Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here, we determine which articles are featured on Wikipedia:Featured articles. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work by meeting the featured article criteria. Before nominating an article, you may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Wikipedia:Peer review. Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections. If you have worked on the article you nominate, note it as a "self-nomination". Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each. Please respond positively to criticism and avoid discouraging reviewers. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among the reviewers and nominators, and the Featured Article Director (currently Raul654) determines whether there is consensus. If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the Featured Article Director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. The FA Director determines the timing of the process for each nomination. Purge page cache	Shortcut: WP:FAC Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured pictures Featured lists Featured portals Featured article tools: What is a featured article? Featured article candidates Featured article review "Today's featured article" This month's queue Featured article log Featured article statistics Former featured articles
Nomination procedure Check the featured article criteria and ensure that the article meets all of them before nominating. Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article. From there, click on the "leave comments" link. If the article you are submitting has had a previous FAC nomination, use the Move button to archive the previous FAC discussion. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television/archive1. Remember to change the old {{facfailed}} template on the talk page to {{facfailed|Television/archive1}}. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top. Below this title, write your reason for nominating the article and sign with ~~~~. Copy this text:{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}}, then edit this page (i.e. the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of..." with the name of your nomination. Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). If you support a nomination, write *'''Support''' followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this. If you oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. Be aware that references on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <del>...</del>) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves. If you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text. To provide constructive input on a nomination without explicitly supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Computer

This is the second nomination for Computer, but you may safely ignore the first since the article has been rewritten in its entirety since then. This is obviously an article on a very broad and (I think) somewhat important topic, and one that many people here will know at least something about. So there are a lot of differing opinions on how an article of such broad scope should be written. After asking for the input of other editors, we decided to attempt to use a hub article approach ("we" being myself and SteveBaker, the primary authors) wherein the main article lightly touches on many of the highest important topics but leaves details to subsidary articles. In this choice we made some decisions that will probably bring up questions/objections in this FAC discussion, so I'd like to address them up front:

• The bulk of the article's text focuses on the stored program architecture and the details of the computer/program relationship. I'm sure that many people would see this and be quite ready to give their opinion on what the core topics should have been. The reason we concentrate on these two issues is that they are the most basic way one can define a "computer" as the term is used in modern language. All modern (since the mid-1940s) computers store and execute programs, and that is the fundamental attribute that differentiates them from calculators. Keeping in mind that this article is about the "Computer", we feel it is appropriate for most of the substantial text to focus on what really defines a computer. All other topics should be treated in other articles.
• There is a big section full of links. I realize this is probably going to be one of the most contentious aspects of this article. Many of us have a bitter taste for lists, and for good reason. However, we have carefully selected the links in these tables to provide quick access to many important computer-related topics. The reason we have done this simple: if the casual reader (unaquainted with Wikipedia in all its technicalities and details) comes here looking for information on computer-related topics, the first article he will visit is this one. We feel that these organized link tables provide a compact way of easily finding further reading on a variety of topics. One might argue that we should just link to a category, but frankly that's all but worthless for a topic that covers a non-negligible percentage of the articles on Wikipedia. Please think carefully before voting based merely on these links. Consider that there are few (if any) featured articles on a broad topic, and there are therefore few examples of broadly scoped article style and organization to adapt. We have tried to keep the link tables to a reasonable size while still providing a "user friendly" segue into the numerous other computer related topics. Once again, the lists in this article are not a cheap substitute for actual content, but rather they are meant to be an easy starting point for further reading on this broad topic.
• This article has relatively few references. Another potentially hot point. The article is an overview of a LOT of information. While there are a myriad of "how your computer works" books and websites out there, I have yet to encounter one that was really well done (technically correct yet accessible to the lay man) and didn't resort to terrible analogies. The very concept of the stored program computer cannot be easily sourced to one location (otherwise I would've just ref'ed von Neumann's First Draft Report on the EDVAC and been done with it). The point is, while this article could easily garner a thousand references, I would rather take the time to use GOOD references than google some random crappy website that probably contains plenty of misconceptions, omissions, or factual errors. If you take issue with the state of references in this article, I implore you to give us specific claims that you would like to be referenced. I will do my best to add solid refs for anything that needs to be verified. Comments to the effect "needs more refs" are worthless and encourage exactly the opposite of what WP:V is supposed to accomplish (that is, encourages finding a myriad of aforementioned poor references rather than a few good ones).

I'm a little concerned that too many people will vote based on how they would have written the article (but did not) rather than on the merits and drawbacks of the article how it currently stands. I ask you to please give this article a thorough read-through before passing judgement. If you do feel the need to tear it apart, please make your criticisms as constructive as possible. Part of the reason for this nomination is to get some additional critical readership since we got very little useful response in peer review. Thanks for your attention, and I look forward to any constructive comments you can make. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T00:32Z

• Object
  • I sincerely doubt that good references can't be found. There are plenty of computer architecture textbooks out there that you could source. Since you asked for specifics, citations are needed for these among many others:
    • Originally, the term "computer" referred to a person who performed numerical calculations (a human computer), often with the aid of a mechanical calculating device.
    • The end of the Middle Ages saw a re-invigoration of European mathematics and engineering, and Wilhelm Schickard's 1623 device was the first of a number of mechanical calculators constructed by European engineers.
    • In 1801, Joseph Marie Jacquard made an improvement to the textile loom that used a series of punched paper cards as a template to allow his loom to weave intricate patterns automatically.
    • Large-scale automated data processing of punched cards was performed for the US Census in 1890 by tabulating machines designed by Herman Hollerith and manufactured by the Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation (CTR), which later became IBM.
    • The table for Defining characteristics of five first operative digital computers and the claims presented in the list of those five in the prose below.
    • Nearly all modern computers implement some form of the stored program architecture, making it the single trait by which the word "computer" is now defined.
    • A typical modern computer can execute billions of instructions every second and nearly never make a mistake over years of operation.
    • For instance, the Pentium FDIV bug caused some Intel microprocessors in the early 1990s to produce inaccurate results for certain floating point division operations. This was caused by a flaw in the microprocessor design and resulted in a partial recall of the affected devices.
    • This is called the Harvard architecture after the Harvard Mark I computer. Modern von Neumann computers display some traits of the Harvard architecture in their designs, such as in CPU caches.
    • The entire Networking and the Internet section. Doing so can also replace vague generalities like "A very large proportion of personal computers" with specific statistics.
  • Prose problems:
    • So by the end of the 19th century a number of technologies that would later prove useful in the realization of practical computers had begun to appear: Why start this sentence with the unencyclopedic "so"?
    • ...around this time; the first of these being completed in Great Britain. Incorrect use of the semicolon.
    • While a person will normally read each word and line in sequence, they
    • It is noticeable that the sequence of operations...
    • In the phrase of John Gage and Bill Joy (of Sun Microsystems), "the network is the computer". In the phrase of?
  • Some of your ref links (like Shannon 1940) don't go anywhere. Gzkn 02:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I will try to find references for the given examples. This recent WP:V dogma is utterly insane, but if a reference after every third sentence is what you'll require for the rubber stamp, then that's what I'll attempt to provide. It sure is fortunate History of computing hardware was grandfathered into FA before we had to prove that the sky is blue. (or maybe we should nominate it for de-listing along with most of our other FAs) Sorry, I'm just a little frustrated with these nutty circumstances. I see it as a waste of time to be required to properly reference statements that anyone can confirm with a ten-second google search. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T03:25Z
      • "if a reference after every third sentence is what you'll require for the rubber stamp, then that's what I'll attempt to provide" Please don't put words in my mouth. If, as you say, all of these facts can be confirmed by a ten-second Google search (which I doubt), then it should be quite easy to reference them to a verifiable source for the benefit of readers, no? Gzkn 05:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Regarding the prose errors; I've fixed all that you listed except for the singular they, which is (arguably) not an error at all. Any other one-word corrections you'd like to dictate? Is it really that big a deal for you to just fix these sorts of tiny errors on your own? It takes just as much time to copy and paste them here. Oh well, better you point them out than they go unfixed... Thanks for your input. -- mattb @ 2006-12-13T03:41Z
      • Um...no. I had one tab opened to this page and another to Computer. It was much easier to copy paste stuff while I'm reading rather than editing Computer and sifting through to find what I wanted to point out. Also, this way, it gives you a chance to judge my points, such as the singular they, and decide for yourself if they needed to be changed. I also might suggest a change in your attitude would do you well here. If you view this whole process and my comments above as a charade and a waste of time, I'm not really inclined to help improve the article. Gzkn 05:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boston Red Sox

I think this article is very good. It is most likely a fine article that could make the main page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Call me, baby (talk • contribs).

• Oppose article has many many problems, lack of citations, missing fairuse rationales and i doubt they are fair use, Image:Tedwilliams and tomyawkey.jpg is a copyright concern, too much trivial info, needs a very strong copyedit etc. Could provide more info on what needs to be done if wanted. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil

Good article. -- JoãoFelipe ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support JoãoFelipe ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written and cited article, definitely is FA worthy.Ganfon 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, fails criteria 1c off the bat, with only 3 or so incline citations. I would suggest peer review. - Tutmosis 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Too listy in places, lacks sufficient inline citations and there's many embedded links that need conversion. This wouldn't even make GA right now, so I echo - Tutmosis's suggestion to go to peer review. LuciferMorgan 00:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong object: the lead needs work; the "History" section is preposterously lacking in detail about the 20th century; "Government and politics" is too short; "Geography" is too listy; "Science and technology" is a stubsection; the wrapping is broken for IE in many places and then, perhaps most importantly, the refs are seriously inadequate. (not enough refs, citation needed tags and inconsistent ref style). Mikker ^(...) 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object: Only three inline citations.--HisSpaceResearch 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Not well cited and in some places listy.--Yannismarou 09:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brooks-Baxter War

I've been working on this article for a week or two. A lot of the research came from a research paper I wrote on the subject. The only problems I can see with the article would be citations, which are kind of odd because they are from 100+ year old newspaper articles, and verifying the images copyright status which are all 100+ years old. I know I shouldn't nominate this with these problems but, I think they are minor and can be fixed. Then the article should be good enough to be featured. --The_stuart 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like you've put a lot of work into it, but the peer review you already requested would be a better place to get feedback to help you prepare it for FAC - there is still a lot of work to be done to satisfy WP:WIAFA. Sandy (Talk) 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I thought I had taken into account all of the suggestion given by the automated peer review, which is the only feedback I got for the article. I was hoping to get more real specific feedback here. --The_stuart 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's unfortunate when there isn't enough feedback on PR: it's too bad we can't get some of the GA resources to work on PR. I just left comments on the peer review . The article isn't as far away as I initially thought (because you do have inline cites). More work is needed, but I'm striking my comment that it's not ready for FAC. Sandy (Talk) 22:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OpenOffice.org

There are a lot of good references throughout the article, and it is very clear on the subject. Also a good use of tables.

Yeti man5 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object, Still has a stub section and a trivia section, so not quite there yet. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Too listy, which creates disjointed prose (1. a. violation). LuciferMorgan 00:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. It's too listy; the citations are not quite good enough (in the "History" section especially); the trivia section should go (see WP:TRIVIA and WP:TRIV); it has a stubsection; it fails 1a (too much jargon in places) and, more importantly, it fails 1b. Mikker ^(...) 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gene Clark

This is a well-written introduction to the legacy of Gene Clark which meets all the criteria for a featured article. Freshacconci 21:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article relies on only one source, and has no inline citations. Sandy (Talk) 22:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Sandy. I could probably have gone through this article and labelled fifty uncited facts. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above. You also might want to break up the Biography section into smaller subsections. Anyway, refer to peer review. Gzkn 01:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Inline citations needed. LuciferMorgan 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pilot (House)

Self-nomination. I am restarting an old nomination that was stopped because of a sudden copyvio revelation that I had not been aware of before. It has since been corrected and is now ready for FAC. The article has had a peer review and has been named a good article. It has also received a number of copyedits from users, such as User:Judgesurreal777 and User:TKD. I now believe that the article fulfills the FA criteria. The Filmaker 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per my own nom. The Filmaker 17:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is better than the copyvio version, which I supported not knowing it was a copyvio. Jay32183 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Your news sources aren't correctly cited (because you used cite web instead of cite news - we need author, title, publication date, etc.). Wikilinking is sporadic and needs to be thoroughly reviewed - for example, why is vicodin wikilinked, while cocaine is not? Sandy (Talk) 23:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What about putting a short summary of the reception of the episode in the lead? Gzkn 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support I like the article and think it's well written and sourced, but I don't know if it's what I'd call Featured Content.Ganfon 23:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rus' Khaganate

Self-nom as the creator of this article, though User:Ghirlandajo and User:Beit Or contributed as much or more than I did. I think this is a very comprehensive coverage of a little-known period in Russian history. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, a very interesting article.--Berig 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Beit Or 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Comment: could use a infobox (if appropriate), the lead in is a little confusing regarding the subject of the article (if it is a historical geographic region, or a culture or as in this case a former state).--Oden 21:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have clarified the intro per your request. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Amended. --Oden 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Vald 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice.--Yannismarou 07:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting subject. Article looks consolidated. - Darwinek 09:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - wonderful! Khoikhoi 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Very good and interesting article. I am a little bit concerned about the note 26 "Новосельцев". There are two books of Novoseltsev in the references, so which one? Also shouldnot we use Latin script? Not all of the readers know Cyrillic. Alex Bakharev 11:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the necessity to use Latin and not Cyrillic (or Greek for instance) script in the references. Since this is an English encyclopedia, this is the only choice.--Yannismarou 20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Latin letters are preferable, but if the latinised name is a transliteration where there might be several ways to do so (Peking/Beijing) it can be appropriate to include the original name in (parentheses). Also see WP:MOS - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) for reference. --Oden 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In parenthesis, yes, but not only the original name.--Yannismarou 09:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I never even knew of the existence of this state, great job.--Eupator 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose.'
  • This very interesting article is written so well and convincingly that a casual reader may take it for a solid, well-established state. In fact this is nothing but a reconstruction from scarse historical references, and pretty much recent one. This must be said more prominently in the introduction. In particular, is this theory taught in Russian school? So the remarks kinda "I never even knew of the existence of this state" are pretty much normal reaction.
  • Second, The article is not about some obscure lost island in New Guinea, it is part of the history of big chunk of land.
    • What was written about these lands/times in other history books?
    • What is the genesis of this theory?

