Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Triumph of the Will 2 Sheffield 3 Guqin 4 Gettysburg Address 5 Economy of the Iroquois 6 Malwa 7 Gas tungsten arc welding 8 Saffron 9 Short-beaked Echidna 10 Radhanite 10.1 what the hell? 11 Hurricane Dennis 12 Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia 12.1 Proposal 13 Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) 14 Apple Macintosh 15 Delrina 16 The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 17 Dinosaur 18 Prostate cancer 19 TGV 20 Prostitution in the People's Republic of China 21 De Lorean DMC-12 22 Fred Phelps 23 White's Tree Frog 24 History of the Australian Capital Territory 25 Dietrich v The Queen 26 Douglas Adams 27 Blues 28 The West Wing (television) 29 Xanadu House 30 Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. 31 Marilyn Manson (band) 32 Ido 33 Voting system 34 Game theory 35 The Waterboys 36 Butter

[edit] Triumph of the Will

Self-nomination: Triumph of the Will is one of those rare works that has extremely high name recognition, yet few people have seen it. This article was an attempt to do justice to the film and explain why it is regarded by many as the greatest propaganda film of all time, as well as address the obvious controversy over a film personally commissioned by Adolf Hitler. I took over editing this page in mid-October (My first Wiki edits too!) and believe I've had adequate time for feedback. I put up a peer review some time ago, though the response was unfortunately minimal. I hope you will see fit to support this nomination. If not I would very much appreciate detailed responses so I can keep improving this page. Palm_Dogg 04:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Pretty good article. (Ibaranoff24 04:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
• Weak Support. Lead needs expanding to two paragraphs, Trivia list should be converted into prose or merged into another part of the article. There is a mix of in-line HTML links and in-line footnote citations, the rest of the HTML ones need to be converted to use footnotes. The references section currently only has footnotes inside it, so it should be titled 'Notes' or 'Footnotes' and a separate 'References' section should be made listing books or other general references that were used. — Wackymacs 08:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• The lead is now two paragraphs but they aren't very long - the lead should summarize all the context of the article. There are only two References (aside from the footnotes) - this isn't enough for article of this length. Lots of words throughout the article are actually HTML links with masking words such as the Wall Street Journal link in the 'Reception', these should be de-linked and replaced as footnotes. Also, i think the 'Reception' section should be renamed 'Response'. The fair use images also require fair use rationales listing on the image pages why the uploader believes they are covered under a fair use license. — Wackymacs 20:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not too crazy about this article but its pretty good and my major concerns have been addressed so I have changed my vote to weak support. — Wackymacs 02:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. It would probably be worth tracking down some of Leni Riefenstahl's own latter-day comments on the film. I know she was interviewed about it in The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl. I believe she was asked outright about the issue of whether she was sugar-coating Nazism by leaving out the anti-Semitism. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Spport - pretty good, although it would be nice if you could address Jmabel's comment above. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• SupportTentatively Object I have one point. If it's fixed, this can be counted as support. I'll change my vote. The Lion King image should have an explanation of why it's like this film (it's not obvious to me at all)...ie, just like the Lord of the Rings image has. Other than that, fine article.Rlevse 18:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)This issue was fixed and QUICKLY! Rlevse
• Conditional Support Great article, but I wish there was more about the filming of the film. The major issues are the footnotes need to be put in the same order they appear in the main article. I think there are two or three too many images from films inspired by Triumph of the Will, you don't need this much. If an article was wikilinked within the article it shouldn't be in the See Also section. I'm also not thrilled about linking within the article to sites outside wikipedia, but thats not a major issue. Also does this article really need a spolier tag? Its a documentary, there is nothing to spoil. Otherwise good work. MechBrowman 18:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I've just numbered and reordered the footnotes and finished changing the footnotes to the ref_label/note_label template. - The Catfish 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't ref_label/note_label great? Kudos to whoever invented those templates. jengod 20:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I just saw this article on the self nominations page for Wikipedia:Good articles. I thought it was good enough to be listed there and was about to add it to the list when I saw the FAC link. Having seen several comments expressing weak support, or saying it's pretty good, I feel like I should remind those commenting that FAs are supposed to be the very best that Wikipedia has to offer, and not just competent, good articles such as this. I feel this article is good, but not among the best we have to offer, so I would far prefer to see it listed on WP:GA than on WP:FA. Worldtraveller 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sheffield

Self nom. This is a well referenced article. It has had most of its sections broken off and reduced in size in recent months. It now contains short and concise sections supported with more in depth articles. josh (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A very good article, well written and well referenced. I was going to nominate it myself at some point. - ulayiti (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Clear and concise. Zzzzz 18:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fits the FA criteria, and my objections have been addressed. Object. This happens to be where I come from and I want to support this article but there are several short sections/subsections that need to be expanded. 'Media and film' and 'Universities' sections are very disappointing - What about a picture of the university buildings? The 'Shopping' section should have a picture of The Moor or the TJ Hughes store or Meadowhall. The 'Transport' subsections 'Train and rail', 'Air' and 'Cycling' are all too short - any section should ideally be two or more paragraphs. 'Twin cities' section needs to be converted into prose and merged into the lead or another section. There are also lots of short sentences and orphan words (the article could do with a good copy-edit). The article doesn't seem to talk about the residential side of the city and different areas such as Crookes, Crosspool and Walkey. An 'Education' section would be good mentioning the major schools and education institutions (Norton College, Tapton school, King Edward VII school, etc). There are also lots of red links which makes the article look bad. — Wackymacs 20:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've dealt with most of your complaints. The rest are a bit more difficult. There is a Districts section (under geography). I have added a mention of Hillsborough (our most famous suburb) but we can't start listing suburbs as there is about 100 of them. Expanded the Universities section into a more general Education section. I've also improved the Twin cities (now international links) section but i'm not sure about merging it as there is no other relevent section and it doesn't suit the intro. The transport section is too big to be left as a single section. Although in general I sections need to be 2 paragraphs or more, I don't think it needs to apply to every section. josh (talk)

07:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Tells me what I want to know/find in an easy yet comprehensive way. Smerk 12:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Fails Criterion 2(a): poorly written. I've copy-edited the lead; please find someone to go over the rest in detail. Tony 13:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - well-written; good information. (Ibaranoff24 22:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC))
• Object; nice work, but there are a few problems that I can see. There are too many subsections in the transport section—if you want a subsection to be just one paragraph, try to make the paragraph fairly long, and don't string 6 short ones together. I don't think that there will be too much information there to merge all six under one heading. The "history" section should be expanded somewhat, and it needs at least one inline citation. The "estimated total of over 2 million trees" statistic and the following geographical data should have a citation. I'd move the information from the "location" section into the "lead" of the Geography section, and eliminate that subsection. Other sections, such as Sport, Music and Education would benefit from an inline citation or two. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - the 'transport' section has now been rewritten. I have also expanded and added citations to the history section. JeremyA 05:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work. I'd still like to see more consistency in the use of inline citations, because ideally, every fact in the article would be tied to a reference. I understand that this is difficult for an article that is built from so many different sources, but there's room for improvement here. I don't see too many outstanding prose problems, so I'm switching to weak support until sections like 'transport', 'education' and the last third of 'history' are properly cited. Sorry to be so picky. Also, I agree with JoaoRicardo regarding the incorporation of the "negative" side of the city—if there are any problems worth mentioning, it'd be good to include them. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 06:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Many weasel terms ("Sheffield is generally recognised as England's greenest city", "By the 14th century Sheffield was noted for the production of knives", "Sheffield has an international reputation for metallurgy and steel-making"), local bias (it mentions "the M1" without explaining what it is), too many short sections and subsections (do we really need a shopping section?). Generally speaking, the article paints Sheffield as the perfect place to live. I'm sure it has some problems, be it violence, pollution, unemployment, whatever. The "bad" things should be mentioned as well. JoaoRicardo^talk 01:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Some comments: "By the 14th century Sheffield was noted for the production of knives"--this is a reference to Chaucer (I have added the citation). "Sheffield has an international reputation for metallurgy and steel-making"--I don't know how this sentence could be changed. A 'reputation' is a fairly difficult thing to prove. However, I have added references to the OED and Encyclopaedia Britannica, both of which state that Sheffield is famous for cutlery and steel manufacture. 'M1' is linked to the article M1 motorway (England), which explains it pretty well. I agree with you on the 'Shopping' section and so I have merged it into 'Industry and economy' JeremyA 02:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy, I see you and others have made some good improvements on the article. It looks better now. My reference to the M1 was on the sentence "The city lies directly next to Rotherham, with the M1 motorway designating much of the border between them.". In the version I had seen, M1 was not wikilinked and it wasn't described as "the M1 motorway", but simply as "the M1". The weasel words I had mentioned have been removed, and there are now references to the pollution (with a quote from George Orwell, very good!) and other problems. The rearranging of the subsections was also nicely done. I still would like to see more reference to city problems, but considering the wealthy of related articles (like Economy of Sheffield) which can discuss these issues in more detail, I believe the article is very good as it stands now. I'm changing to a support vote. Keep up the good work! JoaoRicardo^talk 16:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Support. I do not agree with Tony1 about the writing. I like the article and think it's well done. Rlevse 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Response. You don't agree that the writing is not 'compelling, even brilliant', as required? OK, here's an example taken at random (it's the opening of the History section).

