town and gown" relations have soured as students and permanent residents looked at each other with increasing hostility, which erupted in riots..." makes it sound like the resident and student relations resulted in riots directly. I think it would be better just to say the riots that occured made the relations even more strained. 2) The campus section doesn't note anything about all the land the University owns all over the country (and some international I think). I've heard that totals more than the land in EL itself. Maybe that doesn't count as campus since it's just research land, but a short mention of that would be good. - Taxman Talk 15:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your help and support, Taxman. I fixed the bit about the riots and added a line about university-owned land around Michigan. I haven't yet found anything on any internationally-owned lands. — Lovelac7 04:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is simply excellent. Great use of inline citations! One day, when I get around to it, I hope to make the article on Texas A&M University this thorough and well written :) --Naha|(talk) 15:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A gorgeous example for all to follow in the future. Ambi 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A complete and neutral article, well illustrated and expertly written NorseOdin 05:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Featured article material.. Very well written. Durantalk 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I added a lot to the history section as well as spice up, rearrange and greatly expand the alumni section. But Lovelac7 has taken the lead in organizing and giving the look to this main article and deserves much credit. A couple suggestions: re NPOV, I think the intro goes a bit overboard negative-wise. Why is there a need to mention the use of teaching assistants in upper-level classes in the intro when it's also mentioned in the body? I understand the summary nature of an intro, but this is not the kind of summary item that belongs up front and it seems like overkill -- no other similar university comes of so negative in the intro. Second, I think the intro is too long -- it's almost an article in itself and could use some trimming. On the positive, I called for, and received, more shots of older campus buildings rather than only the big sterile ones south of the Red Cedar River. There does seem to be a tad too many snowy/wintery shots, is there only one season in Michigan? But again, I like the way this article has come along and believe it deserves to be a featured article. 141.151.70.169 05:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)05:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not always winter in Michigan, but sometimes it feels like it. Seriously though, the reason that there's so many winter pictures is that it's the middle of January. All of the photos are self-taken, most within the last month. One of the requirements of a Featured Article is to use free photos instead of copyrighted ones whenever possible. I live a mile from campus, and I like photography, so this article a good way to work on my hobby. I have a few more shots that I took last week when it was sunny and 56. I'll check them out. — Lovelac7 14:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

This article was removed as a featured article because of purported fraud on the part of Hollow Wilerding. I am resubmitting it as a featured article because I believe (as do many of those who voted for its removal) that it is FA quality; the reason for its demotion was entirely due to fraud. You can find the peer review here and the previous FAC here. The archive of the FARC is here — Cuivienen 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. — Cuivienen 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As revolted as I was about the fraud over the last FAC, I think this article is worthy of FA status. Well-written, good screenshots with good copyright statuses, an excellent all-round description of the game and everything around it. Well referenced too. Let's not let despicable sockpuppeting defeat an outstanding article. Batmanand 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As a cruftist, I'd like to see more detail, but I can live with this. Support. Everyking 22:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Gosh, I LOVE this game. And incidentally, I started to play it the other day once again. But that all is by no means why I'm supporting this article. Comprehensive, well-written, factually accurate and the images have acceptable copyright stati (Latin plural). Maybe Image:ZeldaMMbox.jpg could do with a little bit of a fair use rationale, but it's passable. Great work.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 06:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful article, well referenced. This is the sort of article which gives fancruft a good name. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment OK, well done, now I'm totally conflicted. This is undoubtedly a fine article about a piece of gaming emphemera that I recall quite vividly, but... the commercial nature of the subject matter remains. This is not the fault of the writers: their NPOV is spot on. However, the LoZ franchise is a contemporary, worldwide recognised brand name, and as such, by flagging up this article, we may be validating more than just a historical curio in that it can be misconstued as brand placement. By pushing these types of entry towards the front page (and yes I know that it is never inevitable, but certainly FA is a requirement for a front pager), we really do open the project up to potential abuse, the nature of which is very difficult to determine from legitimate entries. --HasBeen 10:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I have to agree with HasBeen. I think there are legit quesitons about Wiki featuring a currently avaialable commerical product. Rlevse 14:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What are the legit questions? Does it promote something people profit off? Sure, but so do a whole host of other FAs -- to some extent, any article could theoretically lead to more interest in the subject, and therefore increased sales of related books or other material. Why should this have anything to do with FA status? (I'm aware of the argument that putting this on the main page could look like advertising. I find this argument completely unconvincing, and it is, in any case, irrelevant here, since it's a long-standing principle that every article is FAable, even if it would be inappropriate for the main page) I haven't looked at the article in question, but what is the harm associated with a good, unbiased article on a branded topic? Wikipedia could do far worse than contain neutral, accurate and comprehensive information on corporations and their products -- as a matter of fact, that would make Wikipedia a uniquely useful resource. Tuf-Kat 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Copies of Majora's Mask are no longer being produced. The game is well-known but has been obsoleted with the obsoletion of the N64 by the GameCube, and, soon, the Revolution. The product is only available through resales or through stores that never sold their full stock. It is not current. - Cuivienen 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment'. If it's no longer available (but it says it was avail as a GameCube til at least 2004), then perhaps the article should mention that. Not everyone will know this. Rlevse 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentCurrent?This is for the N64 which in videogame industry terms is ancient.This game is long gone from the spot light.The current systems are even being replaced (GC/xbox/ps2).--Technosphere83 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The above is a Comment, not an objection. The Legend of Zelda is a clearly recognisable brand name. That may lead to questions about product placement, not necessarily the content of the article. --HasBeen 09:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I realize that your statements are a comment and not an objection. However, this is not merely a vote — it is a discussion. I must once again ask you to cite policy; Tuf-Kat is correct, I don't feel that this is a valid concern. Please do not raise concerns about this article becoming a front page article here. Objections to that belong at WP:TFA, should MM be nominated for such. --Pagrashtak 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed Tuf-Kat and Pagrashtak. --Naha|(talk) 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagree: this is as valid a comment to make under the circumstances as the rebuttals. --HasBeen 10:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article is very well referenced for a video game article, which are commonly plagued by reference problems. --Pagrashtak 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Well written, well sourced. Its a shame that the voting fraud incident occured with this article. --ZeWrestler Talk 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Decided to help out and organize the footnotes under the new inline citation. this will automatically order information as more sources are added to the article. --ZeWrestler Talk 06:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - as previous nomination - Hahnchen 18:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The inaccuracies and structural flaws I pointed out during the last nomination have still not been addressed. Fredrik | tc 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just for the sake of clarity, would you mind copying the remaining actionable objections to this page? Thanks. --Pagrashtak 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • See below. Fredrik | tc 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is surprisingly good. Although it could use a bit more clarity, I say that I have to Support this article. Dee man45 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - great article! --Naha|(talk) 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Here are some issues that come to mind.
    • "It received some criticism for this" is unsourced.
    • The "fixed 3D" issue should be mentioned among the technical developments, not gameplay, because it has nothing to do with gameplay (it is in fact directly related to the extra 4 MB of memory)
    • "possibly the Lost Woods" is pure speculation
    • The section on "Basic controls" isn't needed. All of it except the first sentence which really should be moved to the top of the "Gameplay" section and related to OoT (basic controls are the same in both games) should be merged with "Masks and transformations"
    • One image has visible emulation artifacts, several images are in the wrong resolution.
    • Most images are boring; only one shows action, none shows dialogue. Certainly images could be used to demonstrate more of the gameplay and interesting settings. At least, I think there should be one image of each transformation, and the "Dungeons" section should be illustrated with several images.
    • "while its predecessor had been cited as one of the greatest video games of all time, Majora's Mask has not." is incorrect; the article even cites an example further down. HW reverted my correction of this error without explanation.
    • The text is littered with poor prose and questionable conclusions. While most seems to be correct, much of it is illogically structured, linking things that are connected or emphasizing facts that are not important. Here is just one example:
The gameplay in Majora's Mask is arguably deeper than that of Ocarina of Time. Its predecessor features bombs, arrows, and music (in the form of an ocarina) as tools to solve many of its puzzles; Majora's Mask includes multiple instruments as well as time travel and character transformations through certain masks to add further layers of difficulty and variety to the quests in the game.
Both games extensively use predecessor feature bombs, arrows, and music, so this misses the point. The use of multiple instruments adds no depth to the gameplay so it shouldn't be mentioned. The line "to add further layers of difficulty and variety to the quests in the game" doesn't say anything.
    • More generally, "one thought, one paragraph" is violated in multiple places. For example, the first paragraph under "Gameplay" jumps between comparing the game to Ocarina and (redundantly) explaining the storyline.
    • I want a separate section, with more content, about the use of a three-day time cycle. It is by far the most interesting and unique aspect of MM's gameplay
    • What is "The proceeding rooms are filled with obstacles through which Link and Tatl must navigate." about? This is trivial and doesn't advance the story.
    • I think the "Dungeons" section should be renamed, merged with "Characters", expanded to cover the entire world of Termina, trimmed, and given "Main article:" links to the articles Termina and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask characters.
    • Most of the story can be told without the spoiler tags.
    • The information on development is incomplete. The section should include the original working title, important announcement dates, and at which game shows it was previewed.
    • There is nothing on bugs or speedrunning (except a single external link for the latter).
Fredrik | tc 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, acqusations. Although most are reasonable, there are a few I must object to:

  • The gameplay is deeper: In ocarina of time, songs were used to warp, and many were one-timers; only the Song of Time and Zelda's Lullaby were used semi-frequently. The songs in Majora's Mask are used several times throughout the game to accomplish many different tasks; Every song is used at least twice in normal play. Also, Majora's mask has several sidequests; almost every mask has its own task needed to acquire it, and many involve using earlier masks or songs gained. Using these masks in gameplay allows for several different circumstances, and several different methods used to defeat enemies, and rarely bosses (see the Goht section for an example of different methods)
  • You are asking for a separate section about the three day time limit in order to appeal to what you believe to be the best aspect of the game; unfortunately, everyone else doesn't think the same way you do. It could be considered a gimmick, or it could be considered pure genius; this difference of perception could cause a flame war between fans of the game on Wikipedia. A situation such as this would be terrible.
  • "The proceeding rooms are filled with obstacles through which Link and Tatl must navigate," advances the story; it shows that Link and Tatl were with each other for a period of time before the true quest began.