Concluding, in the current state the article is rather misleading IMO. `'mikkanarxi 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I believe the sources speak for themselves, and all prominent scholars in the field agree that this polity existed. To the extent there are disagreements about temporal or geographic scope, or about the nature of its government, religion etc., these disagreements are extensively (even, thanks to Ghirla and Beit Or, painstakingly) set forth in the the article. The fact that this period is or is not taught in Russian schools is irrelevant. Very few (if any) American students learn about the Adena culture, either; that doesn't mean that they didn't exist or that they weren't a part of the history of North America. I have no idea why your second point militates against FA status; it would seem quite the opposite. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very interesting, well-written, well-sourced, nicely illustrated, good length. Happy to support. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology

Since it meets all of the criteria, I think that this article should be nominated as a featured article. Astrology is completely different topic which deals with all the study of cosmos impact on our daily life. A lot of discussion can be done this topic. This is a self-nomination. Thanks --Sushant gupta 11:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — 1a is not completely satisified; there are instances of excess wording ("in order to", "a vast majority of", "many different") and some instances of "While" where "Although" should be used. I also see a few large sentences, which should be chopped up into shorter, more managable pieces. I'll help work on these changes. — Deckiller 13:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't find the content satisfactory then you can improve it. Sushant gupta 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Awkward prose, dictionaries make bad references, the lead shouldn't have footnotes since everything stated there should be elaborated and supported by the body. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead is packed with refs, and then the next three paragraphs have no references at all, even for some seriously weasel-worded statements like "A common belief..." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. All of the above (wrt prose and referencing), and pls see WP:EL and WP:NOT. External links needs serious trimming. See also could be trimmed, incorporated into a template, or merged into the article. Footnotes need a consistent bibliographic style, including all relevant information including publisher, publication date, and last access date on websites: the footnote style is all over the place, as if they were each added by different editors. Several of the sections are only listy See alsos, which should be prosified. Sandy (Talk) 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object - referencing is spotty in the first few sections. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reference the page contains much citation of the source comparatively to the other featured articles and external links are well arranged. The whole page is well cited. Well to me that page is satisfactory. Sushant gupta 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippocrates

Vital article which is currently a Good article. I think it should be Featured as it meets all of the criteria. Note that Hippocratic corpus is an entirely separate article; this article is about the man Hippocrates and the Hippocratic school of medicine. This is a self-nomination which has had two peer reviews: One and Two. Thanks for reading! -- Rmrfstar 15:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Whatever it is that you did to the bottom of the article, please undo it: I usually check the structure of the article first (WP:MOS, WP:LAYOUT, WP:EL, correct referencing from WP:RS, etc.), and I can't even sort through it in that form. I did see external jumps and lot of listiness - please convert external jumps to wikified text or referenced statements. Sandy (Talk) 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What can't you sort out? What external linking is bad? What do you want me to "undo"? An external links section can be added, but I don't think it will be all that helpful. Is there a real problem with the tabling system I've implemented? I think it just saves us from looking at lots of ugly whitespace... -- Rmrfstar 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Another editor removed the non-standard tables at the end of the article, and Rmrfstar reverted it. Haven't checked referencing because it's hard to read, but there are external jumps, listiness, copy edit needs (observe punctuation errors in Image section, as a quick example), mixed reference styles (Harvard inline and cite.php), choppy prose (numerous short choppy sentences and paragraphs), and I doubt an article this short on Hippocrates can be comprehensive. Get his cleaned up at peer review, and come back. Sandy (Talk) 19:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, what's wrong with "external jumps"?

The only significant lists are inescapable: the ancestry of Hippocrates and namkesakes of Hippocrates.

What's wrong with the quite standard reference style used?

And I believe the article is comprehensive.

I will read through again for the "choppy prose" and "punctuation errors". -- Rmrfstar 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose because of unreadable format. Agree with Rmrfstar, the references are in a narrow column on the left--totally unreadable on my browser, references are a major part of well-researched papers and articles, standardizing the format is a high priority for institutions which publish peer-reviewed journals, so that readers know precisely how to glance at the references while reading to find what they need, totally distinct format forbids that. I keep thinking I'm looking at diffs, not the article. KP Botany 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you meant you agree with me :-) Sandy (Talk) 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • --Well, heck if I can keep it straight ;-), and generally you're more detail oriented than I am. KP Botany 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As the references were unreadable in your browser, I've removed the tabling system. -- Rmrfstar 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I can read it and will do. KP Botany 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I have reviewed twice the article, and I think that the nominator has done his best.--Yannismarou 07:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - No mention of the Hippocratic Oath? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just removed a mention of this from the lead... but I do think it should be replaced. I also listed it under "namesakes", but I'll add another reference and sentence description in the body. -- Rmrfstar 11:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think there should be some resolution in the article of whether Hippocrates himself wrote the oath. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Yikes, there are a ton of passive voice constructions. The lead is nearly half passive. Really, we can and should avoid passives. Geogre 13:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In some cases I agree, in others, use of the passive voice is not only necessary but beneficial. I have gone through the first half of the article, removing a number of bad examples per your suggestion, and I shall to more. I don't know how many more can come out of the lede, though. -- Rmrfstar 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Additional comment - A bit haigiographic in places. Needs a rewrite which is centered on facts not flourish. Two examples: savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Despite all of its advancements in medical theory, it was truly in discipline, strict professionalism and rigorous practice that Hippocratic medicine excelled."

I think this is a good sentence which effectively conveys a very important quality of Hippocratic medicine. Would you suggest an alternative? I can think of none.

• • "For all of these above achievements, Hippocrates is widely considered the first great physician; however, for a long time, he was also the last."

Again, I see nothing wrong with this sentence. Remember that "great" is not necessarily a positive term. Hitler, for instance, was most certainly great. It is practically fact that Hippocrates was "great" physician and there was none similar for a long time. -- Rmrfstar 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Article is mostly based on his philosophy, and doesn't go into his biography much - whether info conflicts or not, it should still be discussed. Incomprehensive. LuciferMorgan 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is only Hippocratic "philosophy" that we know; there is very little biographical information available. Please see that I've included all possible material in the article under the "Biography" section and under "Legends" when deemed appropriate. -- Rmrfstar 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucifer, the nominator is right. Hippocrates' biography is obscure and mostly unknown. I think Rmrfstar did his best to include any available biographical material.--Yannismarou 09:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitsune

Self-nomination. I've been working extensively on this article over the last two months. It's now thoroughly referenced, comprehensive, and, I hope, covers the topic in depth but not excessively so. I like to think it's also well-written. It's recently received a peer review and passed a Good Article nomination, and I've further improved it based on suggestions made by reviewers in both cases. Shimeru 08:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose – 1. needs a thorough copyedit. 2. Kitsune is the Japanese word for fox – Am not sure about the scope of this article. It seems to be how foxes are perceived to be in Japanese culture. Could the scope be made clearer in the lead? It seems to be an article on a humble fox called a kitsune. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you be any more specific on either point? I'd be glad to try, but this does not give me anything to work with. Shimeru 10:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

    Ok here goes: 1. Kitsune is the Japanese word for fox. (the first statement is choppy. Is it a direct translation of the word fox? If so, why a translation into Japanese? What's special about it? The first sentence has to define the scope of the article. (eg Dürer's Rhinoceros is the name commonly given to a woodcut created by German painter and printmaker Albrecht Dürer in 1515). 2. In folklore, kitsune are a type of yōkai -- No I have no idea what yokai means, so I have to click the link. Instead giver the reader some context --> In folklore, kitsune are a type of yōkai or spirits. This should be done throughout the article where words not native to English have some context. The same applies to Lafcadio Hearn. Who is he? Add his occupation (author) 3. Are these foxes unique to Japan? 4. Kitsune are commonly portrayed as lovers. These love stories usually involve a young human male and a kitsune who takes the form of a woman. -- choppy text, could be merged. 4. ==Origins of fox myths== needs to come much higher in the article. 5. Eastern sense? 6. For more details on kitsune appearances in specific contemporary works, see Kitsune in popular culture. -- duplicate link in section. Hope that was enough to start you off. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

    I think so, thank you. I've made an attempt to address the lead and explain more context for the Japanese words and for individuals in general. Also moved the origins and etymology to immediately follow the lead, which I'd been considering in any case. I haven't yet dont a full pass over all sections; I want to see first whether the new lead is the sort of thing you had in mind, rather than risk making the entire thing much worse. Shimeru 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah, that's exactly what I was looking for. I'll link my vote to BrianSmithson's, and as soon as he changes it, mine will too. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think the title needs changed or the opening needs changed as I was confused as to whether this article is to be about the Fox in Japanese Folklore (or Kitsune in Japanese Folklore), or a biological article on the Kitsune. Rlevse 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Rlverse. Either the article needs to be moved, or the first paragraph rewritten (or both) to make the topic of this article clear. Raul654 21:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • While I appreciate the feedback, "kitsune" is the most common specific term both in English and Japanese, and should be the title of the article, if I understand our guidelines correctly. ("Fox spirit" may be more common in English, but that has the problem of also being the translation used for similar creatures from Chinese and other non-Japanese folklore.) I did rewrite the lead. Thanks for the additional editing pass on it. Shimeru 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The article looks much better now than it did 2 hours ago. I have a question though = For example, kitsune were thought to employ their foxfire to lead travelers astray - what exactly is a foxfire? Raul654 22:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
        • It's the fire produced by kitsune, as mentioned in the sections on their powers and "star balls." I've repeated the context there, since it is a little further down the article, and the topic is somewhat obscure to most non-Japanese audiences. Also want to say that I appreciate your work on the article. Shimeru 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Ah, I see. Ok, that answers my question. I support - this is a good article. Raul654 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree about the title. The term kitsune is popular among anime and manga fans, but per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), this article should be at Foxes in Japanese folklore. — BrianSmithson 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Although I'm a huge supporter of the use english convention (I helped write it), in this particular case, now that the intro makes it clear that this is a mythology article, I think kitsune is the appropriate article title. Articles should be located at the most specific (preferably succinct) name possible, and in this case kitsune is both more specific and succinct than 'Foxes in Japanse mythology'. Raul654 23:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Respectfully disagree -- although I do see the argument, this would create consistency issues with numerous other Japanese folklore (and culture) articles. Would we end up moving Tanuki to Raccoon dogs in Japanese folklore, Yuki-onna to Snow woman (Japanese folklore), Yurei to Ghosts in Japanese folklore, Oni (folklore) to Ogres in Japanese folklore, Tengu to Birdlike demons in Japanese folklore, Ninja to Assassins in Japanese culture, and dozens more, based on transliteration? I'd much prefer leaving these articles at their Japanese names, since that name is usually the common term used when discussing them in English. I think these articles are examples of cases where common names and precision (per other naming conventions) are more important than use of English words. Shimeru 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I take your point, but I would still prefer Foxes in Japanese folklore (and Raccoon dogs in Japanese folklore, for that matter). Foxes and raccoon dogs exist in English-speaking countries and have English names; things like Yuki-onna and tengu do not (and ninja is a widely adopted term in English that would appear in virtually any standard dictionary). Wikipedia has a serious problem with Japan exclusivism, where editors try to create articles with non-English titles where those terms are not widely known in the English-speaking world and where the Use English guideline would seem to indicate against their use (the worst example I can think of is the horridly named Seiyū, which should be at voice acting in Japan). That said, I won't oppose the article based on the name. — BrianSmithson 08:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've only read the opening so far, and I agree. I thought I was going to get an article on Japanese foxes. When the folklore started, I asumed this was just an aside. Then I realised this whole article was going to be about folklore. That needs to be made clear in the first sentence by removing the scientific names. What about a sentence along the lines of that which begins Reynard: "Reynard the fox, also known as Renard, Renart, Reinard, Reinecke, Reinhardus, Reynardt, and by many other spelling variations, is a trickster figure whose tale is told in a number of anthropomorphic fables from medieval Europe". qp10qp 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I've come to:

In folklore, kitsune are a type of yōkai. In this context, the word kitsune is often translated as "fox spirit." However, this does not mean that a kitsune is not a living creature, nor that a kitsune is a creature different from a fox. Because the word spirit is used in its Eastern sense, reflecting a state of knowledge or enlightenment, any fox who lives for a sufficiently long time may gain the supernatural power of the kitsune.^[1]

The second sentence depends on the first, and so I don't understand. What context? Then it says that this doesn't mean that a kitsune is a creature different from a fox. But having been told that a kitsune may have up to nine tails, I'm afraid I already assumed that a kitsune in folklore is a different creature to a fox, even if the name is the same. The word "supernatural" here surely means that the kitsune of folklore is a different creature from the natural fox. It is normal in all cultures to make folkloric creatures out of animals.