The explosive growth of the settlements in the area that became the City of Sheffield in the 19th century was a product of the industrial revolution. However, the area has been occupied since at least the last ice age,[9] and the settlements that grew to form Sheffield are Anglo-Saxon and Danish in origin.[10] At this time the Sheffield area was at the borders of the kingdoms of Mercia and Northumbria,...

• • It's unclear at the start whether the reference is to settlements or the area that became the City of Sheffield.
  • 'However' is a real problem: first, it doesn't contradict the previous sentence; second, is the second clause (after ref 9) also covered by 'however'? It's unclear.
  • Slight confusion between 'the City of Sheffield' and 'Sheffield'—I presume they're the same.
  • 'At this time'—at what time? It could be referring to several points in time.
  • 'at the borders of'—'at' is unidiomatic; and does it mean that Sheffield straddled the entire 'borders' of these two kingdoms?

See what I mean? It's a minefield, and not worthy of FA status unless intensively edited. Tony 12:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, appears to meet all criteria; the paragraph Tony takes issue with above has been changed. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's getting better, but hey, guys, don't stop—one of the first sentences my eyes strayed onto was:

Sheffield is also a major retail centre, although it compares unfavourably with other major cities, it is home to many High Street and department stores as well as designer boutiques.

And there are little gems such as:

£250 million pounds

And:

It has spent most of its history

would be much better as:

Most of its history has been spent

So some further fine tooth combing is now required if the text is to meet the requirement of 'compelling, even brilliant'. A good hour's work, picking up sloppy little things and ways of ironing out the language. Over to you. Tony 07:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guqin

• Support One of the best, most informative, and best-researched articles I've seen at Wikipedia. Badagnani 18:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support Important article concerning a little know and little understood important musical instrument of China. Comprehensive introduction to the instrument. Has had unofficial approval and backing from several well and less known qin players in the UK and the USA. --CharlieHuang 00:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, as follows:

• The lead section should be longer—two or three paragraphs is appropriate for an aritcle of this length.
• The section headings should be English-only (I assume that the Chinese in them is merely a translation?)
• The "Basic overview" section is very short; it should either be extended considerably or merged into the lead.
• Much of the article consists of lists. This is not particularly bad in itself; but the list items should be more appropriately wikified. I suspect that many of the schools and sources, for instance, would be good topics for articles of their own.
• Finally, some inline citations should be added.

Most of these are purely technical issues that should be fairly simple to resolve. —Kirill Lokshin 00:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Much of the lists, with exception to the Important Qinpu (separate article in prep) and the Ancient Sources in the article, are rather small lists that are aren't likely to be expanded (though if they are in the future, separate article will be crated on each individual basis). I find the short lists easier to navigate and read than mixed in together with other words. The Important Qinpu section I suppose could be removed (or moved to) since there is already an article on it. --CharlieHuang 11:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Much of the lists issue has been now addressed by creation of separate articles, leaving only two short lists, which I hope is acceptable. --CharlieHuang 12:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• The lists are fine now. Unfortunately, since you removed the lists, you now have several sections that consist only of a few sentences and a {{main}} link. These need to be either expanded or merged into the surrounding text. —Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, you solve a problem and another one crops up. I'll try and expand or merge them. --CharlieHuang 23:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reduced it further by merging most of the small ones together. I have to use lesser bold headings to seperate the sections to distingush their difference and to avoid a muddle. --CharlieHuang 00:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Great! Support from me, then. —Kirill Lokshin 02:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support (Ibaranoff24 03:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

• Object. Lead section should be much longer as Kirill mentioned above, and the lists need to be converted into prose. — Wackymacs 08:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• All that has been sorted. --CharlieHuang 17:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment For me and I suspect many other users, the Chinese characters appear as question marks. This may be an issue for a FA but I dont know how you could act on this short of turning the important text into graphics. --Anon

• Removing the Chinese characters will sort of diminish the article's sake of completeness since a lot of terms are Chinese ones. One will have to have them in so that for research purposes, one knows the corresponding character(s) and can look and refer to them. Besides, having it there even though some cannot see them is better than not having them there denying those of which they maybe of use to of them. Though maybe some are disposable. --CharlieHuang 23:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment All I see are boxes where the Chinese characters should be. I agree it could be a problem if this happens to the average user. Smerk 12:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did have problems viewing the characters when I used a rather historically-challenged computer at an office which forbids download and upgrading (making certain documents impossible to view). However, I believe that those who seek knowledge must be willing to put an effort into retriving it. People who have Windows XP can in fact view Chinese characters it if they install the necessary IME (Input method editor) programme (which is already in the software). Older users must download the IME software from the internet and then install it (a quick Google does the trick), and I did think that you can download the language viewing tools in the Windows Update site. And TBH, I have Windows ME and had to install it from download, yet most of the characters in the insert box at the bottom of the edit page sandbox appear as squares to me (but I can see them if I input them into the sandbox). And besides, if you're going to view an article that is essentially about something Chinese, you're gonna expect it to have a few, if not a lot Chinese characters in it. --CharlieHuang 15:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. --Fire Star 18:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support as long as a bilingual poster confirms that the Chinese characters are saying what they claim to say! We don't want to appear on the "and finally..." section of the news now do we? --HasBeen 09:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone confirm that my Chinese (and the Chinese written on my referenced sites) are really Chinese? --CharlieHuang 12:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Have just been to music library and can confirm that my suspicions were unfounded. Support, and please do submit for the front page. --HasBeen 09:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object; I'm not impressed with only using embedded external links as inline citations, especially since none of them are listed as references anyway. Inline citations should point to all the sources used, not just websites. For an article like this, footnotes would be great. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I've abandoned most of the external links, re-furbished and added to the references, footnoted the lot, etc. Hope that is acceptable. --CharlieHuang 20:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Outstanding article! --Naha|^(talk) 17:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support It looks great! - Cuivienen 23:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment That's pretty cool. Only odd thing is the Charlie Huang photo, well, the caption, really... If the subject is identified, shouldn't there be some clarification as to who it is and why? --Tsavage 03:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's actually me coz, (1) I am a qin player, (2) I am hardly gonna ask my peers for permission to post their photos pn this article without some formal process which may lead to, (3) some unecessary copyrighting issues that are avoided if the photo is of me, and (4) the picture is to illustrate the Playing context section of a typical strumming of the instrument. But I will put a more descriptive caption if it helps. --CharlieHuang 12:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. (And, FWIW, I enjoyed the article!) Here, I'm paying attention to detail, because it is...FAC. What I'm wondering about is (and of course, no disrepect to your qin talents!) whether it seems appropriate to name people in a photo if they are simply illustrating an act... If there's no existing guideline for this, it would seem to make sense that, if someone is named, the context should be clear, for example, whether it is a notable person in the field, or an "amateur" or "professional" or whatever... Otherwise, without explanation, it can be...confusing. --Tsavage 16:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see your point. Anyways, it has achieved featured article status now! Thanks to everyone who contributed and supported this article! --CharlieHuang 00:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That was a really fine edit to the caption! ;) I'm happy you're pleased with the FA. --Tsavage 00:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gettysburg Address

(self-nom) After completing two cycles of Peer Review and incorporating those improvements into the current version of the Gettysburg Address article, we the (recent major) editors and caretakers of this Wikipedia entry do hereby nominate this article for Featured Article status. Bart 19:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
As the other recent major editor, I second the nomination, and thank Bart for his hard work on the article! Kaisershatner 20:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Thorough and states references and stable. One thing that bugs me though are the bullets with fragments that appear at the bottom of several sections with external links. AndyZ 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (Bullets removed) Kaisershatner 15:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 00:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article. --Revolución (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object, but very fixable -- great article! Image:Gbaddressclip.jpg squishes up the text in an ugly way. Needs a copyedit (I did a little bit) -- look out for lots of passive voice and starting sentences with "there is" or "there are". The "The Gettysburg Address in popular culture" section should be in prose, not bullet points and ought to have some sort of organization beyond a list. Tuf-Kat 05:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I resized the image (there was no need for it to be that big). I'm not going to have time to copyedit in the next few days. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. I further edited the pop culture section inline with your suggestions.Kaisershatner 15:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, support Tuf-Kat 17:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Object until all external links are in the external links section—the "Lincoln urban legends debunked", "Link to readings of the Gettysburg Address" and "PowerPoint version of the Gettysburg Address" need to appear not in the body of the article, but in external links. Very nice otherwise.
  --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  It may help to change the section title from "External references" to "References" and create a separate "External links" section. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  I took care of this, hope that clears up your objection. Kaisershatner 19:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for the contribution. I moved the humorous PowerPoint link to External links, as you suggested. Bart 21:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  Looks better. Changing vote. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I am especially impressed by the extensive footnoting, which looks more like a professional paper than Wikipedia. <rueful grin> — DLJessup (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak object: external link formatting needs some work Masterdebater 17:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what part of the formatting you find objectionable? Kaisershatner 04:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: On December 27, 2005, on the authority of Wikipedia administrator and bureaucrat User:Raul654, this article became a Featured article.