Dee man45 03:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Gameplay is deeper
No objection at all. The problem with the cited paragraph is its complete failure to describe what you just did (!)
You are asking for a separate section about the three day time limit in order to appeal to what you believe to be the best aspect of the game; unfortunately, everyone else doesn't think the same way you do. It could be considered a gimmick, or it could be considered pure genius; this difference of perception could cause a flame war between fans of the game on Wikipedia. A situation such as this would be terrible.
Hold on a second; I didn't say it is the best of the game, or the most clever. I said it is the most peculiar aspect of the game, which is why it warrants extra attention; this would be true even if it were just a gimmick.
In any case, the gimmick view doesn't seem to be well supported. On the contrary, most critics refer to it as being central to the gameplay (along with masks). For example: "The object of Majora's Mask revolves around two things: masks and time.", "The way that time flows and is interleaved with the masks is what's most impressive." (IGN), "the game's time-sensitive nature" (Gamespot), "time [...] happens to play a very important role in this game" (Gaming Age).
If there were a real controversy regarding whether the time aspect is a gimmick, the case for writing about it in depth would only be more compelling.
"The proceeding rooms are filled with obstacles through which Link and Tatl must navigate," advances the story; it shows that Link and Tatl were with each other for a period of time before the true quest began.
The game segment advances the story, but this sentence doesn't explain that. This problem occurs elsewhere in the article. Fredrik | tc 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your points are taken; I retract my statements, although I still support this article. Dee man45 16:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I just put a lot of work into the article. I looked into the "It received some crit..." issue, and didn't find a lot to support so I rewrote to avoid saying that. I removed the Lost Woods speculation. The Basic Controls section has been absorbed by Gameplay and Masks + trans. The "while it's pred..." sentence has been rewritten. I rewrote the "poor prose" example, but I imagine this hasn't yet solved that entire point for you. I rewrote the "proceeding rooms" bit to convey that the section made Link get used to his new Deku Scrub body. The Dungeons section is now Termina and includes the characters section and the rewritten Temple/Boss sections, as well as the requested links. I moved the spoiler tags to not include the first part, which is not really a spoiler, but I don't know about moving it any further. As far as the bugs and speedrunning, I feel that there is nothing notable that would warrant inclusion in that section. It is Wikiproject policy at WP:CVG to keep information such as bugs to a minimum and only include them if they are notable. It would be appreciated if you could look over the article and strike out any objections that have been addressed. --Pagrashtak 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but the prose and use of images still needs to be improved. Certainly long bug lists are inappropriate, but major ones (or the lack thereof) and mention of bugs from Ocarina of Time that have been fixed would be interesting. Speedrunning is certainly relevant; in addition to the current world record, the "6 day challenge" should be covered. Fredrik | tc 03:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought I had addressed the "Dungeons" issue, do you feel it needs more work? I've just addressed the "development" section issue also. I'm not really sure how I'd write a section on the lack of bugs. While I also would find a section on speedrunning interesting, I'm just not sure it's encyclopedic. I think there would be a lot of people who don't find that interesting. I think we might have to disagree on those points. --Pagrashtak 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it needs more work; images would really help. The development section looks fine now. Regarding speedrunning, there's plenty of precedent; see for example Quake or Metroid series. Fredrik | tc 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
A "three-day cycle" section has been added. I also moved material around to keep the "three-day cycle" and "masks" thoughts more confined to the proper areas. I placed the new section below the masks section, as I feel the masks are more important than the three-day cycle. --Pagrashtak 16:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been reorganizing as I edit and have just done some copyedits and slight reorg. Please see if your "one thought one paragraph" and "poor prose, questionable conclusions" objections have been addressed. If not, perhaps you could provide examples. Regarding the dungeons section, I believe I've addressed the renaming and merging bullet (which can now be struck), just not the image bullet, correct? --Pagrashtak 22:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Beautiful! The images still need work, but this objection is minor. I will therefore change my vote to support. Fredrik | tc 05:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ObjectSupport I agree with Fredrik - nice! WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support this is the level of quality I have been trying to achieve with the Xenosaga page over the past week or so. Outstanding article, and I agree with a previous user: it "gives fancruft a good name". I am impressed. 14:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A lot of work has gone into this article over the last few days, and it really has improved markedly. Great job! Jacoplane 17:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - formatting looks good, the information's good. I'm not a fan of the game, but this certainly looks like a great article. (Ibaranoff24 23:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
  • Support - Great article, very well done everyone! --darkliighttalk 10:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is acceptable enough for me. 64.231.168.58 20:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose. The article is fairly comprehensive, but I'm experiencing a few issues with references and detail:
  1. There is no citation for the release dates of the game. I know this is picky, but if one was unsure of the date and required it to complete an article, they could have slipped any random date into the slot.
  2. The "Temples" section is far too detailed for an encyclopedia. The descriptions of how to battle and defeat the video game boss are much too in depth, and an everyday, common reader would probably have no desire to read every single word in each sentence.
  3. Twinmold, the guardian of Stone Tower Temple, is actually two creatures: giant sand worms (inspired by previous Zelda boss Lanmola). Citation? Source?
  4. Lack of wikilinks, as I've noted on the talk page.
  5. Players must plan what to accomplish in one cycle — attempting to complete too much could result in running out of time half-way through a task and being forced to abandon it and start over in another cycle. This is a poorly-written sentence. Could serve as a run-on sentence.
  • 64.231.163.117 02:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment For the date, 64.231.16...can I just call you 64? I'll look it up, but I'm sure that the one there is the true one. The Temples are a critical part of gameplayand the oeverall experience; I'll try to trim it down, but it is still important. There is no source whatsoever that Twinmold was inspired by Lanmola, so I'll delete that, but anyone can tell you that Twinmold is a double sand worm boss. I agree with wikilinks and the run-on; I'll see if I can do something about that. Dee man45 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you mind signing with a non-annon account. Also, i looked into your date issue, i came across the following. [24] and [25]. In both articles, the dates don't agree with each other. So just to point that out. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the double dates, gamespot is by far a more reliable source than rpgamer; an official liscened franchise of the industry is usually more correct than a fansite. Dee man45 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I would register an account on Wikipedia, but because my IP address is within the Toronto District Library (the 64.231... range is owned by the Toronto library), and Hollow Wilerding abused Wikipedia by what it appears to have been sock puppetry on the FACs, I cannot register an account. I'll be accused of being Hollow Wilerding. So as of present day, I can edit anonymously only. Anyway, on the issue of the dates, a user has to locate release dates that are precise and the same as opposed to the wacky all-over-the-place figures. The rest of my opposition needs to be referred to. 64.231.163.10 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd still rather you regiserted than an IP. even if your from Hollow's area. --ZeWrestler Talk 21:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • See your talk page ZeWrestler. 64.231.163.10 21:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karen Dotrice

Recommended changes made. Vote ongoing. RadioKirk talk to me 15:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-self-nom: This article just underwent massive retooling with immeasurable help from JoaoRicardo (talk). I believe this is ready, and I hope you do, too :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Hmm, nice attempt but sources are scarce, sections are too short and the lead is very choppy. The article needs to be expanded quite a bit, the article is much too short to become featured at this point. There is no apparent information about her personal life. Refer to peer review. — Wackymacs 07:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I hope this page will be reviewed for what it does offer rather than what it doesn't. Absent sending an e-mail to Ned Nalle and doing my own research (which is discouraged), this is pretty much all the relevant information available. RadioKirk talk to me 13:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, if you've got an issue with the FAC comprehensiveness requirement, then say so. ;-) Seriously, though, I thought there might be a bit more to be said about her. For instance, "Dotrice later starred as Alex Mackenzie in The Thirty-Nine Steps (1978), her only feature film as an adult," disappoints. Would there not be some review of the movie which would comment on Dotrice's performance? How did the movie perform? Would it hurt to have a brief (one-sentence) description of the plot or Dotrice's role (beyond the name of her character)? In addition, as Wackymacs said, the lead is rather choppy and needs to flow better. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL well, I would argue that one can be comprehensive within the parameters of limited data, but I'll see if there's something I missed somewhere... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 14:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Turns out you both were right *blush* RadioKirk talk to me 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object as per Wackymacs. Also, ideally footnotes should be using the native format available in MediaWiki now (see m:Cite/Cite.php). Johnleemk | Talk 10:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: References fixed. RadioKirk talk to me 14:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (Weaker) Object as per first nomination; I find it impossible to believe that none of the reviews/commentary on the theatrical/cinematic projects she appeared in made any evaluations of her art/craft as an actor. With so little commentary/review material online, I believe the article needs a stronger foundation in print sources for review/commentary to meet the FAC comprehensiveness requirement. This is a problem with many Wikipedia articles on older pop culture subjects. Monicasdude 15:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Monicasdude 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Me, either; Maltin's was the only one I could find. I'll keep looking...
Edit: Argh! Finding a contemporaneous review (or a recent one by anyone of note) that doesn't gloss over Dotrice's performances is almost impossible. The one I did find is downright bland, but, it works. RadioKirk talk to me 18:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Following changes:

  • Looks better, and I now only weakly object. I'm not very happy about the lead as it is - it could be consolidated into one or two paragraphs and be a better summary of the article. The information on Dotrice's family is also out of place. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I think I got it! Lead less choppy but not too short; expands on Othello (how did I miss that before?). RadioKirk talk to me 20:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would be more comfortable supporting if the lead were one or two paragraphs instead of a bunch of disparate sentences thrown together. Aside from that, everything looks to be in order, and once that's fixed, consider this a support. Johnleemk | Talk 06:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I just reread it and I can't think of a thing to change; it's a tight, concise summation of her entire life and career. If you have suggestions, by all means, hit my talk page. :) RadioKirk talk to me 16:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, though I did some work on the article myself. JoaoRicardotalk 15:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, lots of footnotes. Banes 21:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good, quotes look nice, footnotes and such. Pictures look setup right. Good job overall.--Azathar 21:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object (for now) I don't think this is comprehensive yet. There are only four lines under 'early life', the 'television' section could surely be expanded etc. Compare the featured articles Bob Dylan or Humphrey Bogart. Mikkerpikker ... 23:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. This bloody thing may be the death of me... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Comprehensive and written nicely. Gflores Talk 23:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support having merged the lead per Wikipedia:Lead section, though I absolutely agree with previous requests for filling out early life. Staxringold 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I promise, if I ever find anything else, I'll include it ASAP ;) RadioKirk talk to me 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment on your talk page. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I personally feel that the claims of fair use that are now present could be a little stronger, though right now they appear to be adequate. Extraordinary Machine 17:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nightwish

I've worked substantially on this article, to try and improve this article since September. Users like Sn0wflake and Leyasu have also had a big hand in improvements done to this article. I finally feel that this article has everything a FA needs, so I hereby nominate it.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 13:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Support well written - quite interesting. --ComputerJoe 11:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Support - Well written and structred well. Has a good layout. FireFox 16:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Well rounded article. --Alf melmac 13:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • SupportI don't listen to this type of music at all, but I think the article is written well and has good layout. [User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 15:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC) I still stand by what I wrote, but after reading Tuf-Kat's comments, I have to agree with most of what he wrote. A little work on his comments and I'll change this back. Rlevse 01:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)I'm content now.Rlevse 16:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Notes list should be numbered, not a bulleted. — Wackymacs 16:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)*:Good point, I've cleaned up the Notes-section. How does the article do now?Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This is a well thought out article that covers all the bases, on an up-and-coming but still relatively unknown band on a world scale. --Naha|(talk) 16:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Wow, I remember hearing about these guys from MP3.com back in the day. Neat article - some paragraphs are a little short and I'd double check the fair use rationale... but so for it looks passable to me. WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Zach (Smack Back) 21:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object but it's close and I think it may be fixable. It needs a copyedit -- in the lead, for example, it's not clear whether "symphonic metal/power metal" means the terms are synonymous or the band does both, or why these genres are different from "opera metal" (i.e. why not "symphonic/power/opera metal"?). Also the quote seems to come too early in the lead, I suggest moving it down. "is currently recovering from a break with their former vocalist" makes it sound like a hiatus, when it appears to be a breakup (which is different) and the "currentness" of that fact should be referenced (e.g. as of 2005), and what does it mean to be "recovering" in this sense? Are they taking time off to heal the emotional wounds, or are they continuing to promote and/or record without the vocalist and/or write songs to produce later or what? The next few sentences seem to clarify, but don't really, and they need copyediting as well. A few other concerns:
  1. A few more sound samples might be nice, and they ought to be moved into their historical context (i.e. in the body of the article), with a caption that explains something notable about the recording (e.g. one of their more mellow songs, their biggest hit, a fan favorite, or something like that) -- this makes the fair use claim more logical, I think.
  2. I'd really like some sort of print reference. Are there any biographies of the band (or individual members)? Are they mentioned in any books that take a historical approach? I know this is a recent band, but I think it's important to have some sort of scholarly view on their place in music history
  3. This article is all a biography of the band. It needs more describing their musical style and influences, and, if verifiable, who has been influenced by them.
  • Tuf-Kat 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your points. I have already tried to cover your point about influence, and I will try to take care of the two other points tomorrow..too tired now.. Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like a little more on that, but your addition is very nice. Tuf-Kat 09:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I've tried to implement your proposed changes. Please take a new look. Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 13:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. I have to disagree with Tuf-Kat's opinion that it's 'close' to FA standard. It fails Criterion 2(a) by a long shot. Let's look at the opening:
Nightwish is a Finnish symphonic metal band, formed in 1996, although they're considered power metal by some. In other cases they have been called opera metal. Although they immediately acclaimed fame in their home country with the release of their first single, a broad worldwide support didn't come to be until their 2002 and 2004 releases of the albums Century Child and Once.
    • The first comma is probably better as 'that was'; in any case, inserting 'formed in 1996' just before the contrastive 'however' clause creates mayhem.
    • The contraction 'they're' should be spelt out in this register.
    • Who are 'some'? The elision creates an undesirable vagueness, especially right at the opening. What about 'although some commentators [or musicians, or critics] consider the band's style to be 'power metal'. The last item should be linked, and written up if non-existent or stubbish.
    • By 'In other cases' you really mean 'in other cases of classifying their style', which, again, is an unsatisfactory elision; it asks the reader to work far too hard to make sense of it. We also have 'considered' vs. 'called'.
    • 'acclaimed'—ungrammatical, and creates a jingle with 'fame'.
    • 'immediately'; well, maybe, but it's too precise for my liking; perhaps just remove?
    • 'a broad worldwide support didn't come to be'—remove 'a', and probably 'broad' too; spell out the contractive; 'come to be' is not idiomatic here.
    • 'until their 2002 and 2004 releases of the albums Century Child and Once'—the dates are jumbled; try: 'until the release of their albums Century Child (2002) and Once (2004)'.
    Now, I'd like to help, but I'm not interested enough in the topic, and it will be a long, intensive job to rewrite this text so that the prose is 'compelling, even brilliant'. Better to withdraw it and enlist the help of others. Tony 04:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Nice use of source material, the notes were appropriate and helped expand the article for a complete novice such as myself. If this alone qualified the article as an FA then I would support it. I feel rather at a loss to add to the suggested corrections above, as they seem pretty comprehensive and readily actionable for someone knowledgable in the subject matter. I look forward to being able to support presently. --HasBeen 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I've rewritten the lead paragraph, rephrased a few bits throughout the rest of the article (as per Tony1) and added soundsamples to the history section of the article (as per TUF-KAT). Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking much more robust! Support --HasBeen 08:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Consider it a newbie question if you will, but doesn't this article violate criteria 2e for featured article candidates? It will be changing as the band makes new tours and release new albums. How should the policy be applied in this case? JoaoRicardotalk 13:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Response: I think that's OK where the changes reflect change in the real world; that's the advantage of WP over hard copy. Tony 13:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In addition to Tony1; I don't think that that applies to this article. Nightwish doesn't release a new album on a weekly or daily basis. Their next album is scheduled for 2007, so I don't think that your concerns for violation of criteria 2e are accurate. Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 13:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The "listen to this article" box is a little overt. I took a look at the bottom of the article but that is quite busy, any ideas? --Oldak Quill 13:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The file is heavily outdated anyway. I'll just renive tge template and list it at the talkpage instead, through use of {{Talk Spoken Wikipedia}} Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 13:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. As other comments have noted, this article needs a top-to-bottom copyedit/rewrite; on the technical level, the prose is quite unwieldy. "The success of the album allowed them to do the Once World Tour, which enabled them to play at many different locations, many of which where new countries which they had never been to before." "The rest of the band considered it to not be working well with their vision of how they saw themselves in the future." "The three of them got around to record an acoustic demo-album from October until December 1996." Too many specific statements, which should be easily verifiable, lack any references. And the article includes virtually no discussion of the band's critical reception, even any review links or summaries. The article is overloaded with copyrighted images that don't have appropriate fair-use justifications. Monicasdude 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Important notice: I have rewritten the article in an enhanced prose, an action which, I feel, is sufficient to address the concerns of those who found it to be of a poor nature previously. As such, I would like to ask for you ro review the article as it currently stands, and possibly to review your votes. Cheers, --Sn0wflake 21:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The prose has been cleaned up significantly, and that has greatly improved the article's readability. However, it still does not meet FA criteria:
    • Image:Nightwish2.jpg, Image:Nightwish-deepsilentcomplete.jpg, Image:Overhillsfarawayvideo.jpg, and Image:Tuska wed nw.jpg have no rationale for fair use.
    • The discography section needs to be either list-formatted or table-formatted as text; currently, it uses fair-use images in a context that does not specifically discuss their content. That's decorative use of fair use images, and as per discussions at WP:MUSIC and WP:FAIR, that isn't appropriate use.
    • The "Influence" section, at two three-sentence paragraphs, is not comprehensive. Also, the "Musical style" section repeats "some say...", "some have called...", etc.; even though sources are cited, the prose there will still seem weaselly unless it's worked directly into the text who is saying these things. --keepsleeping sleeper cell 01:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay... that won't be incredibly hard to fix. I have replaced the Discography section with a text version. As for the rest, I will leave those for SoothingR to fix, as he was the one who got the images/refs, and thus knows where they are from. --Sn0wflake 02:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I've taken care off all your guys suggestions. Everyone who opposed; please consider reviewing your vote. Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 12:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. In the process of making this article FAC compliable, its drifting further and further away from being truthfull, accurate, and NPOV. I suggest all concerned, editers and reviewers, step back and read the article as if they were someone who had NO KNOWLEDGE of the band, at all.
Mainly i say this because, with edits some editors are making to get this article to be FAC complient, its getting more POV, and less accurate. Its beginning to forget about what the band is, their place, what they do, what theyve accomplished, and sounds more like a fan rant pcking and chosing parts about the band that they want people to know, and emmiting parts they dont.
Go for it, get it FAC complient. In the process though, try keeping the article accurate and correct, and if someone doesnt understand something, they can quite easily clink a link to another article. Other than that, people need to read the article outside of their view of the band, and read it fairly as NPOV, which its beginning to seriously lack in. Leyasu 00:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How's it getting POV? The article cites its sources. It's clearly not suggesting what readers should believe, it just indicates how Nightwish and their albums were received. There's a difference there.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 18:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Leyasu, as much as I am trying to respect you as an editor, you are beginning to cross the line. Every valid edit you have made has been incorporated into the article, if only with a slight rephrasing to keep the language as encyclopedic as possible. You have just made a very long rant stating that we are ruining the article, but you didn't manage to point out a single passage which proves your point. While we are at it, I might as well go ahead and state that I am not a fan of Nightwish. So tell me, how can an article be fan-POV if one of its main editors is not a fan of the band? Either you take this discussion to the Talk page and tell us what passages you think are wrong, or you are might as well not disrupt the FAC proccess. I do not think that in a any level your complaints are reasonable. --Sn0wflake 20:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment. I've had another look, at the request of one of the contributors, and I'm afraid it's still nowhere near good enough in terms of Criterion 2a, although it has improved. I've copy-edited the lead, where I found things like:
'throughout the end of 2006 and beginning of 2007, being released later that year'