qp10qp 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote some of the text, including the above-quoted section, to try to make the intent clearer: within the context of folklore, there is no difference between an "ordinary" fox and a kitsune. All foxes have the potential for supernatural power. May need to revise further for the sake of clarity; will think about how that might best be done. Shimeru 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Needs better linking. For example, "Print by Kuniyoshi Ichiyusai." is not linked, nor is "Blacksmith Munechika (end of the 10th century), helped by Inari and her fox spirits, forging the blade ko-kitsune-maru ("Little fox"). This legend is the subject of a noh drama." (The blacksmith is not linked nor is the play itself). On a more general note, I'd like to see more quoting from source texts: the Hearn quote is good, but more would be better, particularly illustrative instances from folk tales or religious texts. --Gwern (contribs) 18:12 10 December 2006 (GMT)
  • Well, the reason for at least part of that was that some of those articles don't exist yet (Munechika, the play). I redlinked them, though, since that's preferred, and also linked a few other things (including Kuniyoshi). Added a couple more direct quotes, too; I was thinking about doing more, but I don't want to tilt the other way and duplicate too much from the sources. Is there anything in particular you'd like to see a folktale quote illustrating? Shimeru 21:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Now that the opening is clear and the premise framing the article is established, I see no reason why this shouldn't be a featured article. What more does one need to know about this subject? Encyclopedically, nothing, I suspect. Congratulations to Shimeru and the article's editors for a cleanly written, well-organised introduction to the subject. (A small point: I would like to see the fox photo removed or shifted down the page because the information that real foxes live in Japan isn't particularly arresting, to be replaced by a mythological depiction, for example the Prince Hanzoku one; the article could do with a couple more such, I think, if any are to be had.) qp10qp 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. I've brought in a few more images from the Commons, and rearranged the ones that were already there. Fairly certain I could find another few if necessary, since creatures of folklore were a common subject of woodblock prints. Shimeru 00:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I think this is a good piece, and it will probably make it through to featured on this nomination if the author continues to respond to comments here. Still, here are my concerns:
  • The structure is a bit disorganized. For example, the ability to assume human form is covered under both "Yokai" and "Physical characteristics". Likewise, several sections are quite stubby and should probably be merged. I'd suggest the following restructure: "Origins and etymology" (merge two sections), "Characteristics" (to include "Yokai", "Physical characteristics", "Powers", "'Star Balls'", and "Kitsunetsuki"), and "Portrayal" (which should merge in the information from "In fiction").
    • I think this has mostly be cleared up, however there are still a few issues. First, the "Origins of fox myths" section is a bit all over the place. We're told about China, Japan, China, Korea, India, all three, China, Korea, all three again, Japan . . . . Some rewriting is necessary, I think, to present the conflicting opinions. It seems these are that kitsune ultimately derive from Indian sources but spread to Japan; that they are native to Japan; and that they are native to Japan, but that they were influenced by Chinese and Korean stories that ultimately derive from India. Is this right?
      • Somewhat. There are really only two sides: one says that the concept is entirely imported, though it may have later developed in separate directions; the other says that the concept existed within Japan, and the myths that were imported modified and were modified by the purported original Japanese tales. It's agreed that, to some extent, there was importation. I've done a quick rewrite on that section to try to make that more clear and avoid the interruption in flow. Shimeru 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the article needs a good copy edit; there's a lot of confusing and redundant language. I'll try to help out in this area, but I'd like to wait until the structure issues are addressed.
    • I've got the marked up printout. I'll try to do the revisions tonight.
  • Watch the scare quotes and be careful that when using words as words to use italics rather than quotation marks per WP:MOS.
  • The article currently mixes BC/AD and BCE/CE date terminology. This should be changed to consistently reflect the earliest style used on the article.
  • There's currently a mixture of past and present tense when describing kitsune beliefs, and this is quite confusing in places. For example, under "Kitsunetsuki", we're told that "Exorcism, often performed at an Inari shrine, induced a fox to leave its possessed host." However, we're later told that "Stories of fox possession are still known to appear . . . ." So do people no longer believe this or do they?
  • The "Other meanings" section seems to be simple trivia. The first two items should be merged into the body of the article, and the last four removed entirely (or placed at a disambiguation page if necessary). The fact that someone who looks like a fox is called kitsune or that there's a game called kitsune-ken in Japanese has nothing to do with fox spirits in Japanese folklore.
  • The "Etymology" section talks about fox-wives, but this is well before the concept of kitsune being able to assume human form has been introduced. Either clarify or move the example.
  • Watch the RPG/anime-speak. I have no idea if the author is an roleplayer or likes anime and manga, but words like "powers" read strangely to me in this context. Perhaps "magical abilities" or something would work better? This is mostly just a minor quibble though.
• Like I said, it's good work. It just needs some reorganization and copy editing and it will be good to go. — BrianSmithson 10:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Shuffled the text and categories around a bit to try to produce something more organized. Most of those sections were originally subsections; I'm not quite sure how that changed. I've eliminated a few of them, and changed others back to subsections. I think some of these are helpful ("Characteristics" is a wall of text without at least "Kitsunetsuki" in there). Dates are straightened out, and I've basically eliminated the word "powers." I'm not sure where to merge the information from "other meanings" -- there doesn't seem to be a good place to digress to discuss udon and soba. I could probably work up a short section on the weddings, but I'm not sure how much more there is to say. Will think about that a bit more. Article should be ready for copyediting, though, if you like. Shimeru 21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking good. I've struck through some objections and elaborated on others. I have a couple of new concerns, though, from my second read-through:
      • Should the Chinese picture be moved to the origins section, since it is not an actual Japanese example?
      • There's quite a bit of weasely language. "It is a matter of debate", "Some scholars have suggested", "some sources say", etc. Can these be replaced with names of specific people? "Scholars such as So-and-So have suggested . . . ."
      • The web references need information about when the URL was last accessed. I think this applies to the Gutenberg text, since those are still being checked for transciption errors in some cases.
      • Regarding the "Other uses", I think I can spot main-article homes for three of the items, and I will attempt to move them there when I do the copy edit. Recommend deletion of the band and record label though, or if they're notable, a disambiguation page. As for the facial type, is it thought that such people have kitsune blood or are more likely targets for kitsune possession? If so, the section can be merged in with "Kitsunetsuki". If no, I recommend deletion, as it's simple trivia.
    • Sorry for being long-winded. -- 210.239.12.84 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (User:BrianSmithson, who was involuntarily logged out somehow)
      • • Got the dates in there (rechecked most of them, but left the date on the Project Gutenberg text, since I don't see any way of being sure that it hasn't changed, and I used it fairly extensively). No idea whether the band and record label are notable; searching doesn't turn up much, so I removed them. The facial type... well, I know of at least one folktale offhand that states that a transformed fox had this facial structure; it's in either Hearn or Nozaki, I don't remember offhand. Doesn't seem terribly important, but it's an interesting side note. Finally, I moved the image as you suggested and added a few specifics about the scholars. Shimeru 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that "it is a matter of debate" is weasely language in this context; quite the contrary: it is an unequivocal statement of fact. By all means ask for examples from the debate, but it will still be a debate. It is good article-writing to note matters of debate, and, in my opinion, it is often better to reference secondary sources that say something is a matter of debate than to try to recreate the debate by quoting the various scholars, since Wikipedia is a tertiary medium.

It is perfectly good practice to use terms such as "it is a matter for debate" or "some scholars say" if you follow those points with references to books or articles which summarise or quote the debate and the scholars, as this section of the article impeccably does. In fact, one scholar's summary of the debate is used to end the section—rather elegantly, in my opinion: "Inari scholar Karen Smyers has noted that the idea of the fox as seductress and the connection of the fox myths to Buddhism were introduced into Japanese folklore through similar Chinese stories, but she also maintains that some fox stories contain elements unique to Japan." qp10qp 02:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean on the phrase "It is a matter of debate", but disagree with the eloquence. The whole section is confusing and needs to better identify and present the two or three conflicting schools of thought. -- BrianSmithson 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hastings, Ontario

I am nominating Hastings, Ontario because I believe it is a very well written and interesting article. I have worked on it for the past few months, and I think it is ready to be nominated for a Featured Article. The article recently received Good Article recognition, and a lot of effort has gone into making it the full and informative article that it has become today. Writing a long and detailed article is relatively easy for a large city, but this article is written on a village with scarcely 1,000 people! Dhastings 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

First FAC.

Object Definitely a solid article, but a fair number of problems:

• Lead doesn't seem to cover the whole subject. If the marina is important enough to get its own paragraph, you should explain why that's so. Otherwise, the last paragraph should be turned into a general discussion of the most important geographical or social features of the town.
• I'm sure interesting things have happened after 1875.
• Socioeconomic data in the "demographics" section?
• Non-Internet references?
• Prose is far from brilliant. Example: "Hastings is served by Hastings Public School, for elementary education. For secondary education, Hastings residents would attend the Campbellford District High School. There is also a high school in nearby Norwood; the Norwood District High School. These schools are all part of the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board. Peterborough, the most populous city in the area, provides college and university education with Fleming College and Trent University."

I see at least four problems in that paragraph: an unnecessary comma between "School" and "for"; "would" isn't the right word for the second sentence; you need an independent clause after a semicolon; and it's inelegant to say that the city itself "provides" higher education. Stilgar135 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. A quick look shows several sections not having references. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, there are no sources available for information after 1875. There are no actual books published about the village, as far as I know. The Trent University Archives, which are available online, provide no history of the 20th century.

No, the comma is necessary after "school". If there was no comma, that would imply that "for elementary education" was part of the school's name. Also, the person who edited the section left a spelling error in the word "education".

My point was that the comma should not have been there because it was a poorly-written sentence. Much of the article contains similarly clunky prose. Stilgar135 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. All sources are referenced. I suggest taking a wee bit more than a glance before saying that. Dhastings 15:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object 1a not met. Where are your sources for Transportation? Reference 8 no longer works. Also, you really need to reword some of the sentences that are lifted almost verbatim from your sources.
  • "Hastings, on the Trent River, is the gateway to Rice Lake, the second largest lake in the Trent system." from http://www.hastingsvillage.ca/about.htm
  • "The first settlement, known as Crooks Rapids, began in 1810 and was named in 1820." from http://heydon.com/business/hastings/hastings.htm
  • "Henry Fowlds bought the land in 1851 and renamed the settlement Hastings in 1852, when the first post office was opened." from http://heydon.com/business/hastings/hastings.htm
  • "The locks were completed in 1844 and the waterways became part of the Trent-Severn passage." from http://heydon.com/business/hastings/hastings.htm
  • "Together they had ten children, (Eliza, John, James S., Robert H., Elizabeth, Henry M., Mary C., William J., Mary Anne, and Theresa) of which only five survived (James S., Elizabeth, Henry M., William J., and Theresa). The family came to North America in 1821, settling first in New York City, and then in Hartford in 1833. In 1834, they crossed the border and settled in Prince Edward County, Upper Canada. The Fowlds family settled in Asphodel Township in 1836, and then moved on to Westwood, where they set up a saw mill in conjunction with Dr. John Gilchrist in what was to become the village of Keene." from http://www.trentu.ca/admin/library/archives/72-001.htm
  • On September 27, 1851, Henry Fowlds purchased, from the Honourable James Crooks, the water rights, lands and buildings then known as Crooks Rapids, and later as Hastings. The Fowlds built upon this base, expanding their original saw mill to a corporate business of a saw mill, grist mill, general store and post office. The Fowlds were quite active in Hastings, occupying the seat of reeve, and the office of postmaster." from http://www.trentu.ca/admin/library/archives/72-001.htm
  • Gzkn 03:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Would you like me to give you a link to MapQuest? I don't see how Transportation can be sourced.

Reference 8 now works, they had moved the page on the website.

Otherwise, I do agree. Some rewording will take place; that was a big mistake on my part. Dhastings 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1995 Pacific hurricane season

I finished redoing this article a few weeks, and I believe it adheres the FA criteria. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that some sources are lacking. For instance in the season summary paragraph, no source is given for "Lastly, Ismael struck the state of Sinaloa as a minimal hurricane. Offshore, fishermen were caught off guard by the hurricane, and 57 drowned. On land, Ismael destroyed thousands of houses, leaving 30,000 homeless and killing 59. Both Hurricanes Flossie and Ismael also produced moisture and localized damage in southwestern United States." TSO1D 01:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The sources are in the main part of the article. The WPTC has it as an unofficial policy to not have sources for the lede unless it has a fact that is not anywhere else sourced on the page. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not in the lede, though, so a ref there couldn't hurt. I'll add a footnote to Ismael's Preliminary Report, and probably the same with Flossie. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The Season summary section is a bit bare. Since I can't think of an image that would fit within the section, would it be ok to have a short table (similar to the ACE table in size) listing the number of deaths each storm caused? Titoxd^(?!?) 03:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a satellite image of two storms. Does that work? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Some of the problems asked have been addressed, and the article is filled with details along with good imagery. Hello32020 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Hello32020. --SonicChao ^talk 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kinetoscope

Self-nomination. Stable article on the world's first commercial motion picture exhibition system. Judged A-class by WikiProject Filmmaking. The advice and encouragement of project leadership has been crucial in getting the article to this stage.—DCGeist 17:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - read it yesterday. Excellent article. (Minor aside: I still think the use of "Kinetoscope project" to refer to the people working on it rather than the project itself makes for confusing phrasing, especially as it isn't referred to earlier) Yomangani^talk 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Good point. Sentence edited so both clearer and shorter.—DCGeist 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - it's been nothing but a pleasure seeing this article develop. Girolamo Savonarola 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Were all of those "Sources" used as References for the article, or should they be divided into References and Further reading? Sandy (Talk) 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: All the Sources are cited in the Notes.—DCGeist 05:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Sandy (Talk) 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support.--Yannismarou 09:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germany

I believe that the article is of sufficient quality to deserve FA status. It is well-sourced and very informative in addition to being well-organized. TSO1D 04:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Minor objections: Overall prose is very good, but I have several comments:

1. The lead section does not summarize the article. In particular,
   • This sentence from the lead: Historically consisting of several sovereign states with their own history, distinct German tribe dialects, culture and religious beliefs, Germany was unified as a nation state amidst the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 is confusing, too many things to describes in one sentence.
   • Also this sentence: It is the European Union's most populous and most economically powerful member state uses WP:PEACOCK words, uncited and I cannot find it anywhere in the main article.

   • I mistakenly placed the source for population a little to the right. As for economic prowess, Germany has the third highest nominal GDP per capita and the highest in Europe. Perpahs it could say "one of the most powerful countries", would that be better? TSO1D 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Please replace the source of this sentence: There are 2.3 million guest workers of Turkish origin in Germany, making them the largest group of foreign workers. The accurate source should be from the official statistic reports, rather than a letter article in New York Times. The sentence itself is an orphan paragraph.

   May I help? In this source [1], exactly here: [2] the Federal Statistical Office of Germany is quoted: "Nach den am 20. Juli 2005 durch das Statistische Bundesamt bekannt gegebenen Einbürgerungszahlen für das Jahr 2004 hat sich die Zahl der Türkinnen und Türken in der Bundesrepublik mit deutschem Pass auf insgesamt 840.000 erhöht. Damit ist fast jeder dritte der 2,6 Mio. türkischstämmigen Menschen zwischen Alpen und Nordsee eingebürgert." In 2004 there were 2.6 Million people of Turkish origin in Germany, 840.000 of them had the German Citizenship. -- Cornelia -etc. 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Why does the Demographics section only describe about foreign workers and asylum seekers? Where is the demographics information of the Germans themselves?

   • I believe that the problem is that the information about the native population is scattered across other parts of the article, for instance Relgion and Social Issues. TSO1D 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

4. This sentence: The third largest religious identity in Germany, after the two Christian groups, is that of non-religious people... is quite strange. Does the non-religious people is officially one religious identity?

   • Well in the poll they had religion: Protestant, Catholic, and then non-relgious/atheist. That's why it was presented in this way, but I see your point. TSO1D 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

5. This sentence: Germany has been and continues to be the home of some of the most important researchers of various scientific fields is uncited; thus looks opinion to me. The Science and Technology section still has orphaned paragraphs. The last paragraph of the section is awkward to specifically write in detail about psychology. The flow is abrupt and the last paragraph does not belong to the whole section.

   • The first sentence is common knowledge in my view and too vague to need to be sourced. I mean there have been numerous German scientists as demonstrated by the subsequent information. Well I put in a source just in case. TSO1D 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

6. This sentences: Unsubsidised long-range service operators can compete freely all over the country, at least in theory. Actually, Deutsche Bahn holds a de facto monopoly on long-range services. It is not a fact, but rather speculation. Not an encyclopaedic statement.

   • I agree, I will try to modify it. TSO1D 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

7. Please standardize numbers. Use comma for thousands and use non-breaking space between the number and its metric.
8. Please standardize reference items. Some of them are not informative enough.

   I changed two refs; do you believe there are other ones that need to be fixed? TSO1D 15:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

9. Trim the See Also list. Articles that have been wikilinked in the body do not need to be listed again in the See Also section.