[edit] Economy of the Iroquois

(Self-Nom) The article is thorough, completely referenced, well illustrated and well laid out. I think this meets all the criteria for a featured article. The peer review (before a name change) of this article offered several constructive criticism, and I think they have all been addressed. FYI, I have another image to add of a Mohawk steel worker, but I need to get my regular computer with photo-editing.--Bkwillwm 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Good article, though I'm not keen on the 'Web' subsection in the References section and I think there should be a picture beside the lead. — Wackymacs 10:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --Kefalonia 13:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — I want to support, but the fair use status of the casino image is rather sketchy (read the text on the image page carefully), and it doesn't make sense to me to repeat citations of the same page in a book. For example, inline citations 7, 8, and 9 are all the same—why not just have one at the end of that paragraph? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The casino image comes from here which is a link off of the casino's page labeled as "press room." The site is a promotional news website, and the image comes from the "photo bin" which some links direct to as a media resource. For instance, searching the media resources presents that photo here. The page also has the look of a classic media promotional site (i.e. it has many promotional type shots linked to high-res verisions). Albeit the site could be more explicit, but I think it's pretty clearly a promotional image. Was this you concern? Thanks for pointing out the repeated inline citation problem. I'll address that.--Bkwillwm 18:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material to illustrate the work or product in question... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." To me, that reads that the casino image can only be placed on an article on the casino itself, not on an article covering an indirectly related topic. I'm not sure about this, so I'll defer to others more knowledgable in the area. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use goes into a little more detail and makes me feel the image is acceptable. The article is not directly about the casino, but it is discussed and fair use images are not limited to one article (see fair use page). High-res images are usually not fair use for items such as books and CDs since they may aid piracy. I do not think that the low-res requirement is as important for the image in question. A lower-res version might be prefered though (this comp doesn't have a photo editor, so I can't do it). Most importantly, the photo's use here does not threaten the casino's welfare, if anything, it provides exposure, which is the purpose of publicity photographs. I'm not a fair use expert either. So I'll defer as well, but that's my rationale for including the image.--Bkwillwm 01:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support --Revolución (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks very good. The first couple sentence under "Division of labor" are a bit awkward though, and I'd also like a picture in the lead (the "Division of labor" section is a bit cluttered, maybe move one of those up?). Tuf-Kat 05:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good work. If you {{inote}} for inline citations, you won't require the unwieldy notes section. See India for instance. Anyway, thats just my preference. --Pamri • Talk 03:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Malwa

This article is about a historical and cultural region in India We have been working on this article for quite a while now. Tom Radulovich has had a key role to play in bringing the article to this standard, and I also appreciate the constructive comments of Nichalp. It contains all information on the topic we found on the internet on the subject and all books that we could grab. It is certainly more extensive than articles on the subject on other encyclopedias, and everything is properly referenced. All images are properly tagged. It is gone through a Peer review, and all suggestions (there weren't too many) have been incorporated. deeptrivia (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. deeptrivia (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose -- There are some problems with the image tags, I don't think some should be tagged as {{money}} as the governments are long gone. The map should also have a tag. For India-related articles, metric measures should be given first priority. Please use the non breaking space &nbsp; between a number and its unit. 50&nbsp;m; 45&nbsp;°C etc. Matter in the infobox should be duplicated in the ==Demographics== section (rename the title). Please let me know once this is done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't sure of the source of one image, so I removed it, replacing it with another one. I made all other changes, like conversion to metric units. deeptrivia (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Conditional Support -- I haven't read the full text to lend full support, so I'll keep it as conditional till I read it. [Note: it may be taken as a support vote in the final tally.] =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Well written article. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - some reservations regarding the length of the article though. The boilerplate approach is well thought-thru. (May I play as a critic of this on your user-talk page deeptrivia before commenting it here?) --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 09:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Although the article is 37 kb compared to the optimal size of 32 kb, a significant space is also occupied by References (including lengthy URLs not visible in normal mode), and tags for creating table, etc. I think the length is reasonable, although I'll be willing to shorten some text if it's possible without losing information. deeptrivia (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Weak Oppose. I feel like more should be said about the economy; that section seems very sparse. - Cuivienen 14:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Since this is a historical region, no longer considered distinct for administrative purposes, little data is available about its current economy. This is the reason the article focuses chiefly on history and culture. The section has everything that we could find on economy of the region. Having said this, I'll definitely try to find more stuff that can be included. deeptrivia (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've also expanded the section now, taking information from official district websites. deeptrivia (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand, I've changed my vote to Weak Support. - Cuivienen 15:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Rama's Arrow 17:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very good work. — Wackymacs 20:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It looks really well written, but nowhere in the article is it made clear why this region is worthy of being discussed as a unit of its own. It's a part of two different states, and the lead lists the districts of each that it contains, but the article nowhere gives a clear and concise reason why it is considered a region and by whom. The lead should definitely have that. Is it important historically as a region, is it primarily geographic because of the plateau mentioned or what? If it is just because of the plateau, is the area exactly contiguous with it, and if not, why? - Taxman ^Talk 21:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Good observation. I've put some material in the lead clarifying this. Malwa was a political entity as late as 1947, although the region is still sometimes talked about as a unit by politicians and political analysts, when they discuss their vote banks (e.g., [1]) Some census data, like this one are also issued based on this classification. In history, of course, it is always mentioned as distinct. The plateau which forms a large part of area of Malwa is named after the region, although the two do not exactly coincide. The people consider themselves as distinct because of their language and culture, and there has also been a demand for a separate state. ([2]). Hopefully this helps. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: The plateau and the region itself extends to some part in SE Rajasthan, while the present administrative border between the states is inherited from the border between the British Rajputana Agency and British Malwa Agency, which were fixed by political (as opposed to geographical or cultural) reasons. deeptrivia (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that explanation helps and that point is clear now, but now the lead feels poorly balanced. It really needs to be an overview of the whole article, but currently it only summarizes a few of the most important topics. It should cover them all in relation to their importance, and still be 3-4 cohesive paragraphs. Also the article now has some short paragraphs that should either be expanded into a full idea or merged with related material. Finally there are some html comment notes that show the need for a bit more research on points in the lead. - Taxman ^Talk 14:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've now added more relevant info from Culture, Economics, Demographics and Tourism sections. Hope that balances it a bit. Currently looking to merge short paragraphs. deeptrivia (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, looking really good. There's just the ecology material at the end of the geography section that needs to be turned into proper prose. I'll Support when that's done. - Taxman ^Talk 14:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it into prose. See if it looks fine. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Provisional support—the prose needs improvements here and there. Apart from that, it's excellent. Tony 03:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written. utcursch | talk 05:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Now these are the types of articles I like - comprehensive, a nice variety of visually-balanced pictures, etc. Just one thing that visually seems a bit off - the References section maybe shouldn't be in such small text, considering that it's not that long. Ronline ✉ 07:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've increased the font size of references to 100%. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Skimmed through it. Good pics and info. Covers everything in good detail. DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Could still need some improvements, but all in all it is a very good article. --Kefalonia 13:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - It was a record! Less than 500 edits! If you compare July 20th, 2004, through May 9th, 2005 with December 21st, 2005, you'd agree. Cheers -- Svest 01:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}
• Support. Most of the issues appear to have been addressed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• I've copy-edited the article; please address my numerous inline queries, particularly in the last few sections. In addition, there's a lot of italic; you might consider rationing it. Tony 04:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC) PS The paragraph on music: no instruments mentioned; you talk of the modes, but is the drone always used in these forms, as in traditional Indian music? Please make the traditional/pop distinction clearer; it's unclear whether some of the forms you mention have been influenced by Western pop. Tony 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tony! I've made many changes according to your suggestions. Some questions are answered inline. There are no special musical instruments typical of the region, so nothing is mentioned about it. In Lavani, drone is used. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Finally, an India-related article at FAC!! --Pamri • Talk 15:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: A nice creation indeed! --Bhadani 16:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well sourced. Very nice. Saravask 17:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support per the many reasons above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support though it would be a great addition to have the current political map of India with the Malwa region marked clearly - it could serve as the lead image. Great work by deeptrivia. --Gurubrahma 16:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gas tungsten arc welding

My third self-nominated welding FAC. I put it on peer review for several days with no comments, but I got feedback from two of Wikipedia's leading welding gurus, User:Triddle and User:TTLightningRod. I've tried to incorporate their suggestions while keeping the article well referenced with plenty of inline citations. And thanks to User:Duk for the great schematic. So, what do you think? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak Support I saw this article earlier, and it has really improved considerably. Brings alive the memories of a dreadful compulsary undergrad course :) Sorry for not commenting on the peer review page. I guess it can do with a few more pictures, just for the visual impact. Apart from that, it looks comprehensive (there's nothing I know which is not in the article, not that I know much.) Probably you can make a mention of industries where it is most likely to be used: aerospace/automotive, or whatever. Good article overall deeptrivia (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

My concerns are addressed! deeptrivia (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added a section on applications, under "Operation". As for the images, I've got an idea for another diagram, but I've done a fair amount of searching for free images, and haven't found much. I'll look around some more though. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a diagram describing the setup of equipment, and User:TTLightningRod provided an image of a GTAW torch. Do they meet your expectations, or did you have something else in mind? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• The article looks good, but... the horrible self-reference in the bottom template needs to go. There's no reason to mention the existence of a WikiProject directly in the article. —Kirill Lokshin 07:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the word "wikiproject". Was that the only issue? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes; as I said, it's a good article otherwise. Support from me, in that case. —Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - I think Spangineer's work on this article is extremely good. Triddle 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Ridiculously thorough and precise, high informational content, well written prose. Spangineer deserves major kudos! I did a small amount of copyediting, hope that's OK :) - JustinWick 00:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, this is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" :) The Catfish 05:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Great use of inline citations. More power to the welding! :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I'm supporting this most of all because it is a very comprehensive article for a quite obscure and specialised article. This makes the article even worthier of FA status. Congratulations! Ronline ✉ 07:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Good. Everyking 07:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support -- but I would like to see the svg version of Image:GTAW.png on the page rather than the png version. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• At the moment I don't have access to any image editing software capable of converting the image to svg. If someone else would like to do it, that'd be great; otherwise I'll do it in a couple weeks. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saffron