Further down, I see things like:

Can you find someone with fresh eyes who's good at editing? It really needs a thorough going through to be called 'compelling, even brilliant' prose. Sorry I can't be more positive at this stage; I'd like to be. Tony 04:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I fixed the things mentioned in the above list of suggestions, except for the number thing. --Naha|(talk) 07:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that; they were, of course, only examples of a wider issue. Tony 10:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of saffron

Self-nomination. A peer review here saw no comments. All this was part of Saffron when it passed through FAC. I am nominating this article for the same reasons (I have heavily researched this), while others (especially Bunchofgrapes and Silence) were indispensable in fact-checking and copyediting my writing. Saravask 20:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Not really an objection, but IMHO it could use a bit more tweaking with the flow of the article WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, although I researched the content and wrote it up, the prose has been extensively copyedited by three people. I welcome you to be more specific on flow, and I'll see what I can do. Saravask 00:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't copyedited this yet at all. I only did the early sections of the article; I stopped before I reached "history" (which has been under heavy editing lately, anyway). I can give it a shot if you're interested, though. -Silence 03:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops; sure, if you could give it a good once-over, I'd be glad. Thanks. Saravask 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am slightly conflicted over the title of this article. While I think the title is strictly inaccurate (ignoring other non-human species and biological factors), I also don't think it necessary or appropriate for such content to be included in this article. On the other hand I wouldn't want a stupidly long, pedantic and defining title. Any ideas?--Oldak Quill 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection. This article covers the history of saffron. Other material is at saffron. Can you be more specific? - Mgm|(talk) 12:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Importantly, it is not an objection - just an inquiry. The article is about the history of human interaction with saffron, I was wondering whether the title "history of saffron" was appropriate for this article which only deals with the history of human-interaction. Looking in the OED, its primary definitions of the word "history" don't necessarily imply that it is human history, or that the history needs to have anything to do with humans. Lower down the listing the definitions become more Homo-centric with human involvement implied. Considering it now, I think it unlikely that there'll be confusion over the content of the article and that I was being a little pedantic. Support. --Oldak Quill 14:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. That article is very well done. I admire the thoroughness of your research. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent use of the source material. This is definately an example to follow, thank you and well done. --HasBeen 09:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Commons link belongs in the external links section and an empty part of the blockquote is covered by an image (even on a pretty large screen), could the block quote be made less wide so it fits next to the image? - Mgm|(talk) 12:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Here you are. Saravask 14:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Great work, great illustrations - well done. Giano | talk 13:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The only reason for an objection which I could find was the Commons-box, which appeared halfway through the article. I have removed it, and I'm in full support now. Excellent prose, nice pictures (with approved copyright status - none are fair use, excellent!) and extensive use of references. Good job.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 18:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support I find it odd that the history section of Saffron contains information about the history of saffron in North America that this article, a split from the original saffron one, does not contain. I suggest that this more detailed historical information be transfered, and that the history section of Saffron generally be pared down, now that we essentially have a featured article on its history. That said, great work; I'm impressed. --Zantastik 19:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Someone must like saffron a lot. - Cuivienen 03:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Perfect!--sansvoix 23:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. North American stuff appears in this article. The blockquote is really only a minor quabble and Commons box is now in correct place. Now let's get started on the next saffron article! - Mgm|(talk) 12:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent! One of the best articles I've read on wikipedia... Mikkerpikker 17:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dixie (song)

Self-nomination. This article is an outgrowth of my research on minstrel show, and I think it's shaped up quite nicely. The sources cover a wide variety of viewpoints on both the authorship and modern appropriateness of "Dixie", and I've hopefully summed these up neutrally. The article is over the size limit, but this is due mainly to footnotes, images, and sound samples; without these, it is 32 KB.

I requested a peer review, and no major concerns were brought up. You can read the peer review here.

Thanks! — BrianSmithson 19:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

One more note: There are still some red links (most conspicuously Snowden Family Band). I will take care of these in the next couple of days. — BrianSmithson 19:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I just pruned all the footnotes I believe could be pruned. There are two mutually exclusive schools of thought here, one of which says "document everything with a source" and another that says "footnotes hurt readability". The footnotes that remain all document the sources for direct quotations, surprising or contentious statements, and paraphrases of other authors' ideas. The notes I just removed were for simple facts that are uncontested from source to source. If anyone believes that any of the removed notes needs to be reiinstated, please let me know, and I'll be happy to comply. As for the "less notes" camp, I'm afraid this is the best I can do. If the nomination fails due to too many references, then that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. We're down to 42 kb, less without the extras. — BrianSmithson 04:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - at 46kb I feel the writing is not concise enough. Also, an astonishing 92 entries in 'notes' is really overwhelming - it makes it look more like an academic paper than an encyclopaedia article and harms the readability of the article. A third point is that the see also section is redundant, both articles already being linked to in the text. Worldtraveller 20:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The notes are essential and should not be removed from the article. Length is not an issue for FAs. Andrew Levine 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Length is an issue for FAs as it as for all articles. See Wikipedia:Summary style - Articles larger than 30 KB may be getting too long to efficiently cover their topic. Worldtraveller 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Precedent has firmly established that the suggestion (not policy or even recommendation) of 30Kb on the Summary Style page need not be a bar to FA status. This holds true when examining the lengths of both older FAs and recent promotions. For example, last month alone we promoted TGV, Apple Macintosh, and Fred Phelps, which are all longer articles than this one. Andrew Levine 09:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The article is only 32 kb without the notes, soundclips, and images. This isn't out of line with existing FAs. I don't think that too many notes ist a valid criterion for opposition; everything I've referenced is either a) another author's interpretation or opinion which I'm summarizing, b) a direct quote, or c) a claim that may seem startling or contentious. I've axed the "See also" section, as I agree that it was redundant. — BrianSmithson 20:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I realise an increasing number of FAs are as long or longer than this, but I feel that 32kb or less is a very worthy thing to strive for, as much longer articles can easily lose the reader's interest before the end. As for notes, you have large numbers of references to the same works, which in many cases are probably not necessary. Specific quotes or controversial facts should be individually cited, but for example I don't feel the sentence "The stories had little effect; for most Americans, "Dixie" was synonymous with the South" requires a cite - many similar examples exist. In any case, even if you want to keep all the individual citations, you should probably merge the notes with the references, using the new citation markup described on Talk:FAC, to save space and bytes.
I looked at some recently promoted articles and the sizes as of right now were as follows: Triumph of the Will (41k), Sheffield (39k), Guqin (62k), Gettysburg Address (36k), Malwa (38k), Gas tungsten arc welding (30k) and Saffron (68k) and I just couldn't figure out how big Short-beaked Echidna and Economy of the Iroquois are, but by comparison Dixie doesn't seem out of line. jengod 03:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Echidna is 20.5kb, Iroquois is 22.8kb. I checked my own FAs for interest, all are between 13 and 27kb except for the possibly over-long Hubble Space Telescope at 55kb. Generally, though, I believe the smaller an article can be while still being comprehensive, the better. Some articles need to be long to be comprehensive (I feel Hubble was one of these), but most topics can be thoroughly treated in less than 32kb of text and markup. I am personally becoming concerned at the number of articles of 50kb and greater which are becoming FAs, as I don't generally believe that such lengthy articles are suitably encyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Another thing I feel could do with work is the structure of the article - I'm sure there could be a better way than having 7 subsections of history and then no other section having subsections. Perhaps the 'Dixie at war' and subsequent two sections could be merged into a new 'subsequent evolution' or similarly titled section. Worldtraveller 20:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback; I'll take a look at any references I might be able to axe later tonight. As for that new referencing style, does it really save bytes? You have to retype the full reference each time. And I'm not sure I think having a single "Notes and references" section without another alphabetical bibliography is a good idea. As for the structure, I could just axe the B-head (==) "History" and make all the current C-heads (===) into B-heads. I'm not entirely adverse to your suggestion to merge "Dixie at war" and later chunks, but I think that would create an overlong section. — BrianSmithson 20:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made this change. I've also moved all the stuff on composition and copyright into its own section. I think things are more logically organized now. — BrianSmithson 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the organisation of the article works better now and has improved the readability. On the topic of notes and quotes, I wonder if you have a few too many direct quotations, the essence of which could simply be incorporated into the flow of the text. Fewer direct quotations would mean you don't need so many footnotes to cite them all. Worldtraveller 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Changed over to the new referening system, and it works great. Dropped 3 KB and 8 notes (due to duplicates not being counted separately). I'll look at possibly removing some notes later (though I'm so confused with all the banter going on here . . . :)) — BrianSmithson 03:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work in addressing my comments - the article looks much better. I still do feel there are an overwhelming number of notes and would strongly prefer that there were fewer, but appreciate that you've at least reduced them a bit! Reading it through again just now I noticed a few spelling mistakes, and Nathan's analysis of the style is quoted twice, but I'm almost ready to support the nomination. Worldtraveller 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Your remaining concerns should now be dealt with (all remaining misspelled words are in direct quotes or lyrics). By "Nathan's analysis of the style", I'm guessing you meant the bit about Nathan thinking "Dixie" similar to other works by Emmett; that was mentioned twice, but is now only in there once. — BrianSmithson 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Clearly a lot of good work has gone into this and I'm sure it'll make to it featured status in this nomination, just one comment: I, too, feel that the footnotes are a bit excessive. Footnotes are most useful for a) direct quotes, b) surprising or controversial statements. The article uses them well in those places. But take a sentence like this:

For many white Southerners, on the other hand, "Dixie" is, like the Confederate flag, a symbol of Southern heritage, identity, and pride. [Abel 51]

This is not surprising or controversial. Nor is it a thing which you're really sourcing from one book. It's something you know about the subject from just about any work which deals with it. Citing a single source on this might make a reader completely unfamiliar with the topic think that this was something other than a generally accepted well-known fact. Maybe she'd even think that it's something this Abel guy was the first to figure out :) It's not a big deal, just thought I'd mention it. Good luck with the nomination! - Haukur 20:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the above, because (1) I think that particular quote is mildly controversial, and citation is excellent--it avoids weasel words in which the author imposes his opinion without verifiability. (2) I think it's incredibly unfair to nail an article for too many citations. I think that's strictly an aesthetic issue, not a truly fundamental concern. jengod 21:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
For its being somewhat controversial, see my comments below. I fear that lending the song cultural content today is at least troubling, as it leads to a reductive view very quickly, and I'm not sure that the song has carried those associations particularly. Geogre 14:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not nailing the article, I'm not even opposing its promotion. It's just my opinion that footnotes work best when used as I outlined above and that too many footnotes water down the usefulness of the most useful ones.
Take it as an indication of the article's high quality that we're discussing things like this :) - Haukur 21:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, covers everything it needs to, high quality of writing. Andrew Levine 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Finally got a chance to read the whole thing, and I agree that it is "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable." It also has a good lead, has supporting images and sounds (appropriate for an article about a piece of music), and is extensively sourced. Bravo, Brian. jengod 02:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: It does feel a bit long, but that may be a product of comprehensive analysis. Exceptionally thorough, careful, and meticulous, with no substantial lapses in writing, this is a fine featured article on one of the most important American cultural touchstones. My only content grousing comes with the "opposition" section, as I feel that the opposition is somewhat nebulous. My impression, as a person living through the era, was that there was no opposition to the song, per se. Rather, there was an appropriation of the song as a code for white supremacy (as the entire Confederacy became recast as an institution of slavery and slavery as an institution of Jim Crow and Jim Crow as an institution of differential rights) and an opposition to this re-use of the song. I.e. no one had a problem with "Dixie" until people like Strom Thurmond began whistling it when Black legislators got on the elevator with him to tell them that he was against them. It wasn't and isn't, in other words, the American "Horst Wessel Song" or "Deutschland Uber Alles." Geogre 03:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support if the number of notes is reduced. You have a couple of sources repeating several times. Consolidate them: add them to general reference or make in line citation. Also, the first 3 notes are not needed (they are not controversial, might seem a little pov, but no one argues that Dixie is famous). Renata3 05:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This article is definately one to hold up as good practice. The extensive referencing is entirely appropriate in such a widely researched piece of cultural history. The differences between this article and too many entries for contemporary songs are very significant indeed, and we would do well to use this piece as a template for deciding on future FAs (or indeed AfDs) in the field of stand-alone song entries. --HasBeen 10:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Reduce the high number of notes and I will change my vote to a full-fledged support.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 12:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Shouldn't the text of the song come earlier in the article? The very end seems late to introduce the lyrics, and much of the rest of the article is written with the assumption that the reader knows the lyrics. - Cuivienen 20:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • From looking at the article real quick, it does seem you could have Lyrics as the first section after the lead and then move into the history and it wouldn't screw too much up. (I think.) The only reason I suggest this is that even tho I know the song/tune, I couldn't get any of the music files to load (stoopid computer), so it might be nice to put a reminder about the sound of the song before parsing it more fully. jengod 00:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm going to play with the footnotes tonight (trying out the new system first, then maybe another template-based one), but I don't think a rearrangement will mess the article up too much. It'd mostly be a matter of the first appearance of terms changing place and the associated changes in wikilinks. — BrianSmithson 00:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I've moved "Structure" and "Lyrics" to the top of the article, followed by "Composition and Copyright" and the rest of the historical stuff. This entailed explaining a few things earlier (the song's Civil War importance, for example). I also had to change wikilinks to coincide with the change in the first instances of certain terms. However, I do think that it is more logical to describe the lyrics of the song before moving on to discuss, for example, how those lyrics might hint at an African American origin. If people don't like the new setup, it's an easy revert. — BrianSmithson 17:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; improvements may be possible, but this is already up to FA level. I totally oppose the comment about too many notes. WP:V, which is policy, says:
    Any edit lacking a source may be removed… References (sources) can be provided by linking to the source if it's online, giving a brief citation in brackets after the sentence if it isn't (called Harvard referencing), or using a footnote system.
I've been engaged on discussions on the talk page of that policy and been one of the "doves" there, in that I felt that "Any edit lacking a source may be removed" is too harsh. I was pretty much completely overruled: the only modification was to add the qualification "If you doubt the truthfulness of an unsourced statement, remove it to the talk page. Otherwise, just request a source." (That is, don't go around cutting unsourced statements willy-nilly, even when you know them to be true.) That's fine, I don't need to win every argument, but if that is policy then we cannot say the opposite here.
Also, as I understand it, the 32K "limit" was never intended to refer to physical file size, but to the length of the article. Notes, clearly marked as such, do not make the substantive article longer. If you don't want to read the notes, you don't read the notes. This is simplicity itself. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Support. Interesting article, but the prose is not good enough; many, many sentences need fixing. Just one point: please consider removing the quote marks from "Dixie" every time it appears. Looks much better without, and unnecessary to mark it dozens of times.Tony 01:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the edits, Tony. I don't think removing the quotes would be acceptable, though; "Dixie" is a song title, and should thus be "quoted", n'est-ce pas? — BrianSmithson 01:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Brian, it's a matter of style, rather than a strict rule, I think. Where a title is used frequently, writers typically don't mark it after the first occurrence. It kind of leaps out at you each time with the quotes; perhaps I'm being a little fussy; I get wound up about these tiny matters coz I'm reading psychologist. <grin> Tony 02:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm equally fussy with typography, but to me every time I see a song title not enclosed in quote marks it looks a little, well, naked. If they weren't already there, I would definitely add them. Andrew Levine 06:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It's no big deal. Tony 13:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Lovely comprehensive and well written page. For what it's worth I like to see "Dixie" enclosed, may be that's old fashioned but to my eyes it looks far more correct and clear. Giano | talk 09:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) addresses this issue: "Song titles are enclosed in quotes." jengod 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wonderful article! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 05:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support! This is a well-researched and well-written article well-deserving of FAC. There are not too many references - the length limit is intended to represent the prose. The stated purpose of the length limit is to match attention span - most people do not read the notes and the ones who will obviously have a long attention span for this subject anyway! Bravo, job well done! InvictaHOG 12:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, looks excellent. Appears to be well-written, comprehensive, and I don't have a problem with the numerous references and notes. Some of the notes, could, however, be maybe consolidated without losing anything (e.g. just put one at the end of the paragraph and explain in the note which facts come from which source). Tuf-Kat 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I also am disturbed to see a request to remove citations - citations are a useful way to aid users of Wikipedia content in doing factual verification - "looking like a academic paper" is missing the substance for the appearence. If you don't like the look of lots of notes, feel free to change how they are included, but don't push for them to be removed! How else can a serious user of the encyclopedia verify the claim s we make? JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Although I would agree that Harvard Referencing may disrupt the readibility of an article, I do not think footnotes dos so. More importantly, articles are meant to be informative, and footnotes provide important information. I do not see any excessive citations here. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Kane

I think this is ready. Got a good suggestion in the peer review that I complied with as good as I could. Maybe a true art historian could have done better... Anyway, I believe this article is way more comprehensive than the Feature at The Canadian Encyclopedia, and might even rival Harper's entry for Kane in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. I would normally have given it more time before placing it here, but I'd like to get this done before I have to return the books to the library. Lupo 08:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support This is a very good article, and well worth holding up as an example of good practice. Although I have only been able to get hold of two of the referenced books, I can readily see that the source material has been used appropriately. I personally found the use of pictures to be both illustrative of the text and indicative of the scope of this painter. Well done, please do forward for a front-pager. --HasBeen 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The two books would be the Eaton/Urbanek and the Garvin one, I suppose. Those are the two I have. I have not been able to lay my hands on Harper (U of Texas, 1971), which is why it's listed under "further reading" only. The other ISBN just gives the full source where the on-line version of the Heirloom thingy came from. What really bugs me is that the ROM has apparently taken down its great online exhibition on December 31, 2005! I'm leaving the link; it's still accessible of sorts through the Wayback Machine. Lupo 08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Not only does the article set a good example for a Featured Article, the images in the article are excellent examples of correct copyright tagging as well.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 11:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Actually, tagging was easy, as all but one are {{PD-art}}, and I always give the source as precisely as I can. Mentioning the museums where the originals are located is common courtesy. Lupo 08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done. Rlevse 13:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, nicely done, and quite an interesting topic, too. Thanks for sharing this element of Canadiana with Wikipedia. jengod 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Seems a good page. Aspern 21:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article: a comprehensive biography of his life and legacy. Well researched, well written, and from what I could see, well formatted for Wikipedia. My only comment (not strong enough for an objection) is that there is very little information on what his contemporaries thought of him, and perhaps where he "fits" in terms of other well-known Canadian artist (did any of the Group of Seven artists have any thoughts about his work, one way or the other, for example?) And by the way, you may be interested in knowing that the new gallery of the First Nations at the Royal Ontario Museum which opened last week has put all of the works they have together in a single display, possibly a couple dozen paintings or more. Captmondo 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Kane's exhibits were highly successful at the time and lauded by several newspapers, and he dominated the art scene of Upper Canada throughout the 1850s. I can add something to that effect (with sources). (Done. Lupo 08:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)) On the Group of Seven, or rather, placing him more in context in Canadian art history in general, please see Renata3's excellent suggestion in the peer review and my answer to that. I'm neither Canadian nor an art historian, nor do I live in Canada, and thus it is very difficult for me to find the sources that would be needed to do that. Perhaps a Canadian could help out? (Again, see the peer review for a book I think would be helpful for this.) The comment on the ROM is interesting; maybe they will put up a new online exhibition with some info on Kane, too. Lupo 08:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per my comments on peer review. Very very nice. Renata3 16:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cynna Kydd