   I removed two entries that appeared in other parts of the text. TSO1D 15:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The above was reviewed based on [3] — Indon (reply) — 15:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Is it still rated as B-Class? May be backlogged. --Brand спойт 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The B classification is from a much older version of the article. TSO1D 20:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: Lack of print sources. Punctured Bicycle 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of the sources are from print sources that are found in online databases. For example, most newspaper links are the digital format of formerly printed articles and all the material from encyclopedias comes from sources that are available in print format. The same goes for the CIA and Library of Congress Reports. I mean I can cite the paper version but I thought it would be useful to have a link to the text that has been made available online. TSO1D 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By print sources I meant books, besides encyclopedias (WP:RS: "Secondary sources should be given priority over tertiary ones.") Punctured Bicycle 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But compare this article to the FA Belgium that only has about five print sources that are not linked to a specific part of the text. I think overall the German article is much better sourced. It wouldn't really be a problem to find some books about Germany on Amazon and list them here, but since they weren't used for conducting research that wouldn't truly be useful in my view. Furthermore, I believe that all important information that is not common knowledge has been supported by a credible source even if that source is available in digital format online. TSO1D 13:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What sources did you use when conducting research, anyways? Huge sections of text give no indication of where the information came from (in the form of inline citations). 10 citations—comprising magazine, news, and encyclopedia articles—is not adequate for 2000 years of history, for example. Other FAs, which may end up on FARC at any time, aren't an excuse—why not strive to be better than them? Punctured Bicycle 03:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't I that wrote the article, I just tried to reformat much of the text and provide as many sources as I could find for the content. As a model for my edits, I used the Belgium and Canada articles as they had already received FA status and I believed that they had already come under close scrutiny so they must have reflected adequate Wikipedia standards. Online sources where the only ones I had to my disposal and I selected the most credible ones to support the information of the article. I cannot deny that it would be better to have more sources, that is always the case, however I believe that in its current form possesses a quality of a sufficient degree to warrant the promotion of the article to FA status. Others of course disagree and constructive criticism has been put forward by many. I have tried to do my best to fulfill these requests, however under the circumstances I do not see how I can do more than change the language and add some more sources of the same type I previously included. TSO1D 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Some paragraphs are totally uncited. They need citations. LuciferMorgan 21:54, 8 December 2006

(UTC)

I believe that the parts of the text that do not include citations include content that can be considered common knowledge thus not requiring the support of sources. Most of these parts are in the history, law, and government sections that are not cited in other featured articles such as Belgium or Canada for the same reason that I have mentioned. TSO1D 13:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I am currently changing the references to other encyclopedias (which I think should not be used in a FA) to book references. Kusma (討論) 09:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Not written to the required "professional" standard. Take the lead:
  • "It is bordered to the north by"—Unidiomatic. "A portion of the alps"—same.

I am sorry, but how "it is bordered to the north by" undiomatic? That is one of the most common ways of presenting this information in the English language. For instance see Britannica that uses the same structure: http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9370838/Macedonia. TSO1D

• • "Germany is a democratic parliamentary federal republic, made up of 16 states (Bundesländer), which in certain spheres act independently of the federation." I'd remove the last clause, because it says nothing useful unless accompanied by more detail than is appropriate in a lead. Remove ",made up", which is redundant. Saves the repetition in the subsequent sentence ("consisting of").
  • "Historically consisting of several sovereign states with their own history"—Ungainly repetition.

I agree and will remove it. Actually I see that someone already beat me to it. Is it ok now? TSO1D 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "distinct German tribe dialects"—clumsy.

Agree again. TSO1D 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "Germany has the third largest economy in the world and is the largest exporter of goods on the globe"—"In the world ... on the globe"? The second is unidiomatic, and both together in a sentence are repetitive.

Again, I don't agree that it's undiomatic, though perhaps a bit awkward, I will try to change it. TSO1D 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This needs serious copy-editing throughout. Tony 01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The writing is awkward in many places, and the text introduces new terms with only a passing mention (i.e. in the restoration and revolution section). I cannot support at this time. --Danaman5 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support there are a lot of small issues that could easily and should be fixed, mostly concerning references (some sections are a little light on references + see comments above) and prose (not bad by any means but perhaps not brilliant). Still, the overall quality is impressive. Pascal.Tesson 21:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• TSO1D—No point in adding your "support" if you're the nominator .... ahem. Not a numbers game here. I agree about "bordered", having looked it up. I still think it's a little ugly, and would rephrase it myself, but you're right, it is correct as is. ON the globe is not idiomatic, unless it's an insect sitting ON the globe in the kids' bedroom. Tony 05:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree (about the vote). Although I see that "on the globe" has already been changed and I agree that it sounds a bit awkward I still say that it's not unidiomatic. For instance look at the phrase "country on the globe" on Google. As you can see some more reputable sources also use it in the same context it appeared in the article. I know this doesn't really matter now that the text has been altered anyway, but I just wanted to defend the idiom :). TSO1D 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments a couple of specific things/sentences that should be fixed:

• "irregular" government employment such as "one euro" jobs, What's a one euro job? or an irregular employee?

Irregular refers to the fact that the employment is not stable but meant for short periods of time as explained by the examples given. I gave a brief definition of "one-euro" jobs in parentheses. TSO1D 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Despite the tense situation in eastern Germany, total government employment in Germany remains lower than in other states such as the United Kingdom or Canada. Not sure what that means. What is the comparison to Canada and the UK supposed to prove?
• Get your hands on a better university picture than that of Würzburg. It's not a well-known university across the world.

  What about Heidelberg? It's the oldest University in today's Germany and I think it is well-known, isn't it? Perhaps the picture of the aula there may be okay? -- Cornelia -etc. 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• The picture of Angela Merkel next to the social issues section should probably have a social issues caption.

Ok, I changed the caption. TSO1D 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• For centuries, women's role in German society was summed up by the three words: Kinder (children), Küche (kitchen), and Kirche (church). Throughout the twentieth century, women have gradually won victories in their quest for equal rights, although women are noticeably absent in the top tiers of German business, holding only hold 9.2% of jobs in Germany's upper and middle management positions. While I'm not denying that women's social position in Germany is an important issue, this group of sentences makes it sound like a German-specific issue which, for all I know, it is not. Do French women hold 25% of top tier business positions? I don't think so.

I don't believe the article is suggesting that this is a German peculiarity, it just lists the "ongoing quest for gender equality" in Germany. This isn't one of my favorite sections, but it's still factually correct and I didn't want to remove it altogether nor did I know how else to change it. TSO1D 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• many historical figures, though not citizens of Germany in the modern sense, were influential in the German cultural sphere, including Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Franz Kafka and Stefan Zweig. Don't get me wrong, I like Stefan Zweig but he's not really in the same league as Mozart and Kafka. If you want to have three examples (which is always nice) how about Sigmund Freud instead?

Good idea, I actually though about doing that and will do it now. TSO1D 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm no expert but one sentence for German philosophers seems like an understatement. German idealism is of major importance in the history of philosophy. Why not link to German philosophy? (even if that's a low-quality article)
• For some reason, the culture section suddenly switches to a surname-only format for name-dropping.
• Cleanup the selection of names. Kraftwerk is influential, Blind Guardian not so much. Only names that have a significant (and third-party established) impact should be in there.

Pascal.Tesson 07:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've just added half a dozen citation requests. These should all be easy to find by looking up the references of the various sub-articles. Note that I'm not peppering the article with citation requests to prove a point but just to highlight the work that remains to be done. Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I just took a look at the Germany article in German and found a few interesting things. First, it's incredibly long (which isn't a good thing I know) but it sort of shows what content is missing from the english article. It has a really long series of sections on architecture (we have a one line sentence I just added), a section on cinema (for some reason we don't), sections on sport, fauna, flora, etc (we don't but not sure we want one). Also I realized that for some reason Willy Brandt and Helmut Kohl are not mentioned anywhere in the English article which does not seem right... Pascal.Tesson 04:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As Adenauer isn't mentioned, either, it seems not so bad not to mention these two. I don't think the history section should be longer than it is, so if you suggest something important is missing, do you have an idea what to remove or shorten instead? Kusma (討論) 14:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well let's put it this way: should we have room for Adenauer if we have room for Dieter Bohlen? Although I have developed it quite a bit, the section on culture could be refactored and dramatically shortened so that it relies on other existing articles (some of which are quite good). The impact of Adenauer, Brandt, Kohl and even Schröder not only on Germany but on Europe as we know it today is too important for us to ignore them here. Pascal.Tesson 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added Adenauer and Brandt to the post-45 history section. I couldn't find a good way to describe Kohl's role there yet. Kusma (討論) 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related note: I think the section on German culture is slowly reaching higher quality than the article Culture of Germany and so it does not make much sense to link to it unless we move some of that content. I would favor rewriting the Culture of Germany article by merging the Germany content in there. Then we could rewrite a much more succinct section and add a note in the source that this section should not be expanded too much. We could limit ourselves to a general discussion on the Culture of Germany versus German culture and mention fields in which Germany has been particularly influential. Pascal.Tesson 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, the article ahs improved amazingly from a month ago. The "administrative divisions" section could still be improved, though, by adding a one-or two-sentence statment that notes how much freedom the divisions have to make their own decisions. That would make it look less like a table without comment. Kusma (討論) 09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian literature

It's a well-written and comprehensive article about the Persian literature, and - right now - probably the best article on Persian literature available in the www. Tājik 02:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Not enough refs, huge areas don't have one and the ones you have are not consistently formatted. Full dates, ex March 13, 2006, should be wikilinked. Rlevse 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Not well cited, suggest a stint at peer review until issues are addressed (the peer review received no comments). Sandy (Talk) 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above problems and:
  • the 'influence' section is largely anecodotal. Nietzsche is cited, although no reason is given (just because a character is named Zoroaster? I'm sure lots of books fit that description). It really needs to be rewritten and referenced.
  • too many red links for literary critics
  • too many lists--satire should be a paragraph and in it the most important people should be touched upon. A list can go in the sub-article not this overview.
  • Images like Image:Shahrokh Meskoob.jpg need to be sourced before we can trust their copyright tags. and WP:FUC are needed for images like Image:Dehkhoda book cover.gif
• These little things all need to be done first--and then it can be brought back to FAC. gren グレン 07:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above, also too many blue links in the article, names linked over and over again, instead of just the first time, or when particularlaly relevant, thereby making the article hard to read, when the purpose of blue linking to other articles is to direct the interested reader to more information, not make the article look bruised (black and blue mess).
  • Excessive linking: ""Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information;" It is not to emphasize the importance of some subject, and actually fails in that by appearing cluttered and poorly copedited instead. In the lead paragraph alone "Central Asia" and "Persian" are both linked twice. The entire article is like this. See WP:relevant links & WP:MOS (links). KP Botany 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoysala Empire

This article has been through a peer review. It has been reviewed for balance in content, facts, citations and has been copy edited by multiple reviewers. Please provide further recommendations if any and I shall gladly comply.Dineshkannambadi 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment you don't wikilink solo years, ie, 1320. Rlevse 03:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply Per WP:DATE, "There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text."

So, a copyedit has been done per WP:CONTEXT, and most of the solo years have been de-wikilinked. However, some important years, like the start year or end year of the empire, start date of family record of the empire etc. and reigning years of Kings in Template:Hoysala Kings Infobox have been kept as wikilinked. Please see and comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 2 citation needed tags added. Please address.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply--> I have provided the requested citations in "Women" section.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 13:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support : The article probably needs a couple of rounds of cpedit to tighten prose. That apart, a very useful, important and informative article. I wholeheartedly 'support'. Sarvagnya 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—(1) I'm not agreeing to a promotion until the trivial chronological links are delinked. Why on earth do we need the page to be scattered with blue? And why do you want your high-value links (there are a lot) to be diluted in this way with irrelevant links? Aside from the obvious disadvantages, this aspect is inconsistent. (2) Needs a copy-edit. Here are examples:
  • "Literature in Kannada language, in the Vaishnava, Shaiva and Jain traditions flourished." THE Kannada language.
  • "Sanskrit works spanning Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita philosophy were written". Awkward expression.
  • "Poetesses"—please use "poets". "Such as" is more elegant in formal prose than "like". "Gained fame"—bit of a jingle. ay ay. And the grammar suggests that poetesses were an age for emancipation.
  • "Administrative responsibilities were no longer the monopoly of men. Performances in music and dance by women became popular." Stubby sentences that continue similar grammatical constructions to those we've just read. Needs to be varied. But more seriously, these sweeping statements seem to be a little dangerous. I hope that they'll be referenced copiously and authoritatively further down. Do they belong in the lead? Can you have a performance "in" dance, or a performance "in" music?

Don't just correct these examples. The whole text is at issue in this respect. Tony 01:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply-->Thank you for your candid critisism. I am starting with removing all Chronological links (years and centuries) and repeat linking in many places. I am also simplyfying the LEAD.

I shall then look closely at the rest of the article for sweeping statements and replace them with more sobre statements.Thank you.Dineshkannambadi 03:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy edits--> I have taken out many repeat links, date links and sobered adjectives through out the articles. The LEAD has been trimmed. I have replaced "like" with "such as" and "poetess" with "poet". Please take a look and give me your opinion.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object -- choppy prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  Please reply on this page, not user talk pages.

  1. Kannada and Sanskrit literature were prolific during the Hoysala rule. The 12th century saw the Champu style of works go out of vogue, while new metres like Sangatya in compositions (meant to be sung to the accompaniment of a musical instrument), Shatpadi and Tripadi in verses (seven and three line) and Ragale (lyrical poems with refrain) rose in popularity The first is too short, and second sentence is long and windy. 2. Cattle farming was attractive in the highlands (malnad regions) from where diary products, fruits and spices came -- awkard sentence 3. They came to be treated with deference. Their accomplishments gave them more freedom in that they could distance themselves from social conventions to a greater degree.
  2. The sections need a rework. The sections need an overhaul with many of them combined under a single heading. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Only Hinduism is mentioned. What about other religions such as Jainism and Buddhism?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply--> As far as I have read, Buddhism had made its exit from India, becoming more rooted in SriLanka and the Southeast Asia. There may have been a few monasteries though. Jainism itself was on the wane. I shall write briefly about these topics also. Please give me a day. I shall also correct the sentenses you mention above as choppy, lengthy etc.thanksDineshkannambadi 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following sectioning:

• History (no subsections) - summarise
• Economy (no subsections) - summarise
• Governance
• Culture
  • Religion
  • Society
  • Literature
  • Architecture
  • Language

The map should be added to the infobox =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply-->DoneDineshkannambadi 12:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply--> I have no problem with reorganization of the article. Do other reviewers have their own suggestions?thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have added a few lines about the decline of Jainsim and exit of Buddhism in the 11th century-14th century time.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thought Since the major developments of this time were art, architecture and Religion, should'nt these topics be ahead of economy and governance.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reorg--> I have reorganised the sections per Nichalp's proposal. I will embark on the summarising aspect tommorow. Just two questions, 1) Do I keep the "impact" section as seperate from Religion or merge it and 2) Do I keep the subsections under "Society" or merge it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to reorg IMO, Religion and its impact must be merged. subsections of society should also be merged. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply DoneDineshkannambadi 03:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply on REORG->Thanks. That gives me the direction I needed. This job can be done within a couple of days.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Administration-->I will summarise tonight.thanksDineshkannambadi 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made some more changes to the structure. This leads to a slightly larger section which should be summarised.