Self nomination. Peer review. I've heavily copyedited and researched this article in response to some very productive comments given by generous folks during the peer review. Saravask 02:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looks very well written and well researched. It is a bit long, but not prohibitively so. - Cuivienen 04:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and researched.---(Smerk)
• Comment: Based on a quick glance, this article looks great. I'll read it indepth later before I vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: 54KB is fine for an article completely on subject. If there is a prohibitive length then there should not be. I'm not sure there needs to be 47 footnotes referencing almost every fact - but I suppose they do no harm and this does seem to be the way things are going here now. This is a good informative and comprehensive page, well up to FA standard, and will doubtless soon be on the main page where it deserves to be. Giano | talk 10:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I gave some comments on WP:PR that have been addressed. The font size in the floating tables seems a little small, and it could do with some copyediting here and there (Swiss town of Basil? Are you sure?), but generally excellent. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Is there any reason why the chemicals mentioned in the article are not linked? Do those articles exist at all? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No reason — just forgetfulness. They exist. I just wikilinked to them. Saravask 16:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I also found the wording of the paragraph dealing with the etymology a bit confusing. Do "these terms" refer to the Spanish and Italian words only? Are you implying a connection between the Arabic word and the Latin word? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 17:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. In the Romance languages, the term for saffron is a loan word from the Arabic. For example, see this. This is also what other references state. I tried clarifying that paragraph as well. Saravask 22:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Support now. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support per above.
• Oppose The article needs to be re-formatted. History usually comes first, not in the middle of the article, among other issues. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to define and explain what saffron is before discussing its history, so placing the botany section before the history is IMO entirely appropriate. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Mgml here. - Taxman ^Talk 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mgm as well.--Curtis Clark 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree also. It would be odd for an article about a plant and its products to start with history of cultural usage. --Oldak Quill 08:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. History only need come first for articles where the history comes first chronologically; thus "etymology" is the first section in most articles where the word is of issue, "history" for human inventions and nations and so on, "life" before "legacy" in bios, etc. But for a plant or animal, "history" does not come first in most cases simply because the critter existed prehistorically! -Silence 21:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, because "wow." Great article. The lead image is a bit dim, however; please yell at me if I forget to do some Photoshop correction to it after I get home this evening. Postdlf 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Love the inline citations with footnotes. Agree with Pall that history should go first, but it is really a minor think, easily fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very nicely done. - Taxman ^Talk 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. One amazing article. —Hollow Wilerding 22:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support Excellent article deeptrivia (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support Everything looks great. Very visualy appealing too. Tobyk777 02:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, great work from Saravask. Disagree strongly with the complaits about the position of the history section, the plant was a plant before it had a history of human use, this set up is well established in other recent featured food articles like butter and black pepper.--nixie 08:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I fact-checked every one of the online footnoted references and came up with the following nitpicking comments: the first reference claims it is "by weight the world's most expensive spice" but the book was published in 1969. What are "transient snows"? The "volatile (aroma-yielding)" might upset a chemist reader, probably should pre-empt their edit with "150 volatile and aroma-yielding...". "powerful contributor to saffron's fragrance.[14]" is referenced to page 1 but the info is on page 3...same with the "saffron, dried hay like" quote. Its eupeptic properties are not mentioned in that footnote (37 Park). There is a footnote 48 in "Grading" that should be 47. I totally don't see where that Kashmir-Iran mix in the last footnote (35 Tarvand ) is coming from. --maclean25 09:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I made some fixes to clean up the errors you pointed out. Let me know if there are other issues. Saravask 15:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for your attention on the previous issues. Do you really want more? ok...the LD50 in the "Medicinal" section, is that for humans...or mice, or monkeys, or cute furry bunnies? --maclean25 05:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Abdullaev 2002 paper states that the LD50 figure was "indicate[d]" by "animal studies", so I put that in. Saravask 16:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, great article. —Kirill Lokshin 19:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Marvelous work! Congratulations! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great comprehensiveness and research. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Recent work has made a great article better.--Curtis Clark 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The proximate analysis chart is very squished in its formatting; it should be made slightly wider. - Blake's Star 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I widened it to 225px. Saravask 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Looks good, even though I haven't looked at it properly. Uncke Herb 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support Even though I haven't read it properly, 61 notes and 32 entries in the reference section is quite impressive.

Oops, I just noticed I didn't sign The Catfish 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Give a second look t the captions. You have the same one twice, and the ones about the chemical makeup seem to be cut off. Spend about 5, 10 minutes fixing this and I'll support. On the whole a great article. --HereToHelp (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I elaborated on the image titles. But the chemicals' captions look OK to me. Could it be a problem with your internet browser? Let me know. Saravask 16:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

HeretoHelp, A raw figure of footnotes does not necessarily mean that an article is more referenced. =Nichalp «Talk»=

• Comment {{Medlineplus}} seems to have been created specifically for this article. May I suggest removing it? It is a template for an arbitrary external website and the template implies it is a sister project, which it is not (a similar template for Uncyclopedia was deleted for these reasons).—jiy (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. I had copied the code from the Spanish Wikipedia, and didn't know there was a policy against it. Saravask 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Well-researched and comprehensive.—jiy (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support Tobyk777 01:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I see the nominator has put a lot of effort into this article. As a lover of botany and food-related articles, I am pleased to find such devotion. I had an impression that images were a bit disorganized, but now it appears to have been mostly fixed. --BorgQueen 15:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Short-beaked Echidna

Another unusual animal from Australia/New Guinea, written by me, reviewed and copyedited by many others. Sadly I haven't been able to find any substantial detail on the species in the cultures of Papua New Guinea or West Irian Jaya, otherwise the article is comprehensive.--nixie 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• SupportWell written.---(Smerk)
• Support. Another well-researched and written article. Given the problems of New Guinea, any lack of information concerning those species is certainly forgivable.--cj | talk 06:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've redirected spiny anteater to Short-beaked Echidna. It was originally redirected to a general Echidna article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 11:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Sources used for footnotes should be added to reference section as well.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems like a rather pointless duplication of information - I have a couple of FAs with the refs arranged this way.--nixie 23:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed it is not of the outmost importance, but style is style, and notes do not equal references.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The problem here is a lack of appropriate title, the notes in this article are not explanatory footnotes, they are, as in any scientific paper, references to original primary research. I have adjusted the format of the section a bit to refelct this, but as long as the information is there and in a consistent format then there is no issue.--nixie 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support -- Saravask 02:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support—I've copy-edited the article; please see the inline queries, inserted by me and previous editors. Tony 01:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the once over, I've addressed most of the inline queries (some of them were mine - and won't be resolved until I get a good book of Aboriginal myth).--nixie 07:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — This article appears nearly excellent to me. Upon closer reading, I only have two nitpicks:

1. " ... where it is the most widespread mammal species ... " (from the second para) — I don't know whether this refers to native or all species distribution. All here means fauna (exotic or native) in Australia. Doesn't Australia have major problems with rabbit infestation and introduced species (rats, etc.) outcompeting native fauna? My suspicion would be that one of those invading exotics would be the most widespread mammalian species, instead of any echnidna. In any event, I think this assertion should be elaborated upon and be linked to a source.
2. Repeated capitalization of short-beaked echidna (i.e., "Short-beaked Echidna"). This is not the practice followed in scientific literature (at least that dealing w/ chronobiology and fungal genetics). Thus, I would not expect to find Neurospora crassa referred to as "Bread Mold" (instead, "bread mold" — although I see "Neurospora" capitalized, which is correct) nor Magnaporthe grisea as "Rice Blast" (instead, I see "rice blast" or "Magnaporthe"). And after having read through hundreds of neurobiology- and neuroethology-related scientific papers, I don't recall coming across such capitalization of the common names given to bird, mammals, etc. But still, the science of this article appears solid to me (a non-expert). Overall, great work. My support vote still stands. Saravask 18:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Fixed your first query, on the second point, Wikipedia convention is to have caps for mammal and bird page names, I have used the same capitalisation consistently throughout the problem- so I don't think its an issue.--nixie 21:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know about the Wikipedia capitalization convention; I was rather sure you had a good reason for doing that. And thanks for addressing the first point. Saravask 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radhanite

I initiated this article, so I guess this is a self-nom though many others have made great contributions. I put this up for a peer review some time ago and tried to implement the suggestions as best I could. I think this is ready for featured status. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now:
  • The suggested sources for the name found in the "Etymology" section are not footnoted. It is easy to see that the etymology suggested by Gil should be footnoted to him (with page cite) but the others are not attributed to anyone.
  • I would think that a public domain portrait of Radhanites (or of just one individual) should not be hard to find and would greatly improve this article.
  • "The text of Ibn Khordadbeh's account" should be better integrated into the preceding section.
  • "This system was developed and put into force on unprecedented scale by medieval Jewish merchants such as the Radhanites; if so, they may be counted among the earliest modern bankers" The phrase "on an unprecedented scale" is somewhat vague here. How were letters of credit used before? On what "scale" were they used by Radhanite merchants?
  • "Some scholars believe that the Radhanites may have played a role in the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism. In addition, they may have helped establish Jewish communities at various points along their trade routes, and were probably involved in the early Jewish settlement of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, China and India." Both these sentences need to be cited.
  • First paragraph of "The end of the Radhanite age" needs historical citations.
  • More than just one contemporary account would be nice. It need not be as long as this one, but it would provide a more multi-dimensional portrait.
  • "For the Jews, it marked the end of the golden age of trade and the beginning of a long period of systematic persecution and victimization." This reads like a very overbroad and slanted statement.
  • The map has a lot of ugly artifacts from being saved as a JPG. A GIF or better, a PNG, would not look so unprofessional. Andrew Levine 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

To respond to a few of your points:

(1) This article is much more heavily footnoted than today's Featured Article (Canadian_House_of_Commons), which in point of fact has no footnotes at all. The truth of the matter is that virtually no encyclopedia contains in-article footnotes; references at the end of the article are considered sufficient. In Radhanites the facts cited are those that were raised as controversial. My position is that it would add little to the article to footnote virtually every fact as you suggest; the facts are derived from the extensive list of sources at the end.