I think I've done about as much as is possible with this one. I've had in the works for more than two months, and it's the first serious attempt I've had at getting something featured in more than a year. Nothing much was raised in peer review, and it's been getting good feedback whereever I've raised it. Ambi 02:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - the only minor gripe is I'd love to see a bigger image, but content is king and my support is behind this nomination. -- Longhair 03:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Would it be possible to get more free images for this? enochlau (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just a quick explanation for why the image is smaller: I could only find one image of the lady, and that was copyrighted. To satisfy fair use I had to change it in size. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Like most Americans, the sport and the star are entirely unknown to me. Thus, I'm possibly a good audience member. What I didn't get from the article is the measure of the person outside of a very, very narrow context. This is not a subject matter complaint, because I have no stance on the subject matter whatever. Rather, I couldn't get a feel for how important the figure is, whether she has had a wider career or not, whether she has been celebrated in the nation rather than merely the sport or not, whether her successes or treatment led to changes in policy or audience for the sport. In a sense, I felt like I was only getting an account of a sportswoman in a sport. I would like for a wider context and more depth, but I am not objecting. (The sentence structures could be varied a bit, as there is a bit too much reliance on to-be verbs, but that's just a suggestion for improvement and not a complaint.) Geogre 04:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a bit tricky. From what I understand, she is pretty important in the Netball world, can't say much about her outside of this. However, wouldn't stating her importance be seen as pushing a POV? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - has lots of great references for the reader to look up, and a good picture. I think it is up there with other sporting articles. Told me all I needed to know even though I've never heard of her before (shows how netball is a minority sport!). --EuropracBHIT 07:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Object:This is a very good general Wikipedia article, but Like Geogre above I don't feel this article is comprehensive enough to be a FA. It does not tell us much about her as a person in a wider context. I assume some-one who knows about these things feels that the image is fair use or whatever. It is also quite short, with all those references there must be a lot more to say. Further images would be nice but they are always a problem to find with a living subject. Giano | talk 08:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What wider context? I'm afraid if I'm to act on this I'm going to need a bit more information. Ambi 08:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry about that, for a bio the page is very limited to what must be just one facet of her life. In 25 years she must have done something other than play netball. For example - It mentions she is getting married - to whom? - does she collect stamps? If she is a well known public figure (ie notable) there must be quite a bit more information about her. Giano | talk 08:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't think it's disputable that she's notable - she's a national representative and former national MVP, and a Factiva search comes up with quite a bit over a thousand hits for her. Yet she simply hasn't done anything overly notable off court. She went to high school, and played netball. She went to university, and played netball. She was unemployed for the best part of a year, and played netball. What little off-field information there is to know is already mentioned, as is the identity of her partner. It seems like you're asking me to find information on things that not only do I not have anything about, but that didn't happen, which isn't really actionable. Ambi 08:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
          • One needs to think outside the square a little here. Netball isn't a major sport worldwide, it isn't a popular sport for male participation, and it isn't a sport we all sit down regularly at the tv to cheer on and watch. Cynna Neele has achieved, and if Netball (I don't play it, but my mother did, and she's not sporty at all - anymore) can be brought just that little bit closer to the limelight it probably deserves, then that's not a bad thing. I'd still prefer another image though :) -- Longhair 09:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate what you are saying, but FAC is not here to give publicity to a sport. Perhaps a good FA could be written about Australian netball, including potted "sporting biographies"of its current and past stars, thus publicising the sport in that way. Giano | talk 09:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Giano, I must strongly disagree with your comment that this bio is just there to promote Netball. Why, you could use the same argument for Chris Mullin (basketball) for basketball! (not that it needs promoting...). I can't see how this article can be expanded any further in its own right - though of course there may be a few tweaks that can be made. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I was not referring to the bio being here to promote netball, but Longhair's remark "if Netball .... can be brought just that little bit closer to the limelight it probably deserves, then that's not a bad thing". Yes it would be a good thing, but promoting "a life story" with few details of that life is not going to achieve that object. Giano | talk 09:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The other point I was going to make is, how many Netball players edit Wikipedia? The sport is possibly more popular than most of us would ever know. -- Longhair 23:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What has that to do with this FAC? Giano | talk 10:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Giano, objections must be actionable. You're asking me to provide information, not that I don't have, but on things that simply haven't occurred, as I've explained here and on your talk page. I don't care if you don't want the article featured, but I'm prepared to fix any actionable objections if you choose to give any. Ambi 10:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Giano - beyond the name of her fiance (which is now included in the article) - do you have any specific facts that are not mentioned? "Tell me more about this person" is a bit too vague to be actionable, IMO. Raul654 04:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK: Tell us all about the person. A biography is a life story, not just an article covering a person's career. Private life may seem intrusive to some, but it's the price of fame (rightly or wrongly), but that is just one aspect which is missing. If a person is so young, that they have only achieved success in one limited field, or as is probably the case here little information is easily available then perhaps it is too soon to write a biography. Most sporting personalities even young ones, campaign against drugs - take drugs - help deprived children - murder their granny anything, even just excel at needlework at school (she did attend school?) Does she have parents, or was she the result of immaculate conception? There must be more to tell us, if not, then it's too soon. Giano | talk 09:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but this is a biography of her life to date - not just her career. She hasn't taken drugs, or if so, there is no evidence of it. She hasn't campaigned against drugs. She hasn't murdered her grandmother. Yes, she went to school, and all those details are covered in the article. Yes, she has parents. I could, I suppose, add that she worked for her parents business as a child, but I didn't think it fitted in with the text in the first paragraph. Apart from that, there simply isn't anything to tell - which means, in essence, your objection is unactionable. Every article is supposed to be featurable, and you have no right to judge when or when not someone is "deserving". Ambi 11:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not judging if or not she is deserving, just questioning if all facts are included. You have just mentioned one or two more which you apparently knew, and chose not to include in the article. So you're argument that all available information is in the article is not strictly accurate is it? A biography is just that - a biography and should not record just the selected highlights of someone's life. Why not rename the page "Cynna Neale's career in netball", because at the moment that is all it is. Can you see where I am coming from now? Giano | talk 09:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You've questioned whether all facts have been included in the article, and you've been told - repeatedly - that they have. There were two facts that I thought could possibly be included in the article, but felt didn't fit. Everything else is in this article. This isn't "Cynna Neele's career in netball" - it's "Cynna Neele", which is why it covers her childhood and her time at university as well. It's just that, as that's about all she's done apart from play netball, there's really not a lot else to say. If you are so certain that there are some saucy facts that I'm overlooking or have somehow missed, then why don't you go research it? Otherwise, please take my word for it that nothing else happened (at least, nothing encyclopedic) that has not already been raised. Ambi 10:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How can facts about someone's life not fit into their biography. It is not for you to present your view, with selected information, of a person. The encyclopedic thing is to report all facts. It's quite obvious this person has done nothing "saucy" (you're words not mine) but, your statement above concerning omitted facts "I didn't think it fitted in with the text in the first paragraph" concerns me, its up to you to report facts - not expect peoples lives to fit in with your text. Giano | talk 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: 18 red links are too many for a FA. bogdan 13:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've been working on these for a couple of days now, and I've managed to get it down to five, having created somewhat-useful stubs on most of them. I'm sure I'll have it down even lower by the time this FAC finishes, but I'm getting pretty sick of mass stub-creation by now. :) Ambi 10:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - although I find the following sentence a bit confusing: "While she may have been able to join the vastly more successful Melbourne Phoenix team upon leaving the AIS, she chose to return to the Kestrels." Was she able to join the Phoenix or not? Aside from that, a good article. - Mark 14:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've chopped the sentence out - the source was a little too vague to make anything more of it. Ambi 14:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is filled with links of various years that aren't relevant: see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Only years that at least have a month should be linked, of which most aren't, and those that don't have any specific dates are linked. AndyZ 21:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Linking of years is the subject of heavy debate at the moment, and it's being shown that there's very little consensus on the topic, so I think it can hardly be considered a featured article criterion either way. Ambi 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Extensive content, well structured and sourced. Dysprosia 14:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Weak Object. Good effort but its not quite there yet. The image needs a caption and frame, but its a bad image in the first place - it has JPEG defects and it's small - is it impossible to find a better and larger photo? Also, as others have said, I think the article needs more on the biography side than just her career (netball). An external links section would be nice. At the moment I have this feeling that tells me this isn't an example of Wikipedia's best work, which a featured article is meant to be. Are there any other good netball player articles and we can compare this one to? — Wackymacs 17:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • OK it looks better now, so I've changed my vote from 'Weak Object' to 'Support' because Ambi changed a few things, good work! — Wackymacs 17:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Wackymacs, can you find a better PD image? That image was resized and made lower quality to satisfy fair use criteria. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The lack of an image is not a barrier to being a FAC, is it? Andjam 00:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • 1) I'll add the image caption promptly, but there's nothing we can do about the image - I'm completely limited by what I can find that I can use as fair use. I'm being hampered here by the fact that it's the offseason - so the earliest I could take a photo myself is when the Kestrels play in my home city on June 16, or when I stay with my family for the mid-2006 holidays. I give my word I'll get some better images then, but there's really nothing I can do now, and I don't think it's worth delaying featuring purely for that. 2) As I've previously tried to explain, there's just not anything more to say on the biography side of things. I'm not deliberately keeping her personal life out of the article - she just hasn't had one that's particularly encyclopedic. You've got to keep in mind that I'm writing about someone who is only 24. All she's ever done that's at all encyclopedic is go to school and play netball, and what little else there is (such as getting married) is already in the article. If you can come up with something specific, I'm happy to add it, else I'm afraid, as with Giano, that bit is unactionable. 3) I thought about creating an external links section, but there's just not anything good enough (that I've been able to find) - any profileish mention of her on a website is usually shared with about ten other players on the same page. 4) Good netball player articles? Hah. Everything else is either a stub or doesn't exist, which is why I'm trying to set this up as a template to follow in the future. :) Ambi 01:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see a problem with the article not mentioning much about her personal life. I feel that talking about people's personal life (unless it is notable) can be a bit unencyclopedic, so not doing so is not a negative.Andjam 00:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support great work! I helped copyedit the article, but can't see much else that needs to be added. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Only years that have dates or months with them should be linked, see Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. A couple of other terms used are awkward; for example, "difficult opponent" should be changed to a good player or something like that. "She was persistently among" - constantly works better. ...extended national squad at the end of the season, and finally survived the cut... - comma is unneeded. That sentence is also too long and has to be broken down. ...in the national league, saw her selected in the starting squad... -saw her should be changed to she was. These are just a few occurring in the Futhering her career section. More copyediting has to be done such that the writing "exemplifies our very best work". Many of the subtitles names don't seem to be the best to fit: "furthering her career", "from slumps and injuries" (which seem to should be combined under one section since the information in the latter fits into the former). My final objection probably lies on the article’s size. It seems rather short for FA status, but I guess that isn’t ground for objection. The lead is also slightly short for FA status. Other than that, this article is pretty good. AndyZ 23:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I'm going to have to object to most of this objection, though I've fixed a couple of things that make sense. The policy you cite has no consensus support whatsoever - try go around eliminating links to years en masse and watch how quickly you get blocked. With this in mind, I'm disclined to remove them simply because someone says so - I don't think this can realistically be considered a featured article criteria. I disagree with your first and third copyediting suggestions, but I've fixed the second and fourth ones. I also strongly disagree with your suggestion regarding dividing the article up - if we did that, it'd effectively amount to removing nearly all section headings from this article, making it one long slab of text. Ambi 01:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The argument about the relevant links was being brought up in some of the other FACs, so I figure I'd bring it up here. Second, I didn't really suggest dividing up the article and removing all of the section headings; I was putting it in as a suggestion since the "from slumps and injuries" section technically is all a part of "furthering her career". Both images should have a succint captions, the first one is a bit too long and the second one doesn't have one. AndyZ 14:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I see where you're going, but the way I saw it, "furthering her career" covered her rise, and the other section covered her (more recent) fall. I've fixed the caption issue, anyway. :) Ambi 14:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
          • The other thing is as brought up before that the information might not be able to keep up with the actual article as time continues. Other than that, I still feel there is something about the relative shortness of the article. Unfortunately, that is pretty difficult to do, seeing the arguments above, so I won't really consider that too much right now. Finally, as commented below, "main article" should be changed to "details" or "background" appropriately. AndyZ 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I give my word I'll keep it up to date - I've gone to all the effort in writing it, so the least I can do is check back through the news results every few weeks. I'm sure it won't be quite as short when she's thirty, if Wikipedia is still around. I'm not sure what you mean by "main article" though. Ambi 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support a great article. Sure, it's shortish, but it meets all requirements. This article is as complete as could possibly be at this point; a biography of Neeles' life so far. Down the track, however, if the article doesn't keep up with her life it mightn't deserve featured status.--cj | talk 09:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comments. I'm just wondering whether it would be possible to support a "See also" section down the bottom - after reading an article, I think it's good to have some additional links to explore - any relevant "List of ..." or general topic articles? Also I'm not so sure about the "Main articles: Commonwealth Bank Trophy" link; this seems to suggest that the article Commonwealth Bank Trophy is an extension of the topic about Neele's debut, which it is not. enochlau (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • [edit: Conditional] Object I just can't stand the fact it reads like a summary of one aspect of five years of one person's life, with very little else to the article. Sure, writing biography on an under 25 year old who's famous for a single thing isn't easy, but there's practiaclly no off-the-court stuff at all, the narrowness of the coverage demonstrated by the tiddly lead section. Can this problem be actionablisationed on? Dunno. How tall is she? Goal shooters are lanky, right? Does she do any non-netball related stuff, other interests? Newspapers love reporting that stuff, even if they've failed on the scandal front. Oh, and of course, a decent pic would help no end, which is surely possible for an alive-today-pulic-figure... could even, write to her and ask, or something. --zippedmartin 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Everything there is to know about things off the court, with the exception of the above caveats, is in this article. Thanks for the suggestion about height - I'll dig that up and find a place for it, but I'm afraid the rest is unactionable. I've seriously read just about everything ever written on the topic as part of the research for this article, and I can honestly say that if anything else has happened, it'd be original research. As for the picture, see above - this is quite honestly the best we can do without violating copyright law until June, and I don't think it's worth delaying this solely on those grounds. Ambi 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Changed to conditional, at discretion of the closer. I'm happy to accept this is probably the best article wikipedia can write on an active (though on break) netball player, and not bad as an article on a young sports person, but it's just such a long way short of other featured biographies. Really what I want is someone better than me to neatly point out what to change and where, because I can't really think of direct suggestions for improvement at all. On the pic front, while a good one (or a few! in-action-pics!) would be great, it's not something that should prevent featured-ness alone. --zippedmartin 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: while it's an obvious question to raise, I think we can trust Ambi's assertion that there isn't any more notable non-netball stuff worth adding to the article. However, while I don't feel it's fair to object, I hesitate to support, because it seems extraordinary to me to feature an article on a sports player without including any photographs of the subject actually participating in her sport. Ambi has stated that it will take until June to acquire some. Part of me thinks that — perhaps — the article should not be featured until then, but I'm not going to assert an objection. — Matt Crypto 14:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is a well researched and written article. If i had to suggest a way to improve it i would say that maybe a statistics box could be added to show her current age,height, positions, acheivements and so on. This would make it easier for a person to gain important information quickly and they wouldn't have to look through the whole article. --Ali K 14:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tooth development