Some additional points:

1. Use the Template:Infobox Former Country, the closest infobox we have for such kind of articles.
2. More problems with the grammar: The Hoysala society was comparatively liberal. Woman enjoyed administrative powers. Queen Umadevi administered Halebidu in the absence of Veera Ballala II.[40] Women made progress in the realms of music, dance, literature, poetry, politics and administration. Queen Shantaladevi was a noted dancer. -- very choppy, appear to be just statements instead of flowing text.

Reply modifiedDineshkannambadi 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The Hoysalas followed the Western Chalukya and Western Ganga Dynasty (Gangas) method of governance -- not very useful bit of information for those reading it for the first time.

Relpy modifiedDineshkannambadi 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. See alsos should be placed at the end of the section.

Reply doneDineshkannambadi 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The images should be reduced, as far as possible, keep only images relevent to the section placed in.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply Will do this once the text editrs are complete.Dineshkannambadi 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

SOCIETY--> I have created a subarticle for this also and will compress the content on the main page.Dineshkannambadi 12:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Compressed SOCIETY secton.

TBD-->1) compress RELIGION section without loosing context-->Done by DwaipayanDineshkannambadi 17:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2) Learn to use the Template:Infobox Former Country

3) Get the IPA for the article

Please tell me if there are other things to be done.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the current structure and content per section
• The text still choppy, so request you get a third person to copyedit it.
• Phrases not common to standard English should be modified with context. eg. He relied more on the Puranas -- most people outside India would not know what the Puranas are. How about ...literary works of the Puranas?--->Done.Dineshkannambadi 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Use British English spellings (eg favorable --> favourable)
• Remove the script from the infobox. For those without the correct fonts, it would be badly rendered at large sizes.-->DoneDineshkannambadi 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• change 1/4 to 'a fourth'-->Done

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove the script from the infobox. For those without the correct fonts, it would be badly rendered at large sizes.--> The Hoysala Empire box or Hoysala Kings box?ThanksDineshkannambadi 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC),

[edit] Scouting

Overview of the worldwide Scout movement. Rlevse 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too many places have no sources, at a quick glance. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just added 5 refs (making 50 different ones, some used more than once). Will keep working on it. Let me know if there's a specifc ref you feel is needed. Rlevse 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)...added 3 more, total 53. Rlevse 11:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)...added 6 more, total 59 now. Rlevse 14:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)....3 more, 62 different refs now.Rlevse 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)...See "Announcement" below. Rlevse 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Is it really possible to judge the quality of an article by the sheer quantity of its references? --jergen 09:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Every section has at least one-two, often several. They are not a judging of the text, but an indicator of the level of referencing.Rlevse 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Do refs 47-52 use other WP articles as sources? -- Kicking222 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, these are notes, which refer to Wikipedia articles as a "see also". Although you should seperate these into a different section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Michaelas10 is correct, those are explanatory notes made when questions arose in the past; I've seen this done in other FACs/FAs. If the consensus is to separate them, we can, but I've generally seen these left in the regular notes section. Rlevse 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is technically impossible to separate proper references from "see also" references if you use the <ref> scheme.--GunnarRene 16:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may clarify my comment: I knew that they were notes as opposed to references, and I knew that they can't be separated. My comment was really that the "includes ###" notes made me think that this information was simply taken from other articles, and it was not sourced in those articles (as I checked a few of them). -- Kicking222 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these numbers were just taken from the mentioned articles. I think I could source most of the numbers, but this would take some days. And it is (nearly) impossible to get complete informations for the countries with fragmented Scout movements because nobody has a complete list of the existing associations. But this concerns mostly small local organizations with only a few members. --jergen 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We've fixed Germany and France, are working on the others.Rlevse 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)...fixed Italy now tooRlevse 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See El Greco as an example of how to separate notes and refs. Gzkn 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Announcement a separate Notes section has been created for those five items, the standard footnotes are now in Citations. There are 5 notes and 55 footnotes now. Rlevse 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please convert these to Roman numerals? Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, I'd just followed the article that showed me how to do it. Rlevse 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I think it's well written and well sourced. --evrik ^(talk) 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Evrik. It has 59 refs now, plenty enough and every section has at least 1-2, if not several. I think the notes are okay where they are. Sumoeagle179 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the "In film and the arts" section is awfully short, especially considering that what's there says that Scouting is "prevalent", and used by "numerous films and artwork". Also, though it may be most prevalent in American popular culture, there should be some mention of elsewhere, if possible. Tuf-Kat 16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made what was a regular wikilink a "main" link, there's a whole article on this. I'll work on this more later. Rlevse 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)...Added a Scottish bit too.Rlevse 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Let's look at the opening para.

Scouting, or the Scout movement, is a worldwide youth movement of multiple organizations for both boys and girls whose aim is to develop young people physically, spiritually and mentally so that youth may take a constructive place in society. The movement employs a program of non-formal education with emphasis on practical activities in the outdoors, using the Scout method with programs targeted for up to five age groups, as defined by the founders of Scouting in the early 20th century. Most countries have Scouting programs for children and young adults from ages 6 to their early 20s.

• • "Scouting is subtely different from "the Scout movement", so shouldn't be cast with the "or" equivalent. My Phrase Checker shows that M should start Movement.
    • uppercased, changed wording slightlyRlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Multiple"?
    • yes, several organizations are part of the movement, but I'd rm'd 'multiple'.Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Both" is a marker; do we need to make some point that it's unexpected to have both genders in the organisation?
    • rm'd 'both'Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it the aim of the "boys and girls" or of the "organizations"? It shouldn't be ambiguous grammatically.
    • rm'd 'boys and girls', slight reword. Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, the supernatural is introduced in the first sentence. I don't know whether this word "spiritually" is in the written mission statement, but I'd avoid using the term at the top, where it's fuzzy without further detail. Is it a quasi supernatural religious movement? I didn't think so.
    • rm'd, oh my gosh.Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • put back in - spirituality does not equal religion, and it is a core part of Scouting... Horus Kol 09:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We have "young people" and "youth" in the same sentence. Are they the same or different?
    • made the same.Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "with emphasis on practical activities in the outdoors"¸—No, "with an emphasis on practical outdoor activities".
    • changedRlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "from ages 6 to their early 20s". Clumsy; treat the two items equally.
    • rm'dRlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a very bad start, and indicates that the whole text needs major surgery. Tony 02:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll do what I can on the rest, but since I, like most of us, aren't as good at it as you and we're not mind readers, it'd help if you could be specific on the rest. Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Try to find someone who's distant from the topic. Fresh eyes. Tony 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That'd be you.Rlevse 04:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object 1a not met, per Tony. Some examples culled from Origins section:
  • The seeds of the idea of Scouting began during the Siege of Mafeking, South Africa, during the Second Boer War of 1899 to 1902, where Baden-Powell served as commanding officer. Seeds began? Idea began? Unclear, but "The seeds of the idea of Scouting began" is just awkward in general. Also, repetition of "during the".
    • reworded to "Baden-Powell began to formulate ideas of what became Scouting during a battle of the Second Boer War, the Siege of Mafeking, South Africa, where he served as commanding officer." Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As a result of his status as a national hero, acquired as a result of his determined and successful defense of the town of Mafeking, Baden-Powell's military training manual, Aids to Scouting (written in 1899) became a relative best-seller and was used by teachers and youth organizations. Rep. of "a result of his". What's a relative best-seller?
    • fixed. Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • subsequently met Baden-Powell, and they shared ideas about youth training programs. When?
    • added year and month
  • subsequently published in book form. Again, when?
    • added year and ref. Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • At the time Baden-Powell intended... and As the movement grew Sea Scout, Air Scout... these could use commas for clarity.
    • addedRlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In 1919 Gilwell Park near London was purchased as adult training site and scouting campsite. Purchased by whom? Also, "an adult training site".
    • added bothRlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Baden-Powell also wrote a book for the assistance of Leaders entitled Aids to Scoutmastership, and others for the use of new sections that were formed, such as Rovering to Success for Rover Scouts in 1922. Huh? Gzkn 05:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • added 'other handbooks'Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for these precise suggestions, would appreciate more if you're so inclined. Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support I liked the article, but the issues Gzkn were essentially my concerns as well. I think you can get them fixed without too much problem, but I thought it was a solid article.Balloonman 09:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the article also. It may not have the most sources on Wikipedia, but the information is well presented and sourced well enough. I don't have any problem with it being a featured article.Ganfon 23:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've watched this a couple of days before voting. I think the additional references have been a big help, and I don't really see any problems with the prose after a read-through. --JohnDBuell 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brabham

Self nomination Current Good Article on a former Formula One team and racing car manufacturer with an interesting history. I've been working this one up over the last 6 months or so, on and off. It is comprehensive - more so that most webpages on the topic, which tend only to cover the team's F1 involvement. It's also pretty thoroughly referenced mainly from hardcopy sources (although no doubt someone will immediately spot something I've missed :)). It was peer reviewed here - all the issues raised were dealt with to the satisfaction of the peer reviewers. Finally, I think I've pegged all the relevant bits from WP:MoS. I believe it is now up to FA standard, but await your views. Thanks in advance. <ducks and hides under desk> 4u1e 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Don't be like that 4u1e, Brabham is a great article and it's rating as a GA, in my opinion, is an understatement. Great job!. --Skully Collins ^Edits 07:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Oh, I'm not that worried! In fact, since my concern for the article is that I'm too close to it, I'll be quite happy if/when someone points out a problem with it. Thanks for the support :D 4u1e 08:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Very close, just one thing that concerns me, the image used in the infobox is also used later on in the article (with the caption "The Brabham BT52 was the first turbocharged car to win the F1 drivers' championship"). Also the copyright notice of the image seems a bit dodgy to me, and I couldn't find anything on the source website to confirm it. Suggest that a logo be used in the infobox and if possible proof of the the BT52's copyright status be found (or the image replaced). I will support when this is done. Alexj2002 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll check out the BT52 picture copyright notice, it's not one of the ones I loaded (there's a pic of a BT49 around somewhere if this one's not OK). Regarding logos, I agree, but have a small concern. I originally had the BRO logo at the top of the page. Because BRO only represents a small part of the team's history, I was going to go with the team's most recent logo (the scorpion/snake thing). I have a gif of this one, but didn't record the site I got it from and cannot now find it on the web anywhere. This means I can't fulfil the requirement to give the source of the image. Any advice? 4u1e 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Very dodgy licensing, and the pic has gone from that website as far as I can see. I've replaced it with a cc-by licensed image of a BT49 from flickr.com in the text and the BRO logo at the top of the page. 4u1e 10:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Try [4] for the snake/scorpion logo. Alexj2002 10:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the one. Apparently it's referred to as Hissing Sid. Don't know why it didn't come up on search. I'll fix that one tonight. Cheers. 4u1e 10:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for finding that. I'd be grateful if you could check I've gotten the fair use rationale right. 4u1e 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Objections resolved. Alexj2002 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments.
  • Please remove Amazon.com links from references.
    • First of all - many thanks for such a comprehensive assessment of the structure. Happy to remove the Amazon links, although I find them more useful than the ISBN ones for the kind of sources we're talking about here. Out of curiosity, is there a specific policy on this, or is it a preference?
      • It's a commercial site - and raises the argument of why Amazon, and not B&N. We aren't a bookseller :-) Sandy (Talk) 18:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Done. 4u1e 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I fixed one of your references to include the webpage title: in the event links go dead, future readers need to know the exact bibliographic info in order to attempt to re-locate the info. Please doublecheck all your web links, and make sure last access dates are provided. When a page links to static results, consider linking to the internet archive for a stable version.
    • What I really wanted was a link to a general 'results archive' page. Unfortunately the F1 site isn't structured like that, you have to link to a specific year. I didn't want the reference to look like it was just to a single year's results, so left that part of the title out. However, you're probably right, it's misleading to do so. Excellent point re archived versions of the page. I will investigate.
      • Sadly, I don't think the internet archive will work here. The way the f1 site is structured, each year's results have a different page. Each year has 16 or so races, again each with a separate page, and the results can be viewed by driver, team or season summary. If I understand correctly, the links from each archived page go to the current version of the linked page, not the archived version. Without giving individual links to archived versions of each of the relevant pages (perhaps 30 x 16 = 318 pages!) I can't see how this can be made to work.4u1e 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there an ISBN for Pinder?
    • No, and I think I may drop him as a source. I hadn't noticed at first, but the coincidence of his name and the publisher's indicate that it is probably a vanity book. While I think it remains a useful and reliable source on Repco, and there is nothing in the book which contradicts other sources, it's probably cleaner just to use Henry instead.
      • Pinder removed, substituted Lawrence, which gives more info than Henry on Brabham's technical involvement in the project, if anyone ever actually reads the reference text! 4u1e 19:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wiki is a dynamic environment, and future editors could insert new text - I can't support an article carrying this statement: "Facts which are not otherwise footnoted have been taken from the following sources:" Facts which need to be footnoted, should be footnoted.
    • Again, your point is fair. I suggest that the article's readability will suffer if I footnote all race results, so how about I remove the general reference to Alan Henry's 1999 Motorsport article and leave the race results under the heading 'All race and championship results taken from'?
      • Use your best judgment: you know the territory better than I do. Sandy (Talk) 18:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Done (to my best judgement ;-)) 4u1e 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why do you include page numbers in References? The point of References is to list sources, with specific page numbers provided in the Footnotes.
    • The ones with page numbers are articles in newspapers or magazines, so the referenced source is a particular article, not to the magazine in general. In newspapers, which are not generally indexed, the articles will be harder to find without a page number. The page number is given in the footnote, though, so I can live with losing them from the references.
      • Sorry, I see that now. Sandy (Talk) 18:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I did consider seperating out the books and the newspaper/magazine references, but decided that would be overly complicated! 4u1e 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Some bluelinks in some footnotes need to be expanded to include full bibliographic info - if the sources go dead, future readers need to be able to find the article, example, www.sfo.gov.uk is not sufficient info.
    • Good point. Will fix.
      • I've made some tentative changes, but haven't finalised an approach yet. Can I confirm that www.sfo.gov.uk wasn't actually a problem? It has the website, the name of the document the info came from and the title of the case study within that document. I've added the 'click path' to the title as well, but don't see what else can be done with this one. I assume www.f3history.co.uk, www.grandprix.com and www.indy500.com/stats are the issue? I've tried something with the first two (see references section). Better? 4u1e 07:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Have added more detail on each ref, and re-written some of the article to use hardcopy references instead of on-line (Online now in 'External links' section). 4u1e 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are these bolded ? devised a hydropneumatic suspension system, Murray started using lightweight carbon fibre composite panels, The Brabham BT46B of 1978, also known as the Fan car, to introduce full width rear wings for downforce and increased grip, etc ?
  • Why is this italicized? downforce created by aerodynamic ground effect.
    • It wasn't me that did it, but I believe the intent was to highlight technical terms, an approach I've seen recommended somewhere in one of the style guides (I'll check that out in more detail). I'm happy for it to go if it's distracting.
      • OK. The guidance I was thinking of is Technical terms and definitions. Having read that again, I've settled for italics for technical terms which I believe many people won't have encountered before. Thus I have italicised monocoque, but not wind tunnel because I think most people will have a vague idea of what it is. I've italicised at the first appearance, and at the first appearance in the 'Technical innovation' section, since this is where most of the description is done. Better? 4u1e 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Re-arranging images in Racing history - other formulae will help avoid chunks of white space - images don't *have* to be right next to the text they refer to, when doing so results in chunky white space.
    • Will give that a go, on a variety of screen settings. It looks OK on the three different set ups that I normally use, but I guess that's not really representative of the world at large.
      • I've tried a couple of different screen resolutions, a load of different window sizes and IE as well as Firefox (Netscape now uses the IE and Mozilla rendering engines, so I haven't bothered with that). I can't see any 'chunky white space' on any window or screen sizes, other than right at the top of the article on my maximum resolution settings. I have re-arranged the pictures anyway to make the page less uniform. Any better? If not, could you be more specific about what the problem looks like, perhaps with screen resolution settings and browser details? A screen cap would be good, if you can do it. 4u1e 18:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the text yet; I'll do that after structural things are addressed. Sandy (Talk) 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to comment: I think I have addressed all of the points raised above. Do you agree? 4u1e 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article.--Diniz 13:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power: A New Social Analysis