(2) There is no portrait of a Radhanite. We simply do not have any. Ibn Khordadbeh's manuscripts were not illuminated.

I am in the process of making a few changes that may address some of your other concerns.

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Made a number of changes, including numerous new cites and a new map. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your (1) above: It is unacceptable for a feature article to say of something which is factually disputed, "Some say X, others say Y." These are weasel words. Every statement of opinion must be attributed to the person whose opinion is represented. Even if you don't footnote it to link it to a specific source, the claim must be attributed to the person making it.

Also, I just noticed that the article is unclear as to whether "Radhanite" was just the term ibn Khordadbeh et. al. used to refer to pan-Eurasian Jewish merchants in general, or if this referred to a specific, unified guild with an organized structure. If the latter, details should be added about the organization within the guild/group. If such information does not appear to have survived, the article should make that clear. Andrew Levine 05:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to your above comments, I have cited various of the assertions and made clarificatory statements regarding the term Radhanite. The reference to Rhages in the Encyclopedia of World Trade also says "others say", so, weasel words or no, the formulation has been accepted by a peer-reviewed, professionally produced and published encyclopedia.

It seems from reading the article and your explanations that there does not exist enough verifiable first-hand information about Radhanites (or the Radhanites, whichever they may be) to make a featured article. I think that you deserve praise for having almost single-handedly written what is close to the best possible Wikipedia article on this obscure subject, but it just seem that the gaps in the historical record are too large to rectify. Andrew Levine 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only reference with which you still have a problem is the Rhages statement. There are numerous excellent articles on items with far fewer first hand references. Respectfully, I do not think your reason for opposing is a valid one. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that this last objection should stop something from being a featured article. If what is known about a subject is significant, but limited, and the article accurately reflects the state of that knowledge, it should be eligible to be featured. This objection strikes me as comparable to saying we couldn't feature a biographical article on someone whose birth date is unknown. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Something like birthdate is a minor bit of information, a single data point. On the Radhanites, huge gaps exist in our knowledge of them: exactly what were they (general name for Jewish merchants, or organized guild?), how did they describe themselves (no such accounts exist), and who were some notable verified Radhanites (some speculation, but it's based only on broad conjecture; we don't even know one for certain). And I'm not talking about this just being missing from the article here, I'm talking about it being missing from the sum of all extant knowledge of the Radhanites, if what Briangotts has said is correct. That's a pretty big swath of unknown information there, much more than missing a single date. Andrew Levine 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Untifler 15:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Wiglaf 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written and informative article on a frequently-overlooked period. Length shouldn't be a criterion, especially on a subject where there isn't much material in existence. Isomorphic 02:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Factual incorrect in several areas. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, you must give specific reasons why you oppose. You raised several disputed matters of fact in the talk page of the article, all of which were either changed or cited to published works. This has the whif of sour grapes. Barring any specific allegations of factual errors (as opposed to cited facts that this user disputes) I ask that the bureaucrat reviewing this disregard this vote. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So any form of criticism is smashed with accusations of Bad Faith. What a nice Guy you are. Problems here include statements such as "the Radhanites were among the first to establish a unifed transcontinental trade network" - Which is false. There was unified intercontinental trade several Centuries there previous, including trade from Africa to Europe via Egypt and the Middle East, also on Ship from Ethiopia. "this (Credit) system was developed and put into force on unprecedented scale" - False. Precedents exist in China, and probably elsewhere should I bother to look. "Some scholars believe that the Radhanites may have played a role in the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism" While it may well be true, gives a false impression. There is no evidence to support such a conclusion, and their opinion is a minority one and should as such be stated. Gregory of Tours, iv. 12, 35; vi. 5 is used to source the statement "The economy of Europe was profoundly affected by the disappearance of the Radhanites. For example, documentary evidence indicates that many spices in regular use during the early Middle Ages completely disappeared from European tables in the 900s. Jews had previously, in large parts of Western Europe, enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the spice trade" - But the source says no such thing! IV(12) is about a priest who was buiried alive, but escaped, at the behest of a King who wanted his property. There is a brief mention of him being a "Great Friend of the Jews" and that he bought their "wares" (Which could have been spices, but that would be speculation) As for IV(35), all we learn from this is that there was a drunkard once. VI(5) tells us of Priscus, a Jew, and how King Chilperic attempted to convert him to Christianity, but failed. None of these in any way support the claim being made. Not that I'm doubting the accuracy of the statement, but it needs proper Cited sources. Bottom line here, for me anyway, is the Ethno-centric outlook this has. The Radhanites trade with China was not unique, Al-Mas'udi talks of the Chinese destroying merchant Muslim, Christian, Jewish and even Zorostrian ships in 878 in Caton (Guangzhou). Their Monetary system was neither as complex nor as developed as the Chinese. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations of ethnocentricity ring hollow given your own edit history. Nevertheless: the credit system established by Jewish merchants was unprecedented in scale because it transcended all national boundaries. A Jew from France could cash his letter of credit as far away as Kaifeng, and vice versa. Jewish communities were extant in almost every major city in the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Silk Road, not to mention the Black Sea and the Pontic steppe. Chinese merchants had an ingenious and sophisticated monetary and credit system but it was largely confined to mainland China during the period we are discussing. There was no Chinese community in Paris, for instance, where a Chinese merchant could expect hospitality and credit. While there were Nestorian Christian colonies in China, there is no evidence that they had substantial contact with Western Christians, and it is indisputable that Muslim traders were barred from trade access in most of Christian Europe during this period. Jewish merchants are the only ones in the relevant period who had access to virtually every major marketplace from Tangier to the Great Wall and from Malabar to Siberia. Others, sophisticated and well-travelled as they may have been, operated far more limited networks.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I am Irish, white and from an Anglo-French background. I have never made any attempt at making Articles regarding Irish White merchants of an Anglo-French Background a featured article, nor any article concerning Irish White people from an Anglo-French Background.. Nor any article at all as it happens but nice to see you start your defence of this article by making a personal attack and an accusation of bad faith. Your reasoning for inclusion of the term "unprecendented" is interesting, and should be explictly stated. Chinese Credit systems were in use outside of the Chinese controlled areas, but not, as far as I am aware, outside of Eastern to Central Asia, So include that it was "unprecedented" because it was fully international, that is a note made in China was tender in France, unlike the Chinese system. There is, at least, as much evidence that Christian Ships traded in China. That is because they are included in the same volume of the Khordadbehs work. Why would the Christians be using Ships to trade less they were travelling to trade abroad, which is my point. As for the limited trading of the Muslims, I would have to disagree. The Radhanites barely touched the Western Parts of North Africa, or the Horn of Africa, two areas were Muslims and Arabs were known to trade with, even pre-dating the Advent of Islam. Seeing exclusion of Middle ages Christian Europe as being "far more limited" is an example of that ethnocentricity I was speaking of. The Radhanites were good traders, but they were not in any way magicly unique. They weren't the only traders in to trade in what they traded in, and thier importance and great acheievements really centres on them trading from the Muslim trading posts to the Christian ones. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to your first two sentences, very cute. With regard to the third, you are outrageously out of line, as my reply to your vote made no personal attack on you, stating only that it was inspecific in contradiction to FAC policy. When you brought up your problems with the article I addressed them, and in fact made changes in the article in compromise, to which you responded by drumming up a slew of more objections (most of which had been dealt with by citing etc. long ago). With regard to the remainder of your long statement, I have no response, as you have said nothing new. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You say the problems highlighted have been dealt with, but they have not! You are still using Gregory Of Tours' History of the Franks iv. 12, 35; vi. 5 to source the statement "The economy of Europe was profoundly affected by the disappearance of the Radhanites. For example, documentary evidence indicates that many spices in regular use during the early Middle Ages completely disappeared from European tables in the 900s. Jews had previously, in large parts of Western Europe, enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the spice trade", but those verses do not support the claim in any way!! Also, the statement "Historically, Jewish communities used letters of credit to transport large quantities of money without the risk of theft from at least classical times" is backed up with Antiquities 18.6.3, but Antiquities 18.6.3 does not back this up. I don't have access to most other sources used, but the classic ones used, to which we can all read online, have been used incorrectly which does not bode well for the non-classic sources used. Also, the statement "Jewish merchants enjoyed significant privileges" is rather ambiguous. What privileges? Were they privileges for all traders, or just jews? explain. My opposition is valid, and I apologise if you opinion was taken incorrectly, but it seemed rather aggressive. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Another factual innaccuracy. Whatever source told you that Ibn Khordadbeh wrote al-Kitab al Masalik w’al Mamalik was wrong. I believed it too mind, but I believe Wikipedia! Abu Abdullah al-Bakri actually wrote it. now, why is it that when I do a google search for the last part of the quoted statement "arrive at Balkh, betake themselves from there across the Oxus, and continue their journey toward Yourt, Toghozgbor, and from there to China" I get three pages of Google mirrors from this very same article? I need to know whose translation of Al-Bakris Kitâb al-Masâlik wa'l-Mamâlik you are using. Ibn Khordadbeh does kinda sound like Ibn Cordoba, But I'm not in the habit of putting up original Research. Check out Abraham ben Jacob for more info. The Article on Ibn Khordadbeh I see was almost entirely done by you, and remains entirely unsourced. Please Cite your Sources, this is fairly critical.--Irishpunktom\^talk 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, though Wikipedia quotes the English name of the book as the "Book of Highways and of Kingdoms" and you have it as the "Book of Roads and Kingdoms" the general accepted translation appears to be "Book of Routes and Realms" which really, IMO, just seems like a more obtuse way of saying Roads and Kingdoms, but there you go. Here we have the BBC using that name, Boston University too, Here it is on sale and Here it is listed in the Library of Congress. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. Ibn Khordadbeh was indeed the author of a book called Kitâb al-Masâlik wa'l-Mamâlik. I vaguely recall hearing of other works by the same title, and perhaps one of them was the al-Bakri travelogue you mention. But dozens of scholarly works mention and cite ibn Khordadbeh's book. As for the translation, I believe I copied it verbatim from Rabinowitz. I will check and cite as appropriate. For now, I am removing the disputed tag at Ibn Khordadbeh. If you wish to write an article about al-Bakri's book by the same title, I am happy to move the article on the book to an appropriate title (i.e. Title+(ibn Khordadbeh). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Also, I believe that "Mamalik" translates exactly to kingdoms and derives from the semitic root MLK or king (cf. Heb. "Mamlekhet"). What the BBC and LOC choose to translate it as is their own affair, but "Kingdom" and "Realm" are not necessarily interchangeable. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute that you copied directly from some guys book. Right now, what I would like is to know whose translation you used? ibn Khordadbeh the persian, the famous one, was a translater who may well have translated the Arabic acount into the Persian which could be the cause of this. However, Al-Bakri's Kitâb al-Masâlik wa'l-Mamâlik deals with jewish traders going to China. Now are you saying that there are two books with the same name which in part deal with Radhanites but are completely different? This is too co-incidental, and for that reason I'd like to know whose translation you are using so i cna check it myself. Did Rabinowitz do the translation himself? --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did you learn that al-Bakri wrote a book by this title that deals with jewish traders called Radhanites? Might your source not be confusing him with ibn K? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The day you produce a fraction of the scholarship that Rabinowitz did over his career, you can refer to him contemptuously as "some guy". Until then [self-censorship to avoid violating WP:CIV.] Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