Nearly all of this article was written by Dozenist, and I think he has done fine work here. Though biology and anatomy are two subjects that I know very little about (thus reading this article is rather difficult for me), I think this article could serve as a template for other articles about growth and development. Wikipedia needs articles that provide an in-depth exploration of anatomical subjects. While this may seem off-putting to the average user at first (especially the terminology involved), I think it's easy to see the benefits of having such information in our little encyclopedia. I suppose this is a partial self-nom, though my contribution was limited to extensive copyediting (essentially no substance). - Jersyko talk 19:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I tried to make myself read this article but I just couldn't, it is so complicated & stuffed with jargon my eyes began to water! As a result I will neither oppose nor support this nomination but I do have these comments:
  1. Saying (in the first sentence) that the teeth "erupt" into the mouth seems rather strange to the uninitiated. From the article below I gather this is apparently the scientific term for emerging teeth but can't it be rephrased so as to not bite the reader with a jarring phrase?
  2. What in the world does this sentence mean? "It is widely accepted that there is a factor within the tissues of the first branchial arch that is necessary for the development of teeth" There is a factor? What factor?
  3. 'Bud stage' under 'The developing tooth bud' needs to be expanded to improve flow
  4. The 'Notes' (i.e. refs) are very difficult to read, maybe it is worthwhile playing around with font size etc. Mikkerpikker 20:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a technical article, and one that assumes some foreknowledge of the subject matter, but I found it highly professional and quite readable. The illustrations support the text very well, it has both strong writing, it is properly referenced. (Altho I do think multiple references to the same document and page number could be condensed into one note using one of the newer biblio systems.) jengod 00:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great article, but some technical terms should be explained a little more and please do something about those references! --WS 01:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
How about referencing to chapters rather than individual pages? --WS 18:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Somebody already went through and deleted some repeated notes. I can add the chapters along with the pages if people really want that, but I think the pages themselves are pretty important to have. Some of the chapters are very, very long, and if someone wanted to go through and check my references it would be difficult to find exactly where I was referring to through chapters. In fact, I have gone back sometimes to double-check a reference of mine, and it was sometimes difficult to find even knowing which page to look for the comment!! - Dozenist talk 20:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess I'm not sure about the title and the animal section. We have an article on tooth development which is all about humans, and an article on animal tooth development. Why not move this to human tooth development and make it a subarticle of animal tooth development -- I know the "whole humans are animals" thing could be considered POV, but this is a biological article, so it makes sense to use biologically precise titles. Tuf-Kat 07:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The very first sentence of the article was edited to say "Human tooth development refers to the complex proces...", but I think it should just say "Tooth development refers to the complex process...". What I tried to make clear is that if there were two different articles, one called "Human tooth development" and one called "Animal tooth development", the information would basically need to be repeated in both. The vast majority of tooth development in both animals and humans is the same, and understanding the general process in humans can help to understand the process in animals by then pointing out the differences. This is why I thought an article on the general topic of tooth development modeled in humans would be the appropriate main article, and an animal tooth development article should be an off-shoot to explain the variations. But anyways, if you are interested in being completely precise in distinguishing humans vs animals (and I'm not a zoologist so there may be a better idea), I have seen at least one article that separated the topic by having titles of "human" and "non-human animals". Then again, I think the distinction is pretty clear that in this case "animals" would be a word referring to all non-human animals. -Dozenist talk 12:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the rewrite and addition to the intro by Tuf-Kat solves the dilemma. - Jersyko talk 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • (via edit conflict) I've reworded the lead to make this distinction more clear, and I would greatly prefer moving this to human tooth development and making it a subarticle, or moving the other article to non-human tooth development -- I guess another reason I don't like animal tooth development is that only animals have teeth, so it seems like an odd distinction to include in an article title (begs the question of where plant tooth development is). Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Perhaps there ought to be an anatomy and physiology WikiProject to set some guidelines on how to set up articles on human/non-human topics... (Or is there already?) Tuf-Kat 16:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC) (PS I do support the featurability of the content, BTW, and am willing to bow to whatever consensus there may be on this issue)
        • Take a look at the brain article. There is a separate link to an article about the human brain in the article. Both of the articles are fairly long and cover a lot of ground. Of course, a immense amount of time has been put into studying all types of animal brains, compared to the amount put in to study non-human animal tooth development, anyway. Additionally, there are many differences among the brains of animals, whereas (according to Dozenist) there appear to be few differences among animals in regard to tooth development. Perhaps, then, the solution here is to delete the animal tooth development (err, redirect it) and simply address everything in the tooth development article. - Jersyko talk 17:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC) (sorry for the gaps in my reasoning here, but I think they're easy enough to fill and i don't have time to expound further right now)
          • Merging the articles would be fine with me too, if that makes more sense. There doesn't appear to be much to merge in from animal tooth development, and something could always be split out later (rodent tooth development looks like it may be a reasonable topic, though it may be a long time before we have somebody who actually writes it) Tuf-Kat 17:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I went forward with the merge. Any objections? - Jersyko talk 22:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, though I'd like to see more information on non-human tooth development in this article. More development of the differences, etc. Also, please replace the Encarta citation with something more substantial (it appears in note 75). --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not replace the encarta citation, but I did switch the order of the notes that refers to the encarta article and the other article by Randall-Bowman. I am glad you pointed it out though because I had forgotten to write Randall-Bowman's information in the reference section, which I added as well. For more non-human tooth development stuff, I thought it would be a good time to mention that there may be many differences if you are considering the specific question of teeth. For example, some animals may not have canines, or really only have molars and premolars, but there is little different (at least so far that the research has shown) in the development of those teeth between animals. The differences I have found so far are in peer review articles that have concluded, for example, in rats a specific enzyme or protein, such as the Notch1 protein and Hes1 mRNA, being expressed in the stratum intermedia, and this information may indicate that ameloblasts and the stratum intermedia are separated by Notch signaling [26].That may prove to be very important eventually in understanding rat tooth development, but I do not see this information being very helpful in an article about the broad topic of tooth development in general. If someone wants to write an article about rat teeth or add to the exisisting horse teeth article, then I think the particular enzymes and protein involved in the development of those teeth should be expanded upon there. General information pertaining to animal tooth development could be added to this article without much disruption of flow, but the problem is finding some general developmental differences since most sources say there are very few large differences. What does everyone else say? -Dozenist talk 19:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Could anything be said about the timing of tooth development in animals, for example? There's a large table detailing the timeline of human teeth development, but nothing for non-humans. Does it take as long, at the same stage of development, etc. A table comparing different animals would be interesting. Also, a couple more things. I remember reading when I was younger that some people develop a third set of teeth if they lose their adult teeth. If that's true, should that be included, either in the eruption section or the abnormalities section? Also, from a readability standpoint, the terms "histodifferentiation" and "morphodifferentiaion" in the section 'Bell stage' need to be defined or wikified to an article that defines them. In the section 'Nutrition and tooth development', there's mention of "demineralization and subsequent decay" as a result of fluoride deficiency, but what is the extent of that? The second sentence of Water fluoridation suggests that there are studies showing the benefit of fluoride in reducing tooth decay, and a sentence quantifying that (perhaps using the sources from Water fluoridation controversy) would be interesting if included. Either that, or incorporate links to those articles into this one. --Spangineeres (háblame) 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • 1) About the timing of tooth development in animals, maybe somewhere something can be found, but keep in mind that some animals, like sharks, continuously produce teeth (at least, I think they do). Since humans have only two sets of teeth, the timing of shark teeth would probably not be as important, and naturally comparison of time in development for humans would not be very informative given the different number of sets of teeth and even the variance of life spans across species. If horse teeth erupted with consistant timing and if they came in a limited number of sets (which they very well may), then perhaps a veterinarian can help make a chart. Then again, that information could still fit nicely in the horse teeth article. (2) A third set of teeth in humans does not exist. If you lose your permanent tooth, then that is it. Apart from that, a person may have a "supernumary tooth" (an extra tooth), and that is mentioned in the section of abnormalities with the term "hyperdontia". (3) That is a good point. Definitions of histodifferentiation and morphodifferentiation should probably be added since the meaning may not be apparent. (4) Concerning fluoride, there is no controversy in the dental research community of fluoride's ability to reduce the incidence of tooth decay. The rest of this article stays focus on information that is accepted by dental professionals (both practitioners and researchers), and getting into the debate of water fluoridation controversy seems out of the scope of the article. Although many people like to discuss the issue as a scientific debate, the debate really is not in the scientific community, but more in the social/political realm. This article, I think, is best if it sticks to the current thought of the scientific community. If a reader were to click on the link to fluoride, there clearly are links to the "water fluoridation" and "water fluoridation controvery" articles, and I would think that is sufficient. - Dozenist talk 22:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I didn't mean to suggest that this article cover the fluoride debate, but rather include a mention of the magnitude of the effect of fluoride deficiency. It may not be quantifiable, but it'd be nice to know what the general effects are of not having enough fluoride—do 80% of those deficient experience tooth decay, or 10%? If numbers like that are tough to get or you don't think it's that important, no problem; I'm just tossing ideas out there. Oh, and regarding the animals, I think it would be interesting to include that info about some animals developing teeth continually, while others do it in sets, etc. Nothing detailed, but general references to point out other differences between humans and non-humans. --Spangineeres (háblame) 23:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Whew... well that's good. I thought at first you might have been suggesting to include the controversy in this article or directly mentioning it, and I was a little worried about that!!! In terms of the actual numbers, I will try to look for something, but of course one study is not going to be the definitive word on it. The water fluoridation controversy article mentions the improvement of dental health from fluoride ("In the most recent scientific review of 113 articles from 23 countries (59 of which were conducted in the U.S.) , it was claimed that water fluoridation reduced dental decay by: • 40 to 49 percent in the primary dentition or baby teeth, • 50 to 59 percent in the permanent teeth or adult teeth."), but I would prefer to find the actual source of any statement like that if it were to be inserted into this article. Hmmm... and actually, the more I think about it, the less I feel it needs to be inserted in the article. It seems something more appropriate in articles about fluoridation, but I will still see if there is something I can find. I will look to the source in this article about fluoride, which I think was the ADHA. - Dozenist talk 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Added all info I could find on development of shark teeth. Makes the section nice and neat, I think. - Dozenist talk 05:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schabir Shaik Trial