Just finished and fully cited. I'm somewhat happy with the result, and spent a great deal of time on it. I hope this will help popularize one of Russell's more neglected works. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object for the present. The second sentence in the lead seems to be a bit harsty, it should be preceded by a couple of sentences explaining the key ideas tackled in the lead below and why Russell argues. Also there is a POVish peacock "when examining the work as a whole, one can detect an exciting overall research project". Some passages highlighted in color (as in Demosthenes) would look nice. --Brand спойт 15:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I got rid of the funny sounding phrases in the intro, and added a few blue boxes. I think it looks nicer now. Hope that helps! { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mild object. I've recently noticed there is a lack of the book infobox. The number of portraits could be decreased in my opinion to avoid some gallery appearance. Also it would be better to turn the chapter list into a table and move higher, to the Work section. --Brand спойт 17:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the infobox, as well as two of the portraits. The intro part now seems rather "busy" to me, but I'd like other people to give their thoughts on whether or not that's a bad thing.

I'm hesitant to change the chapter listing into a table, since I don't intuitively know why it needs to be done aesthetically. (It might help if I could see an example of a nice looking chapter list from another article.) I also like it near the end of the article, in order to postpone the less interesting narrative to the end, so the reader doesn't have to slog through it. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 04:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. Already a nice work, try to download the book cover. To be strict I would support after some additional copyedit, consider assessment. --Brand спойт 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added the book cover and provided a Wikibooks assessment (hopefully others agree with it). { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment (sorry Ben). I've copyedited for various minor problems (prose, referencing, dashes, heading styles), but I still worry about several things:

:1. The article is too long. Partly this is a matter of the prose needing trimming (and I've done a bit of that), but partly it's because it goes into far too much detail. An analytic summary of Russell's main themes and arguments would be more to the point than the level of detail in the current version.

2. Sometimes, the article slips into what seems to be Russell's prose style, and it's often unclear whether this is paraphrase, close paraphrase or unreferenced quote. Quotations are also inconsistent in style: some are in "double quotes", some in italics, others in "both" (which looks horrible).

3. The article is inconsistent in whether it reports in the present tense ('Russell argues...') or the past ('Russell argued...'). I've tried to edit these to all present tense, but may have missed some. This needs going over again.

4. The following don't apparently make sense: 'Third, the means by which one pursues one's goal must be such that they outweigh the value of the end' (Philosophy of power section); 'Collective action should be restricted to those areas that are primarily "geographical"' (Governance section).

5. Missing references: C. Wright Mills quote in endnote; Russell quote in first paragraph of Propaganda and Business section.

If these issues can be sorted - and I'm sure they can - I'll support. As a Mill scholar, I can't resist mentioning in passing that Russell's critique of Mill is rubbish, but obviously that doesn't detract from the article. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the critical eye, Sam! I'll do my best to fix those problems. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone over it, and done the following:

• Trimmed down a few parts where the information wasn't really important (i.e., with respect to the history of priestly/kingly power, and an examination of the forms of power as used by the Nazis). It is a bit long, but I am not sure how to trim it down without losing the comprehensiveness required by an FAC.
• I've also changed those italicized portions which might be interpreted as quotes into either quotations or plain prose, and have inserted new paragraphs for the bulkier quotes. I didn't eliminate all italicization in quotes, because that's how it appears in the original text, and we have to stay true to the work (even if it looks ugly).
• Also changed everything to present tense, or tried to.
• Hopefully made the two problematic quotes more intelligible.
• Cited the Mills and Russell-business quotes. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I did some more trimming. The main body of text is approx. 7300 words (well within the recommended 6000-10000 word bracket). Granted, file size is still bigger than recommended, but the warning for file size is only mentioned in the wikiguidelines as an indicator for the length of the body of the article. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I've struck through those of my objections I think you've addressed. I have some further remarks (one of which I forgot about, above). 1. Although the prose has been tightened up, I still think the article is too detailed, too much like a plot summary, and insufficiently analytic. But this may just be a matter of taste, so I'm not making it a basis of opposition. 2. The C. Wright Mills quote is still not properly referenced. It needs a page number, not just a book attribution; it's listed as Mills 1956 in the footnote and 1957 in the bibliography; and it's attributed to Columbia 1996, which isn't in the bibliography at all. 3. This final one is partly my fault, because I forgot to mention above that I'd been bold and done something about it. I suggest the following formats for referencing. a. inline references to pages of the book should be in the form (45), before the fullstop, not (pp. 45) after it, because the latter looks ugly and because 'pp' means pageS, not page. I changed most of these in my first copyedit, and I think I've got all of them now. b. footnote references should be tucked up tight after the punctuation mark, with no space - text.^[1] Again, I think I've got all of these, but it might need rechecking. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I did my best to portray the work in an analytic fashion in a minimal sense, by giving names to those discrete concepts that Russell might have considered candidates for either "laws of social dynamics" or constituents thereof (i.e., "emergency solidarity", "psychological types of influence", the "rule of three phases", etc.) Doing more than that -- putting things in the form of "there is an x such that...", etc. -- would seem to be pushing the envelope, so to speak. Don't get me wrong, I share your dissapointment about the lack of analyticity of the work, as do both Willis and Brittan. And I have (independently of this article) attempted to formulate how his argument could have proceeded in an analytic fashion. However, those formulations would be OR, and I must stay within the confines of Wikipedia rules for the purposes of this article, and do not want to depart from Russell's work.

2. Sorry! I had cited it according to the compilation's name and not by author. Just fixed it. The external link next to the reference was meant to substitute for a page citation. Is that acceptable?

3. I had mistaken "pp" to mean "printed page" -- alas. I'll do a double check on that. Thanks. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Here are examples from the top that indicate that the whole text needs a good copy-edit, preferably by someone who's not in the field.
  • "Russell's ambition is to help forward a new method of conceiving the social sciences." "Help forward" is ambiguous.
  • "how and when one form of power changes into another form of power"—Remove the last three words.
  • "is capable of being so unsatisfied with their lot"—No, "dissatisfied" if you're talking of degrees. Why is plural "they" used in this sentence?
  • "Doesn't"? See MoS.
  • "that they should go out and try to accumulate more goods than meet their needs." "Go out"? Where, to the local corner shop? Remove as too informal, and unnecessary anyway. Insert "are necessary" after "than". Tony 02:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I agree that #1 and #2 are awkward, and changed them as per your suggestion. Also, I will go through and remove the contractions As it happens, the only contraction in the article was the one you noted; so that's that.

I also removed "go out".

Regarding #3: as far as I can tell, there is no difference between "unsatisfied" and "dissatisfied". Looking at Merriam-Webster, the morpheme "dis" has no conventional connotation with degrees. All that M-W tells us is that 'dis-' carries the same (relevant) connotations as 'un-': namely, of opposition and negation. (Perhaps Oxford English is more precise?) I wouldn't object to the change if it were made, but I don't see any justification to do so, so won't do it myself.

The plural "they" is used in reference to "humans". Is that not clear? { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I was surprised to encounter "explained below" in the lead - please have a look at WP:LEAD. The lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article. The second wikilink I hit was a redirect, and the term social dynamics was not wikilinked in the lead; the article should be thoroughly checked for wikilinking. The page number references are mixed with cite.php notes, resulting in a mixed reference style, which could be confusing to the reader. All book references should have ISBNs. Critical reception should be expanded: most of the text given in that section is from Russell himself, so the reader is given little context of other critical reception. There are some fan-crufty statments that need references (example, "The lack of theoretical rigor may seem uncharacteristic of Russell, since he is routinely praised for his analytic treatment of philosophical issues."). The article reads like a promotion or summary of the book, mixed with OR or a personal essay (for example, "By 'economic democracy', Russell means a kind of democratic socialism:" - does he say that, or is that the writer's opinion?). Sandy (Talk) 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, thanks for your input.

• Offending sentence has been removed just now.
• Where there were suitable links to redirect, I have redirected (just now). Exceptions: "domination", which goes to a disambig page, where the relevant option is not given a wiki; Quietism.
• ISBNs are not available for all editions of all texts. Where necessary, I have placed ASIN#. Will replace the rest when I have time (off to work right now).
• It is not at all true that Russell was the only one mentioned in the critical portion. Yes, Brittan and Willis were in the Russell text, but their opinions are not Russell's opinions. Still, I agree that it could do with an expansion. This would be much easier if I had access to scholarly resources.
• I don't agree that the quoted statements are "fancruft", and think that a reading of the material would support the text. Can provide sample quotes, if you think that would make things clearer. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I have just now added the last ASIN/ISBNs, and written "p." before page numbers so that they are less confusing to the reader. I have also added a citation to the "democratic socialism" sentence, to show that his intent was quite clear.

Unfortunately, I am not at all sure where one might read OR into any of what's been written, so I can't either act or comment upon that. Impressions are one thing, examples are another. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just recently had another pair of eyes copyedit the page for grammar and style, and edited accordingly. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 20:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support (changing !vote from above, having struck out met objections). Nice job, Lucidish. Sam Clark 16:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks Sam! Also, I should have mentioned this more boldly, but I support the FAC. Though it should be noted that I am the author of the vast majority of the article. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object - I don't know how to say this any other way but the layout is downright ugly. The small images, the non-standard TOC, and the ===== sections are a bit unmanageably for my taste. The references to the titular work itself need to be cited to the proper page number, for every single sentence within the relevant section ("the work"). The critical reception section could use a broader scope. The intro needs to be a bit meatier as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

TOC unfloated, subsections merged, citations added after every mention of "the work".

It wouldn't be appropriate to make the intro much longer than it is. I agree that the critical reception section could use expansion, but I simply do not have the resources to do it. I've been trying to track down some relevant articles -- i.e., a paper written by Alvin Goldman on social power during the 70s, where 'Power: ANSA' is cited -- but this is just not possible when I don't have access. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried google scholar/google books? If you run into an article that you need but don't have access to, I may be able to get it for you. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I think Sam has me covered. And yeah, I found the article with Google Scholar.

Would like to get my hands on SR Clegg's "Frameworks of Power" to see just how substantive his treatment of P:ANSA are, and whether or not it would be fair to say that serious scientific interest in the work has grown over the past two decades. But that's probably not possible short of buying the book. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The article is clearly WP:OR in places and several of the notes violate WP:NPOV. Less seriously, the prose isn't brilliant (1a) and the lead could use work (2a). Mikker ^(...) 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be far more helpful if you were to say where, exactly, you believe that OR is present, because I've made a concerted effort to be merely descriptive. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I can see how some of the notes were borderline, and have trimmed out any possible NPOV. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar: The Last Airbender

Please consider this article as it just lost in the last nomination and I think it has improved enough to be a feature article. jeremybelpois 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support even though 1d From Overview->Premise "fantastic animals" (Fantastic? Looks POV to me). --SonicChao ^talk 18:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are few deficiencies. Though there is some POV, a lot of the seemingly opinion is realy the intended opinion set by the creators of the show. This means that through logical deduction the powers or abilities the animals contain (in your example) are made to amaze the show's audience.

• Comment"Fantastic" isn't POV. It this context, it refers to something being "Existing in or constructed from fantasy"--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Striked as per Fyre2387. --SonicChao ^talk 00:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The website references should use {{cite web}}, and more inline citations are needed, some sections don't have any. The images need fair use rationales. Jay32183 20:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Striked as per Parent5446. Problem addressed and completely resolved. (note, only the striked out part.)
• Comment The {{cite web}} template makes the article too messy as it puts a title, language, etc. about the source. However, I do agree that more citations are needed.

• At the very least the url, title, and accessdate fields would need values. The more complete the source information the better. Sources aren't there to make the article pretty, they're there to make it verifiable. Jay32183 20:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment OK, I filled in all I could do by using the {{cite web}} template on all non-inline citations. You an check it out. jeremybelpois 21:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I converted the first inline citation, can you handle the rest of those on your own? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jay32183 (talk • contribs).