To avoid further controversy, I have rewritten the translation of Ibn Khordadbeh's quote, citing to Adler rather than Rabinowitz. I have also given a multiplicity of sources that state outright that Ibn Khordadbeh was the author of the Kitab in question (identifying and describing the Radhanites), not al-Bakri (who may, as I said, have written a book by similar or identical name). Hopefully we can put this issue to rest. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice guy. Maybe, as well as being a translator ibn K also wrote his own work with the same name and content as Al Bakri.. maybe, I still want to know whose tranlsation you are using. As for jewish traders called Radhanites, I don't know why their need be a name applied, as I understand it it just talks of the group of Jewish traders travelling east from frankland. Now, Ibn Khurradadhbih did also write, a book of the same name, but he was never based in Persia, living almost his entire life in Baghdad. A quick check on wikipedia shows that he is only mentioned once, Arabic literature <-there. The problem with using this as a source though is that it flies against your argument and maintains the greatness of the Arab traders, while also claiming that they inherited their understanding of the sea Networks from the nice Indian traders who travelled west, something not mentioned at all in the article. Perhaps this is another eaxmple of the ethnocentricity I mentioned earlier, or perhaps is another example of me trying "to downplay Jewish contributions to history while simultaneously shrugging off or sweeping under the rug Muslim atrocities against Jews". Maybe, just maybe, you feel better attacking me rather than accepting criticism and using it to improve the article. Who knows. --Irishpunktom\^talk 01:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that mus be it.

Of course, I have no idea where you're getting any of your info on Ibn Khordadbeh, who was Director of Posts in Djibal and whose father had been governor of Tabaristan. Maybe he lived in Baghdad but it is simply not true that he never was based in Persia. So those assertions are inaccurate, as is your assertion that ibn Khordadbeh did not write the Kitab. I will assume good faith error on your part.

The balance of your statements, again, are nothing new and not worth response. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. This is interesting and well written. Two minor things: I'd like to see more images if anything appropriate can be found, but that's probably unlikely. Also, I like to see embedded links to online sources in the text, showing who said what, but that's just my personal preference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Claims of factual inaccuracy appear to be entirely spurious. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Onter than being wanting for pictures (which, I gather, are unattainable), I think this is a very well-written and well-referenced article. I, like Andrew above, was not sure about the final sentence, but am sure I have seen such tone used in similar reference works; I also do think it is clearly marked by the subsequent events in history. jnothman ^talk 06:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Has all a featured article needs. Perhaps the Arabic could also be represented in Arabic script. JFW | T@lk 15:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object Well-written, interesting, informative, and I'd assume comprehensive, as I came away satisfied with my new "encylopedia-level" understanding of a topic previously unknown to me. However, in the (IMO) extremely tricky area of how sources and citations are used in Wikipedia, I do have two specific points, under the FAC criterion calling for factual accuracy/verifiability, plus one other, more an issue of writing style:

• Not clear on the source of the extensive Ibn Khordadbeh quoted material Presumably, this wasn't written in English, yet I can't find where the translation was obtained. Considering the length of the section and the amount of information it delivers, citing the source, beyond simply being suggested in the WP:CITE guideline, simply makes common sense in this case.
• What not to cite?I should note that I'm trying to make up my mind about the use of inline citations in Wikipedia (as opposed to, say, a bibliography). For one thing, in some articles, the copious use of citations renders text practically unreadable. And then, again thinking of the reader, the sources, when put forward so prominently, should be reasonably available: Are the majority of readers, faced with a bunch of footnotes, able to easily access this source material? And so forth. That said, it was made clear here that the subject is not well-documented, so I found the inline citations useful, insofar as that statement implied some greater than usual potential for controversiality. But, once having established this "level of citation", a statement like: "In addition, they may have helped establish Jewish communities at various points along their trade routes, and were probably involved in the early Jewish settlement of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, China and India." also seems in need of citation. There are other similar instances; wherever a specific statement is made, like, "led to widespread chaos in Inner Eurasia, the Caucasus and China.", I'm expecting a citation. Good or bad, useful or overkill, for starters, it should be consistent.
• "The economy of Europe was profoundly affected by the disappearance of the Radhanites." Perhaps my unrefined interpretation of the word "profoundly" (my emphasis in the quote), but, especially as the topic of the closing paragraph, the statement seemed dramatic and not well supported by the spice example as presented. The usage of "profoundly" may be fine for many, but it does suggest something huge that a reader may not see as supported as is. Perhaps an alternative wording to include the less subtle reader...

Tsavage: Spices were a substantial part of the Mediaeval market in Europe. The word “profoundly” seems quite appropriate to me.-- Olve 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Profoundly" is a much more charged and sweeping term, than, for example, "significant", "substantial", or even "far-reaching". "Spice" may've been a big deal, but the way it is presented as an example does not really support a "deep, far-reaching effect". A profound effect on an economy could be something that brings it near collapse; did the disappearance of Radhanites bring the European economy to the brink of collapse? It may be "only the choic of a word", but I made clear why it stood out to me: it sets the tone for what is effectively the closeout summary of the article. FAC is all about quality in the details, right? --Tsavage 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• It is not made clear what Radhanite refers to - This is an additional point, after a more critical re-reading. It is not made clear exactly who the Radhanites were. From my initial reading, I gathered that this was a name that, while not entirely well-documented, referred to "Jewish merchants" trading along certain routes, during a certain period. I believe that is the intention of the article. However, that Radhanite refers to these merchants is not sufficiently established, and what information there is is vague. Ibn Khordadbeh is cited as one of three primary instances of use of the name, yet in the extensive Ibn Khordadbeh description of merchant activity, "Radhanite" is not actually mentioned" and the source for Ibn Khordadbeh is not given, so basically, this is unsupported. Yitzhak Dorbelo and Sefer ha-Dinim are the other two primary sources mentioned, but the information in each case is vague and only a sentence long. The Etymology section is similarly unclear, apparently referring to the name itself, but not to the people or time period it referred to. Since the article frames itself in the uncertainty as to what "Radhanite" refers to--Whether the term, which is used by only a limited number of primary sources, refers to a specific guild or is a generic term for Jewish merchants in the trans-Eurasian trade network is unclear is the second sentence--it is necessary to know: On what source is it based that Radhanite refers to "Jewish merchants dominated trade between the Christian and Muslim worlds during the early Middle Ages (approx. 600-1000 CE)"?