Self-nom. I am relising this as I truly believe it deserves to be a featured article. Its first listing received little attention, despite this being one of the most important court trials in South African history. Previous lising is here. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 07:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Mild Support This article seems very interesting to research and expand even more. I think that some people whould also like a large article on the front page. Wikizach 16:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Everyking 08:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well written, but I'm a little surprised at the coverage of in-line citations in the article - All 31 30 of them are between the first four (excluding the lead-in) sections, and nothing else thereafter. I presume they all covered by the later two references? - Mailer Diablo 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Um wait, there are 31 citations but only 30 at the footnotes...did I see something wrong here? - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
One citation points to the same footnote, and I found it silly to continuously repeat the same footnote when from reading the articles its fairly obvious. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 20:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The numbers in the citations and footnotes should line up. See Saffron for a nice little method of citing one footnote multiple times and keeping the numbers lined up. The Catfish 23:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and fixed them The Catfish 18:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - More pictures would be nice, though. - Cuivienen 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. But an external links section would be good, and there are few references in the 'References' section - More pictures would also be a nice addition to the article. — Wackymacs 20:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Good use of footnotes, but at the very least they should have 'last retrieved on...' date, and preferably they should be all mentioned and sorted in the reference section (see Wikipedia:Inline citations and Wikipedia:Manual of style.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object; it's not intuitive to me which citation goes with which fact in the last two-thirds of the article—inline citations are necessary there too. If only one source was used, then just put one citation per paragraph or even section. An external links section would be nice too. --Spangineeres (háblame) 16:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - presumably all of the "Footnotes" are, in fact, "References" in addition to the two quoted "References"? Two online references seems a trifle slight for a featured article these days - are there no paper references? It also seems a little soon to be featuring a court case where the first instance decision was only given a few months ago and remains subject to an appeal that may not be heard for a few years. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - The article contains a lot of information, however, there are numerous, significant problems, primarily with writing style, including basic writing quality (construction), section organization, and citations.
  • The writing is overall rough, with many awkward sentences and redundancies, and repetitive use of words and phrases Some examples: a member of the wealthy and important Shaik family of Durban, proved to be important in re-establishing Zuma's life, The first joint ventures Thomson made bids for were not for arms: instead they made bids for an upgrade to Durban International Airport, The money for the construction was not paid by Zuma himself; instead it was paid in instalments by ..., At the same time as Zuma was answering his questions, Mbeki made statements that threatened the continued existence of the Scorpions., Schabir Shaik's trial started amid an intense media circus. It is more than a matter of individual sentences, many paragraphs are broken at odd spots. The writing simply needs to be tighter as a whole.
  • Sections and section titles inconsistent Sections are created at odd breaks, particularly the first four. "Nklanda" appears in one title, and apparently misspelt since it doesn't appear anywhere else (Nkandla?)... The Arms deal section apparently changes topic halfway through. And so on...
  • Inline citations seem to end after the third section They just stop, as if a top-down footnoting effort was cut short... It doesn't make sense and looks odd and is somewhat unsettling...
  • The subject is not clearly and concisely summarized There is a ton of detail, but little synthesis; combined with the loose writing, this does not add up to a cohesive, summarized encyclopedia article, but more a chronological compilation of news report highlights. This makes it difficult and somewhat tedious to read, and therefore doesn't clearly present the topic. --Tsavage 03:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Featured_log_January_2006_574a.html"