• OK. I figured out how to do it now. I'll change them as fast as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs).
• Please don't strike other people comments, report that it's done and I'll strike it myself. Actually, you missed numbers 2 and 3 of the inline citations. Jay32183 20:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I support this article due to that I feel it is superior and it is well-written, unlike what it was four months ago. The only flaws are that there is not a list of the episodes on the page (since there is a seperate article for the epsiodes) and that there are only 19 inline citations. That is not much of a deficiency.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
• No Vote Due to my extensive editing of all Avatar: The Last Airbender related articles, I refrain from voting on the subject of Bias. I hope that my other editors do the same. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 03:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support The article itself is definitely good enough to be featured, but I'm not quite sure about the links. The character bios linked to this page are mostly biased and some do not have their fiction made clear.Stretchyrubberbands^{( Tell me how to overcome my stupidity)} 07:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per Stretchyrubberbands. --Twlighter 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as an editor of the aricle, I belive that this article has improved vastly from last time. (Actually I can't edit the article because McAffee stops the page from coming up completley, but thats another story) Cnriaczoy42 01:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Missing a lot of key information. No Production information, no critcal reaction, except for some rewards, no information on it sucess or how popular it is. The subsections in Influence are short, stubby and uneeded. They can easily be one or two sections. Media Information section just lists whats in another article instead of summarizing it in prose (with facts). There is also a citation needed tag. See also section shouldn't have links that are already in the article. All images need fair use rationale. Sokka image has incorrect copyright info. Medvedenko 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There does not have to be information on how poplar it is, it is just an article on what the show is about. In addition, there may not be a lot of rsources for some information such as influence and production information. If you can come and find enough resources to write one or two sections of influence, then tell me and you can prove me wrong. Otherwise, a lot of your objection may not be possible to complete. Besides, the purpoose of the article is to draw people in and inform them about the show, not tell them about idols from a religion that influenced the show. The only reason anyone would put that would be for people really researching Avatar: The Last Airbender or to just make the article longer (which is not the point as a literary piece, including an article, only ha to be as long as it takes to make a point, which the article has clearly done).

The article is NOT on what the show is about its about the show. No where in the body of the article (not the intro which only sumarizes what is in the article) does it say when the show aired, how it came about, who created it, where it was animated. All that information may not be available, but some of it is and it must be in there. Same goes for popularity and critical reaction. The article's focus should be on facts outside the show's story. If there is no reference on an Influence than it can't be in the article because that would original research. I said nothing about going into detail about the influences, I just wanted you to merge the subsections in influneces. Every Influence doesn't need its own section when they are only one or two sentences. Medvedenko 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The comment about "how popular" the show is refers not to what fanboys are saying but to the opinions of notable television critics and ratings inforamtion to show how large the audience is. I agree that that type of information should be included in all articles about television shows. Jay32183 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused, why doesn't this work again?

• Originally slated to start November of 2004, Avatar: The Last Airbender debuted on TV February 21, 2005 and is available on DVD or for download at the iTunes Store and the XBOX Marketplace. Produced at the Nickelodeon Animation Studios in Burbank, California, and animated in South Korea (where many animated television series are animated), it was co-created and executively produced by Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko.
• A consistently high ratings performer in the Nicktoons lineup, even outside of its intended six-to-eleven-year-old demographic, Avatar: The Last Airbender is popular with both audiences and critics. The series' success prompted Nickelodeon to order a second twenty-episode season, which began airing on March 17, 2006,^[2] and a third season has been announced to begin airing in 2007.^[3] Notable merchandise based on the series include five DVD sets of episodes, six-inch scale action figures, a video game, stuffed animals distrubited by Paramount Parks, and two Lego sets.^[4]

H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Medvedenko, are you by any chance suggesting that we try to make the production information end up like the one in the House article? [5] Or am I completely off the wall in saying that? Whydoit ^{(Strangle Me for My Mistakes)} 08:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes a section similar to House or other television articles is what I'm getting at. The Introduction shouldn't contain information that isn't found elsewhere in the article. Though I hope you'll be able to find more related information than whats already in the Introduction.Medvedenko 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the sokka problem and the catation needed tag. Will work on free-use images. Cnriaczoy42 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

added Fair Use Rational to all images. Cnriaczoy42 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent images of Chinese characters do not have Fair Use rationale, but they should not be used anyway since it should be easy to get a free to use symbols. Also the use of lines in the Characters section makes the section look very ugly.Medvedenko 21:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that those images are not fair use at all, since they are not directly taken from the show, but were made by a Wikipedian, and depict ordinary (albeit archaic) Chinese characters that just happen to be in the show, and were not specifically created for the show itself. But I don't know enough to say for sure. And I really like the lines in the Characters section. I think they divide it up much better than just space, but I guess that's just one opinion. --Herald Alberich 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The images clearly say they are a from a television show. They certainly look like they are from Avatar as well. Same art style. Medvedenko 00:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As Sage of Ice stated on the talk page, they are screenshots after all. My mistake. --Herald Alberich 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support After reading the above I think all we really need to do is re-arrange some of the popularity and influence notes (maybe even elaborating/adding on a few?), but I also think along with H2P that I might only be supporting because of my own personal bias. Other than that the article had com a long way since the last nomination. Whydoit ^{(Strangle Me for My Mistakes)} 08:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Alrighty then, it seems just a few more references are needed. Whydoit ^{(Why...do it?)} 05:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support: It is a good article, but with the tag about the lead on it, I can only give it my weak support. I believe that the lead is okay, but at the same time I respect the talk page. On the talk page they claim that it does have some shortcomings, and I agree it is not perfect, but this article is still worthy of FA status.-Hairchrm 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've never heard of the show before and so approached the article with a blank slate. I think that for someone in my position, the article gives a pretty good summary of the show. But I think more is needed to make the show a featured article:
  • "Media information" section simply is a link to the daughter page. It should be written to include several paragraphs or two in summary style.
    • Done, although it could use some cleaning up. Y BCZ 17:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's only two critical reactions listed, and it's a pseudonymous toonzone.net review and a SciFi.com piece, which is probably not sufficient. See The Wire (TV series) and Arrested Development for examples. I would like to know how general TV critics (i.e. those who don't work in a particular genre) have reviewed the show.
    • I will find more critics and list there sources within the next few days. Keep checking.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs).
  • "However, given that even Spirit-infused characters such as Princess Yue have been shown incapable of bending, there is also a likely genetic factor involved." How does this conclusion follow from that premise?
    • The article used to not have that sentance in it. I believe it flowed better without it and took it out.Cnriaczoy42 14:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Also, according to an interview with the artists involved in creating Avatar" not cited.
    • It is mentioned on the Book 1 DVD Box Set, 6th dvd. This is form the Appa Page. How do we cite a DVD refrence? Cnriaczoy42 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you can use {{cite visual}} for DVD references. Jay32183 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Done Cnriaczoy42 20:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Zuko's principal rival throughout Book One." What is Book One? What is Book Two?
    • Added sentance explaining this. Cnriaczoy42 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Avatar also draws on a mix of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian, Tibetan, Persian, Mongolian, and even Inuit philosophy, religion, language, clothing, martial arts and culture. " Where's the Inuit/Persian/Mongolian influence? The Chinese, Tibetan, etc. are all explained in the article but not the others. Where's the source for them?
  • "its intended 6-to-11-year-old demographic" Source?
  • "With consistently high ratings... Avatar is popular with both audiences and critics" I've mentioned the critics already, but what is the source for the ratings? Andrew Levine 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to add sources. Someone tack this on: [6]Y BCZ 17:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • <ref>{{cite web| url = |title = |accessdate= YYYY-MM-DD}}</ref> is how you source webcites. If you have to use it more than once use <ref name="insertnamehere"> in place of <ref> the first time and then <ref name="insertnamehere"/> every other time. Jay32183 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • see {{cite web}} and WP:CITE for further details. Jay32183 17:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Much thanks, problem taken care of. Y BCZ 17:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Lack of referencing in the first half of the article. Needs a better system of citing the episodes themselves if that is where all of this is coming from. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The parts that you are talking about I assume are the plot summary and charchter descriptions. If that is your problem, please look at Arrested Development (TV series) and other T.V. related featured articles. As you will see, their are no refrences for carchters or plot their either. Cnriaczoy42 13:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • {{cite episode}} is available if necessary, although I think the source in general is assumed in this case. Jay32183 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I referenced the Plot Synopsis section. The other sections in Overview I will get too later.jeremybelpois^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Finished the rest.jeremybelpois^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Some of my objects have been resolved, while others still stand. The lack of good critical response is the biggest problem. Also, what is a "cine-manga"? Andrew Levine 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  Man, this is Wikipedia, look it up :-P. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  I did, but the page gives several definitions. Andrew Levine 06:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikilinked, if it helps in the slightest bit. Whydoit ^{(Why...do it?)} 06:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    See above. Andrew Levine 06:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    Good point. There is no definite article for that link, one would have to look at both the anime and manga articles to derive some sort of idea of what a cine-manga is. I agree this could be very confusing to those researching the article and come upon this, however anyone who researches a little in-depth won't have such problems. I myself have no idea what the heck it is either, by the way. The subject at-hand itself needs it's own article... Whydoit ^{(Why...do it?)} 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

    I think it's the second one. Haven't seen it though, unless the comic in the Avatar Magazine is a preview. As Why stated, the understanding of what it is really isn't our fault, we're just using the word they give us. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiridates I of Armenia

Self-nomination. This is the article's first nomination and the article is very stable. It achieved a GA status in April. It is illustrated and has a good number of notes and references with page numbers etc. A peer review request didn't bring up anything other than automated suggestions (which have been taken care of). There are only two red links which can be removed as they are not that important anyway. Also, there is hardly any other information available that can be included in the article. I researched the topic quite thoroughly.--Eupator 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. First off, it looks very well-written and well-cited, so good job on that. Just a few issues: —Cuiviénen 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead seems a bit short, though somewhat understandably so given the brevity of the article. Maybe just a couple more sentences would be a good addition.
  • This sentence: Tiridates was one of the principle characters in George Frideric Handel's Radamisto and Reinhard Keiser's Octavia operas seems tacked on to the end. Are there any other mentions of him in culture? You could create a separate section for that.
  • A map of Armenia and its geographical relation to Rome and Parthia during his reign would add greatly to the article.

Thank you. I know the lead is short, that was one of the suggestions the automatic peer review brought up. I will try to extend it. Added a map. The borders of Armenia were essentially the same from the end of the 1st century BC until the early 4th century when Armenia was partitioned between Rome and Sassanid Persia. Regarding cultural references, those are the only two I know of. There is a statue of Tiridates at the palace of Versailles made by André. I'll try to find some more. Thanks again.--Eupator 21:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify the copyright status of Image:ArshakuniArmenia150.gif, which you uploaded? (Provide a source and a reason the copyright was released, in this case.) Thanks. —Cuiviénen 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the applicable license is Template:PD-AM-exempt since it's a work of the Foreign Ministry of Armenia [7] but the image was taken to Commons and that template doesn't exist there. Should I reupload it to Wikipedia with a different name?--Eupator 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be the best solution, I think. —Cuiviénen 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Eupator 04:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest to put the monarch infobox and the full transcription for his ordinal from Armenian. --Brand спойт 23:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be nice but he has two potential successors, there is no article on his predecessor and his dates of birth and death are unknown. I'll try and add it, see what it looks like with some missing info.--Eupator 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't understand the footnotes - they don't use a consistent style, some refs need to be expanded, and it's not clear if all are reliable sources:
  • Iranica needs to be expanded to include full info, including author and last access date. What is this site? Is it a reliable source?
  • Mithraism by Roger Beck needs full info including last access date and webhost, is this a reliable source?
  • The Jewish Roman World of Jesus by Dr. James D. Tabor needs expansion.
  • Champlin, Edward (2003). Nero. Belknap Press. ISBN 0674011929. Here the footnote style switches to a conventional last name, first name, while other entries don't follow that style.
  • There are a number of References listed that are never cited - were those sources used in the article? Sandy (Talk) 23:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello done, except the last two. Tacitus, Cassius, Pliny are not cited with templates because there just isn't any publisher, isbn etc. As for your last point, I assume you're talking about material taken from Vahan Kurkjian history of Armenia. That's at various places in the article. Under references it says:This article incorporates text from History of Armenia by Vahan M. Kurkjian, a publication in the public domain. With a link.--Eupator 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Needs a thorough copyedit. I mainly noticed comma issues. Everyking 11:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone help in eliminating run-ons and other grammatical problems. I'm afraid i'm not proficient in that department. Also, all red links have now been eliminated.--Eupator 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why the marked additive? "an event of far-reaching importance not only for Armenia, but for most of the lands in the Roman East". Better as "an event of far-reaching importance for Armenia and for most of the lands in the Roman East." Tony 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed.--Eupator 19:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Does this article fit FA guidelines in terms of length?--MarshallBagramyan 02:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. On a cursory glance, I found two direct quotes with no citations, and a punctuation error in the first paragraph of the body of the article (Vologases considered the throne of Armenia to have been: "once the property of his ancestors, now usurped by a foreign monarch in virtue of a crime,".[9]), suggesting a thorough runthrough is needed. Sandy (Talk)

Done.--Eupator 01:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sei Whale

(self-nom) This article has undergone an overhaul and peer review. It is currently a Good Article and I believe that after implementing the suggestions brought up in the peer review, the article meets the standards expected of Featured Articles.

For comparison, other featured articles about whales include Fin Whale (most recent, link to FAC discussion), Blue Whale (link to FAC discussion), Humpback Whale (link to FAC discussion), Right whale (link to FAC discussion), Sperm Whale (can't find FAC discussion), and Orca (can't find FAC discussion). Neil916 (Talk) 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, but with a few nits — A very good article that appears reasonably comprehensive, well-referenced, and an interesting read. I just had a few nits that I thought needed addressing:
  • In the early part of the introduction, the sentence that begins, "Other related whales...," is a bit diverting from the main topic. Since it is covered in the taxonomy section, I wonder if you would consider removing it (or moving it further down)?
  • The second rather than the first occurance of kilograms (and lb) is wiki-linked. Also I believe a period is appropriate following an abbreviated ft., lb., mi., mm., in. and hr.
  • mi/hr is not wiki-linked, &c.
  • The taxonomy section doesn't cover the meaning of the name "borealis".
  • Please use a &mdash; in: "...identified - the..."
  • The single paragraphs in the "North Atlantic", "North Pacific", "International protection" and "Current whaling" sections are quite long. I believe that splitting them up appropriately will make for an easier and more enjoyable read.