Again, I dunno if the approach to sources and citations is being well-handled for a "general encyclopedia", but proper and consistent verifiability seems important, especially in a more obscure topic where sources are limited, and therefore objectivity and accuracy are more difficult to esptablish. and I almost didn't want to object here, but, what's the point of FAC if not a place for stuff like this to get thrashed out...? --Tsavage 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (Updated: I struck my comment because I realize it could be misinterpreted as my objection being minor. That is not the case. My objection is as stated, and not simply a comment.) --Tsavage 20:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

• Strong support. -- Olve 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support per nominator --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support A reasonable approach to a very dimly lit region of economic history, one which deserves far better illumination. The assertions and conclusions drawn by the author are somewhat general, but that is to be anticipated in an overall survey article - quite apart from which, sources for that era are sparse in any case. --Obsidian 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support. I still think the low number of firsthand attestations should be a barrier to FA status, but it seems most of the other shortcomings have been addressed. Andrew Levine 17:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, if according to your interpretation of FA criteria (here, your concerns would seem fall under comprehensiveness and/or verifiability), this article doesn't meet the FA standard, why are you voting "support"? (IMO, FAC should be quite uncompromising, else what's the point of anyone spending time here? Why work so hard on reading and re-reading, researching, discussing, and so forth, over days and even weeks, just to have less than GREAT articles make it?) --Tsavage 18:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Although the debate is long closed, I now believe that I was wrong to support this article. I was under the impression at the time that this process was more like a vote than it actually is, and so symbolically, I am changing my "Weak Support" vote back to Oppose. Andrew Levine 02:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what the hell?

User:Briangotts, exactly who are you referring to when you solicit votes for this with the statement "This FAC is being opposed by a POV pusher who has consistantly tried to downplay Jewish contributions to history (while simultaneously shrugging off or sweeping under the rug Muslim atrocities against Jews and otherssee, e.g., al-Andalus and Banu Qurayza). Please review the article when you are able and weigh in on the FAC page, or not, as you feel appropriate". Why must you persist in using personal attacks against people who disagree with your own POV? --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And how many people did you send this to? --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was, of course, referring to you. And I regard the statement as 100% accurate. Nor did I solicit votes. I alerted people who might be interested in the vote, and urged them, as you plainly see in the quote that you cited, to vote (or not) as they felt appropriate. Don't cloud the issue by hurling accusations of malfeasance for an activity that violates no policy. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Right so, do you actually think that I am on some anti-Judaism crusade on wikipedia? Further, I never said that you were violating policy, rather I asked to whom you sent your vitriolic hyperbole, and you chose, for whatever reason not to answer. I also asked to whom the statement referred, just to make it explicit. --Irishpunktom\^talk 01:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Spare me your hysterics about "vitriolic hyperbole" please. I discribed you as a "POV warrior" an opinion which I stand by 100%. This discussion has only solidified my opinion. If you think my discription of you as such violated some WP policy, you are welcome to go to the ArbCom and we'll see what they think. The information regarding who I sent the message to is as available to you as it is to me. My contributions are open to your review; indeed, a link is attached to my signature. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If Brian is sending this message out, I think he is out of line. Tom has raised legitimate questions concerning the factual accuracy of the article, some of which the nominator has yet to even acknowledge much less correct, and for Brian to go around implying that Tom has anti-Semitic motivations is uncalled for. I also think that Brian is being disingenuous when he says he wasn't soliciting votes with his talk-page requests. And for what it's worth, I too am Jewish and I too oppose this article's candidacy. Andrew Levine 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to continue to oppose, and I in no way begrudge you your opinion in the matter. Your comments were very useful in improving the article. With regard to Tom, I have addressed and corrected many of the issues Tom raises. Many of the "factual disputes" he has injected into this discussion are themselves, to be kind, factually innaccurate (such as his statement that ibn Khordadbeh was not the author of the Kitab that discusses the Radhanites). There is no way to "acknowldege" such false statements. The article is heavily cited to a number of sources. If Tom wishes to continue disputing well-sourced facts, he may do so; I feel that I have gone above and beyond the call of duty in addressing the issues raised in this discussion.

With regard to my contacting people to inform them of this vote, you are entitled and welcome to your opinion that I am "out of line", but please point out a Wikipedia policy that prohibits the nominator of an FAC from informing possibly interested persons (many of whom contributed to the article) about the vote. Most of the people I informed don't know me from Adam, don't owe me anything and could just as easily have voted against the article. Among those I contacted were people who made critical statements about the article during its peer review. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not that you have been contacting Wikipedians to ask them to comment on the vote that I object to; lots of nominatiors do that and I have no problem with the practice. It is that you have slandered Tom and accused him of pushing an agenda that do not, to me, appear to be his motives. I wish that you extend the same civility to Tom that you have accorded to me, and further that you address his comments about the information drawn from Gregory of Tours. Andrew Levine 17:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot dispute Tom's statements about Gregory of Tours because I don't have old Greg handy. However several days ago I replaced the citation with one to another group of sources saying the same thing.

Before you make judgments about whether I have "slandered" him, why don't you take a look at his extensive history of editwarring and discourteous conduct with other users. His contribs should speak for himself. If I have treated you with greater civility and respect than I have him, it is because you have done nothing that would deserve any less. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Dennis

Self-nom, in behalf of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. The article is comprehensive, stable (the end-of-the-year report for the hurricane just came out), and We just fact-checked the entire thing, so it is well-sourced (and formatted per the Footnote3 format). Compared with the other hurricane articles from this season, this one is not as notable as Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita or Hurricane Wilma, which still have a few edit wars going on; this article has none. So, I'll put the article under consideration for FA status. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 02:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment subheadings need to be removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 04:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Some more tweaks needed: 1. Use the non breaking space &nbsp; between a number and its unit eg: 150&nbsp;kmph. I've done one for you. 2. Please give the metric and UTC equivalents for all measures. 3. Remove text in parenthesis ie. make it flow with the text. 4. Please do not use left aligned images at the start of a new section 5. NHC?? 6. The text is mostly US oriented, could you expand the Cuba part in =Storm history=? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how much I can find about Cuba, but I'm working on the rest of them now. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 04:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • That gif image needs to be converted to a png =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm done with the first few suggestions, and I added a bit of information about the hurricane warnings in Cuba. I'll work on converting the GIF now. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 05:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 05:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very weak object. I am very impressed with how well written and organized this article is as a whole, especially considering there hasn't been a formal peer review. As a recent current event, though, I'm sure it drew the eyes of many editors, and the product shows. I only have a few thoughts, one of which have already been mentioned.

Non-U.S. Topics: There could be quite a bit more fleshing out in regards to Dennis's non-U.S. effects. I'm sure it's quite a bit more difficult to find, but FAs need to be comprehensive.

I fleshed out the section about Cuba. To be honest, there is never any information from Haiti about hurricanes - even the Hurricane Jeanne article has little beyond that 3,000 people were killed. I think this has been addressed. - Cuivienen 14:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A bit of vagueness: Some more work could be done to better explain things like "uncertainty over Dennis." Admittedly, there's a citation there, but things like this should be explained more plainly.

Fixed that one example. If there are any more (I see none), post them here. - Cuivienen 16:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Needs a copyedit: I haven't had the chance to read through every line, but there's a number of grammatical errors; this article needs someone to go through and copyedit with a fine-toothed comb. "it strengthened into Tropical Storm Dennis in the eastern Caribbean, and setting the record..." (verb) "Dennis weakened to Category 1 intensity from the effects of crossing the island as the mountainous terrain of Cuba disrupted the circulation." (long and winding, could be broken down) "however, initially insurers estimated" (I don't know what it is, but "however, insurers initially estimed" sounds better) and so on...