Finally, is there any information on this whale's vocalizations? Do they vocalize at all? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Response: Addressing your points in order:
    • I agree, and I have removed that sentence
    • Fixed the wikilink problem. As for the period after the abbreviations, I was under the impression that it should be there as well, but WP:MOSNUM#Units_of_measurement clearly shows dropping the period after all of its examples, even though it is not explicitly stated that the period should be dropped. Any suggestions?
      • According to the abbreviations page, SI does not require a period within or after a unit. So km and mm are correct. Heh, learn something new every day. I'm not sure about the old English units, however: I've always included a period. — RJH (talk)
    • Fixed the wikilink of mi/hr.
    • Added the meaning of the latin word borealis, meaning northern.
    • Added the &mdash; in the appropriate section.
    • Revised and reorganized the paragraphs to make them flow better.
    • Not much is known about the Sei Whale's vocalizations, but I added a section describing what little is known.
  • Thanks for the feedback. Neil916 (Talk) 18:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you, and good luck with your FAC. — RJH (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Mild Oppose for now. I think it still needs a lot of little detail work. However, as it now stands, with attention to a lot of details, and clearing up some prose it has what it takes to be a FA. The biggest thing I don't like about it is the redundancy of text, when you repeat something, make the sentence more detailed the second time, as with the lead sentences for sections taken from the lead paragraph. I added comments to the talk page and will post more soon. KP Botany 23:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: I've cleaned up the redundancies between the lead section of the article and the main body. I've been trying to balance requests to expand the lead section with the need to not repeat the entire article in the lead section. See if you like that better. I have addressed the other concerns over on the article's talk page. Feel free to review the article again and raise additional issues as you discover them. Neil916 (Talk) 16:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I don't think the lead section should be expanded at all, sorry for the confusion. I think that when you repeat a sentence from the lead section as an introductory point to another section in the article, the lead sentence from the lead section should be expanded a bit. The lead section for this article is superb, content wise--please don't change it!!! Sorry to mess you up on this. KP Botany 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No, it wasn't you who suggested expanding the lead section, it was one of the issues that had come up in the peer review, and the result was the version that you saw. I interpreted your comment to mean that you felt that the lead section had become too repetetive, where there was a sentence in the lead section that was just an exact replica of the sentence in the main body (which was the case, in fact, because in some cases I just cut-and-pasted it when I was expanding the lead). So what I've done in response to your concern is to verify that in every case where a fact is mentioned in the lead, the fact is mentioned in more detail in the actual body of the article. The only minor exception to this that I can see is the comment about the whale's swimming speed, because I don't know how much that statement can be elaborated upon, but I did move the article around and made that statement part of a larger paragraph on the whale's swimming habits in general, including diving, which wasn't mentioned in the lead. So when I mentioned the balancing act, I was basically referring to work that I'd done in the past expanding the lead, not plans to expand it further in response to your concern. Neil916 (Talk) 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - the article is comprehensive, good pictures (I like the whale diagram picture), well-written and it is easy to follow, well-referenced but only one reference to an external wiki page. As soon as the external wiki reference is replaced, I will change my vote into full support. — Indon (reply) — 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The unreliable citation to a wiki page has been removed. So I give my full support for this article. Great job! — Indon (reply) — 09:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very nice comprehensive work. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree the prose is very good and very comprehensive. Good job to all who have worked hard on it.--Seadog ^♪ 12:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The prose needs cleaning up, and the lead is poor (1a and 2a). Here are random examples that indicate that the whole text needs considerable work.
  • "The whale reaches lengths of 20 metres"—Plural "lengths" and "weights" are unidiomatic. In any case, the largest ever recorded specimen was this long, but much heavier. Conflicting information with the details below.
  • "an average of about 900 kilograms"—Remove "about" (see MoS).
  • "Its name comes from the Norwegian word for pollock, a fish that appears off the coast of Norway at the same time as the Sei Whale.[3]"—Why highlight this in the lead when the info is repeated just below? Big picture first, please. Tony 12:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Response: Addressing your points in order:
    • Fixed the wording and corrected information; I had copied the wrong stats when writing the lead, thanks for pointing that out.
    • Fixed that.
    • I disagree with this point. Per the Manual of Style (Lead Section), "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any". By that definition, the lead section is going to repeat information contained in the rest of the article. The lead section is organized from the standpoint that it should address questions that a reader would have if the intro is the only thing they read (or can read, It has been suggested that the CD version of WP only contain the lead sections of articles). It is my opinion that a typical reader would have questions about why the whale has a common name "Sei" and that the question is important enough to raise in the lead section. The fact that it is addressed in the following section shouldn't be a reason to not include it in the lead, and additional information is provided in that section. If your objection is due to the fact that the wording is similar, suggest an alternative for the wording.
  • Please let me know if there are additional issues that you spot. Neil916 (Talk) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Suggestion Can you add something about this species and the whale watching industry? Many of our cetacean articles could use some discussion of the economic significance of the species, apart from whaling. Kla'quot 07:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good and obvious catch, plus current science outside of Japan. KP Botany 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rejoinder—My point about allowing etymological niceties intrude into the second sentence of the lead is that it's just too detailed compared with the rest of the info in the lead, which should summarise the topic. It's a nice point to make, but do it just once, after you've provided the big picture in the lead. Like, tell us where the species lives/migrates instead. Lower down, you mention the migration without giving an idea as to whether it roams the whole of the North Atlantic or specific areas off Norway, Siberia, Greenland, etc. THAT is the summary stuff we need in the lead, not etymology that's repeated below.
  • Ok, now I understand your point, and I agree with it. I've rearranged the lead section to put most relevant information first. Neil916 (Talk) 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, more problems:

• • "The whale reaches a length of up to 20 metres (66 ft) long and reaches a weight of up to 45 tonnes (50 tons).[4]" Try: "The whales reach lengths of up to 20 metres (66 ft) and weigh up to 45 tonnes (50 tons).[4]" Ah, much better ....
  • "although it continues to be hunted to a limited extent"—awkward passive construction and inefficient wording: "although limited hunting still occurs ..."
  • "approximately one-fifth"—a plea for plain English: "about a fifth". It's what our wide range of native and non-native readers want. We're vying for their reading time, too. People are busy, and using short, simple language adds up to a satisfying reading experience.
  • "(up to 180 tonnes, 200 tons) and the Fin Whale (up to 70 tonnes, 70 tons)". Um ... get that calculator out.
  • Can you make the expression of ranges consistent? We have "4–5 metres (13–16 ft)", which I like, but more elaborate wording elsewhere—e.g., between 12.2 and 15.2 metres (40–50 ft)".
  • Love your en dashes, but use them consistently (32-60 looks so squidgy), and then "to" below.
  • It's turning into a wiktionary with the linking of common words such as "scar" and "skin". Please delink these throughout.
  • "Very little is known about their actual social structure." As opposed to their fanciful social structure?
  • "The Sei Whale is notable for its speed, being among the fastest of all cetaceans." Why not remove the bloat: "The Sei Whale is among the fastest of all cetaceans."?

I won't read on. Someone with strategic distance is required, to copy-edit it throughout. Tony 03:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have addressed these points, but I don't know what "32-60 looks so squidgy" means. KP Botany has been providing copyediting assistance on the talk page of the article, addressing his objections raised on this FAC page. Your participation in that discussion would be welcome. Neil916 (Talk) 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria (2)

This is the article's second nomination — the first one failed because of minor issues such as section arrangement (there used to be only two content sections, the first one having most of the current sections as subsections) and the lack of comprehensiveness of some parts of it. These issues have been addressed, as well as thpse from the even earlier peer review. The intro was also shortened and made more concise.

I find the article stable, thorough, well-written, informative, well-referenced and illustrated, and I really think it's FA quality now. It was mainly written by University of Michigan Byzantinist Ian Mladjov. Todor→Bozhinov 20:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are only two different books used as refs. Are there more, especially web-based? Rlevse 21:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are four inline (and they're all different) + one more as a general ref (not inline), which makes five. Not sure about web-based refs, I don't think they can provide anything new or that they can be more reliable. These books are the best scholarly authorities on the subject AFAIK, so any web sites would just reproduce this information. I understand web-based sourced could often be more useful than books because they're easily accessed, so I'm thinking of addng this book extract to further support some parts of the text. After all, even more refs are always of use :) Todor→Bozhinov 21:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment it's pretty good to begin with, but it slowly decays to the point that the family section ends with an irrelevant list that should be merged into the main prose. It would also be nice to get rid of the redlinks, especially all those in the infobox. Laïka 14:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm aware lists are often advised to be converted to prose, but I sort of like the one in the Family section because it displays the information very clearly. Even if we convert it to prose, it wouldn't be much more than the same listing of names and years, but without the clarity it currently has. It can't be integrated in the main text in any good way I can imagine, because sources about Bulgarian rulers are typically very scarce and generally (as well as in this case) we know little more of their children than their names; in this case, we don't have any dates of birth available, so we can't integrate them chronologically. If you really think it would be still better to convert to prose, then please provide some more arguments. Also, I certainly don't think the list is irrelevant.
• As for the red links, the only way to remove then would be simply to remove the brackets — articles about many of these personalities can't ever be more than substubs, because there's hardly anything we know about them. Todor→Bozhinov 16:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lede is too short, and I'm not sure whether it's comprehensive enough. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• What would be long enough? The first nom had a three-paragraph intro and it was deemed too long, so I shortened it and I think it's fine... Why do you think the article might not be comprehensive enough? Please be clearer when opposing — more specific criticism will help improve the article, but such oppose votes are of little use, I fear. Todor→Bozhinov 15:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object - needs more references and (preferably) more sources. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)

Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) exemplifies a featured article because it is informative, well written, balanced and easy to maneuver through. It contains all basic knowledge about Enter the Wu-Tang as well as many other significant facts taken from balanced and reliable sources. Almost every image found in this article has a rationale for fair use and all information follows suit. Noahdabomb3 23:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. Powelldinho 15:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Some issues:
• Lead is quite short
• Most of the "Conception" section seems like it belongs on the Wu-tang clan page.
• "it was described as cramped" makes no sense, the studio or the album?
• "That single was recorded under" which one, the last sentence talks about 2 singes.
• "which shows how sparing he was with beats." seems like personal analysis therefore original research.
• "Raekwon for who had rights to RZA's beat." makes no sense.
• "are rarely considered to be "gangsta" lyrics" by whom?
• Alot of wierd sounding prose: "Most samples are musical"
• "has made RZA a major influence on the sound of Kanye West and Just Blaze." cite?
• confusing prose: "and six music videos including the singles as well as..."
• "Although "C.R.E.A.M." was the most popular of all tracks" cite?
• "it is generally hailed as one of the best hip hop albums of all time." cite?
• "Critical Recognition" section mentions little of reviews at the time but much later reviews, and what happened to the sales figures?
• "is one of the most celebrated and influential albums in hip hop history." cite?
• Can't "Samples" be merged with "Track listing"?

Overall it needs a good copyedit because it doesn't really flow smoothly. I didn't really touch on the prose problems but I'm sure someone who is more familiar with writing can give much better advice then me. Good luck. - Tutmosis 00:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (Response)
• I read through and changed all the articles' problems that you cited. I feel that it is easier to read right now and that you should support my featured article nomination.
• By the way, the conception information should be added to the Wu-Tang Clan article, but is necessary to the Enter the Wu-Tang article also.

Noahdabomb3 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The infobox is too big and distracting. This is a Wu-tang clan album, so you add only its chronology. CG 08:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that the lead is too short and that the infobox needs to be shortened. It also needs a copyedit to ensure that it is well-written. Problems include not capitalizing proper nouns like "East Coast", capitalizing not-proper nouns like "gangsta rap", not italicizing album, movie, magazine titles, and not using normal capitalization in section headers. Also, I think overall the use of blockquotes is too pervasive, and some of them should be shortened and worked into the flow of the text. Tuf-Kat 14:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (Response)
• That's all fair Tuf-Kat and CG. I will try to copyedit the article and increase the size of the opening paragraph as soon as I can get to it. Noahdabomb3 15:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (Response)
• I changed and quickly copy-edited the article and am ready to hear the second round of support and critique. I do have one question though - is it OK that all small quotes in my article are italicized so that they stand out. Wikipedia's copy-editing article says nothing regarding to that.

• Support Hells yeah, mutha fucka. Greatest album ever made. --PDTantisocial 00:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great work! Chubdub 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Poorly written. Here are random examples of why the whole text needs serious copy-editing.
  • "It also contains hardcore, humorous and out of the ordinary lyrics provided by all nine original Wu-Tang Clan members and no guest vocalists." What is "hardcore" in this context? And out-of-the-ordinary lyrics? Vague. "Provided by ... no guest vocalists" is very odd wording, and at the very least assumes far too much background knowledge.
  • "Today it is heralded as one of the most influential rap albums of the 1990s." Remove "Today". "Heralded" is the wrong word ("regarded"?). The lead is slightly on the side of puffery.
  • "the late 1980's"—The NYT is the only publication that persists with this bizarre apostrophe. Please don't.
  • "They only pressed 500 copies of that single[6] as opposed to the "Protect Ya Neck"/"Method Man" single which sold over 10,000 copies." They only pressed, rather than pressing and steaming? Shift "only" to later in the sentence. In any case, pressing is set up against selling—fuzzy.
  • The use of commas is, to some extent, a matter of personal preference. But in this prose, most editors would agree that more are required for easy reading. (e.g., one before "as opposed to" in the previous point.
  • Inconsistent use of past and present tenses when referring to recordings.

It's a long way from meeting Criterion 1a, throughout. Tony 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Prose issues per Tony, some of the references need to be cleaned up and expanded (let us know what the website is and correct the bad links), and better referencing is needed. I found this uncited statement, for example: "Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) is one of the most celebrated and influential albums in hip hop history." Sandy (Talk) 04:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (Response)-
• I recently improved all of the references Sandy. That unreferenced statement that I made was already referenced earlier in the article when I made the same point. I assume I am still supposed to reference it and I will. Thanks for pointing that out.
• I also did a little copyediting and will continue to do more of that Tony. I improved all of the examples of "poor" writing that you pointed out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noahdabomb3 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Comment 2: These still have no citations:

The album being a debut may have had a negative effect on the Wu-Tang as none of their other group albums touched the surface of its critical success.

Others suggest that only a few Wu-Tang members are distinct and charismatic.

Although some accuse Wu-Tang Clan's debut album of poor subject matter and inconsistent production, it is generally hailed as one of the best hip hop albums of all time.

It is generally acclaimed as a great album because of its gritty production and comical rhyming.

It's acclaim is not limited to American publications; it is generally regarded as a classic album internationally.

Wu-Tang Clan's debut was able to shift the emphasis away from the melodious, synth-driven G-funk, while restoring interest into the East Coast hip hop scene.

RZA's production on Wu-Tang Clan's debut album set a benchmark for much hip hop production that came after it.

Why are the quotes in italics? What the point of that "studio was frequently cramped." sentence? Inconsistency in refering to the Wu-tang clan, instances of refering to them as "Wu" and "clan". "Most samples are musical and come from songs" sounds a bit obvious. Should be checked for redundancy wording. A couple of statements which "may" have happened (since you used "may" in them), they should be rephrased. Thanks. - Tutmosis 23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)