I've cleaned up some of the worst offenders. It looks much better now. - Cuivienen 16:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Best of luck on your FAC! -Rebelguys2 06:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I disagree with the comment above that this article has some poor wording; I've read through and everything is surprisingly understandable even for one who knows nothing about hurricanes like myself. --- Basileus Basileon Basileuon Basileuoton 06:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Very well-written article; looks like all concerns above have been addressed. - Lantare 17:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Well-researched and comprehensive. I would like to see more coverage on the effects in Haiti, but I myself just did a quick search and absolutely nothing came up. Having been something of a hurricane enthusiast myself I can testify that it was frustrating finding information regarding Hurricane Jeanne, and that was a catastrophic storm. Plus, the Haitian government has recently been in chaos. - Blake's Star 02:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I'd like to echo the sentiments from Rebelguys2 taht this article is impressively well-formatted and written for an article without a peer review. While I would normally say that a peer review should be necessary for a FAC, it doesn't seem like this article needs one. Great job! - House of Cards 02:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support, this sentence is unclear :Dennis caused at least 71 deaths in the U.S. and Caribbean and caused $1.8 billion in damages (2005 US dollars) to the United States, as well as an approximately equal amount of damage to Cuba and other Caribbean nations. Did Cuba and the Carribean have equal amount of damage, or was damage outside the US about a costly as damage within the US? The identical captions for the images in the imapct section are pretty uninformative.--nixie 03:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarified that sentence (equal in US and Caribbean, most of Caribbean damage in Cuba) and gave better captions to the two damage images. - Cuivienen 03:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, about time we got one of these hurricanes on FA :) --Golbez 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support; comprehensive, thorough, informative, tedious details are minimal, pictures are sufficient and unobstructive, word economy is decent (could be better though), references are numerous yet user friendly (not idiot proof but user friendly). All in all a solid article. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support; while it doesn't have all the features we later introduced with Katrina and other later storms (basically uses 2004 standards), it is a very stable and very good article. CrazyC83 17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Extra Strong Support for all of the reasons given by others. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak object. Will gladly support after this is resolved: the organisation of template and image elements is slightly awkward and makes some areas of text too wide and too narrow (the contrast is too jarring)...won't take much to fix. There are two images which almost lie opposed to each other and aligned horizontally - someone with discernment fix this so that awkwardly narrow sections won't occur. You can probably toss one more image (or graph, or statistic) in there, and that'll be extra good, but not required for my support. -- Natalinasmpf 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've tested numerous possible alignments of the templates and images and there is no better way to format them; any other formatting creates awkward breaks or excess white space. I really don't see the problem with the current formatting. It's fixed now. - Cuivienen 21:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object Overall, an interesting article. Seems comprehensive, and packs a lot of information into a relatively short text. My objection in this case is based on a couple of factual points; I will strike my objection once they are satisfied. (I also did a little bit of copyediting; the writing still needs tightening up here and there, but considering the topic -- how many ways can you say "hurricane"? -- and length, I didn't choose to list this as a specific objection.)

• During the height of the storm, Dennis left 680,000 customers without electricity in four southern states. These states should be listed, given the level of detail provided elsewhere.
• In the United States, 10 storm-related deaths were reported, including one in Walton County, Florida,[15] two in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,[16] and one in Decatur, Georgia.[17] This gives the impression of partial, haphazard research: why the locations of only four, right down to the city or county, of 10? Also, perhaps an unnecessary level of detail, as death locations in other countries are not equally pinpointed (maybe locate at state level only).

--Tsavage 23:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Very Strong Support This article is great, comprehensible and complete. Covers many datails, even it has been cited in a newspaper... Congratulations for doing an excelent article. juan andrés 05:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm... it has been promoted already, almost a month ago... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Oh! I didn't look at the dates. juan andrés 23:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Nice to see the moral support, at least ;-) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia

I have been working on this for a while, and I finally think it's ready for FAC. I just did up the footnotes (do let me know if any of them are malfunctioning; I'm not exactly a pro at this yet), and tried to add some pictures to spruce things up. There aren't many relevant pictures to this article that wouldn't be fair use, so there's only one fair use photo, of the famous dagger-brandishing incident. The pictures of politicians were the best things I could dig up that were semi-relevant (which wouldn't fully justify fair use) and free. Just in case it isn't blatantly clear, this is pretty much a self-nom. The only editors of this article so far have been me and Ganymead. (Not that I'm implying ownership or anything.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• There's not much to see, but this article has been through peer review. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Question: Do wikipedia guidelines encourage notes and references to be merged like this? I'm not sure it's such a hot idea, but if it's generally acceptable, I'd say the article is pretty well polished (though perhaps rather obscure). - JustinWick 02:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've changed the Notes and References to fit the usual format. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, well-written article despite its possibly controversial nature. - Mailer Diablo 08:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Maintains NPOV and presents a comprehensive case. My only quibble is that the full text of the article is now present before the discussion, which means that it's present before readers have developed their interest and curiosity over its wording. I would recommend that the full text be last, not as an appendix, but as a reference-like section. I.e. I will see an author used in a footnote, wonder about it, and flip down, but a discussion of a reference before I have an interest will delay me and possibly dissuade me. Other than that, it's a well written, well structured article and definitely Featured quality. Geogre 13:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - a very objective take on what is a very controversial issue in Malaysia -- Bob K | Talk 14:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: Good example of what a wikipedia FA should be comprehensive, informative and well referenced. Giano | talk 18:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support a very thorough and interesting article. I do have one question though. Could we replace the picture of Lim Keng Yaik near the end of the article with something better? The picture at the moment seems to show him eating his lunch. Lisiate 23:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not possible, unfortunately. The only good photo of him I could find is copyrighted by the Parliament of Malaysia (and is also bloody small) which means it can only be used under fair use, which would be very tenuous for an article not having him as the main topic. So unless a Malaysian uploads a better picture of him to LensaMalaysia.com (which licenses all its images under the CC-by licence), that picture will either have to stay or be removed without a replacement. Johnleemk | Talk 07:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object in the recent edits the note/ref order has been messed up and the numbering is off.--nixie 23:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Problem fixed. Apparently, someone forgot a line break. Pentawing 02:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - an article which would look interesting on the front page, combat systemic bias and show Britannica what they aren't capable of creating. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 03:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support- great article --Terence Ong ^|Talk 03:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Notwithstanding footnote numbering issues, well referenced. Saravask 03:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well referenced, interesting, won't allow anyone to complain when it's on the main page. Heck, guests to the site might even learn something! Harro5 08:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. There's an unexplained reference in Article 136 in the text of article 153. You don't, in general, need to explain definitions and similar cross-references, but this looks like it is substantial enough to explain. Should be easy to fix. I did tighten up the language a bit. Monicasdude 15:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. __earth 10:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. well-researched for a difficult topic. --Vsion 11:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object The article is interesting, but, unfortunately, not too tightly written, nor clearly focussed. The biggest problem is that the context of the article is not clearly set forth:

• Why is there so much controversy around Article 153 -- what is the racial situation exactly? It's about racial tension and preferential rights for indigenous people, I can figure that out, but a succinct overview is never provided.

There is also poor structuring, long, run-on sentences, and unclear sections. A few examples:

• repetition of "Malay and other indigenous peoples of Malaysia" in the lead and awkward introduction of the term Bumiputra (In fact, the whole lead paragraph needs rewriting for structure.)

This is much clearer now. Also, the info in the new lead to the Controversy section really cleared things up for me. I think summary of that stuff should be in the lead, even a sentence would I think make a big difference: "Bumiputra are biggest population segment with the tiniest economic participation" kinda thing.

• Long unfocussed sentences: For example Despite this, the Article is heatedly debated both privately and publicly among Malaysians, with the opposition, especially the Democratic Action Party, often against its implementation although ostensibly for maintaining the article. AND Some took the latter view, like Singaporean politician Lee Kuan Yew (later the first Prime Minister of Singapore) of the People's Action Party (PAP; its Malaysian branch would later become the DAP), who publicly questioned the need for Article 153 in Parliament, and called for a "Malaysian Malaysia".

In general, I still have a problem with the crispness of the writing; my first example above indicates the problem, not wrong but simply not easy to read. There are a number of examples of this.

• "Racial rioting" section unclear It begins: On 13 May 1969, a few days after the general election, race riots broke out leading to the deaths of nearly 200 people (though some estimates give a number five times that) and goes on to mention the NEP, but doesn't really make clear what was going on with the rioting and how it relates to Article 153.

This is also clear now.

Overall, this is rather muddy and needs focus. --Tsavage 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I added a mini-lead for the controversy section to give a brief overview of the situation. I can't see what's so wrong about the lead, but good catch of the repetition — I fixed that. I'm not sure what's wrong with the first example of an unfocused sentence, but I rewrote the other one. Regarding the racial riots, I thought I'd linked to the article about the incident to provide some context, but it turns out I didn't. Anyway, I've added a paragraph about the background of the riot as well. Johnleemk | Talk 10:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions! I find a great improvement; hopefully that is the case for all. I am letting my objection stand, now soled on the basis of quality of writing. I can add more examples, but overall, the chronological listing style, long sentences, and frequent quotes don't work for me on the "great, even brilliant" writing level. I find it hard to stay focussed as I read through. This is not a unanimiity thing, so an objection does not automatically put it out of the FA running. --Tsavage 00:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this is pretty much a unanimity thing: if Raul654 thinks you have an actionable objection, he will not promote. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Otherwise, it wouldn't be such a WikiStressful experience to get an article to pass FAC. - Mailer Diablo 20:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

My objection stands and I believe it is actionable. I don't think the writing is "compelling, even brilliant". I would be disappointed to see this promoted to FA. In my last comment, I was attempting to do two things: 1) to recognize the amount of work that's gone into it and be perhaps supportive; 2) to not have to go enter into further rounds of finding examples (as opposed to "all instances of"), having them corrected, and then looking for more if my overall objection still wasn't satisfied. This is a problem, obviously, with something as subjective as "compelling prose". The determination will vary by article, and by reviewer. Be that as it may, the bar is explicitly set very high for FAs, and if I can't easily read a piece through and emerge with a clear picture, for me, at least, it doesn't meet the standard. To a point, I can get examples to support such an opinion, but if a general rewrite is required, there is no practical way to come up with directly actionable items to the end of the process, short of citing virtually every sentence. Raul654 apparently evaluates the standing objections to see whether they are actionable. In instances like this, since no-one else has a similar complaint, it essentially becomes up to him to decide if he agrees with a single assessment. So, really, it is unanimity of "acceptable" votes, and what is acceptable is by no means black and white. (That's also why, with many articles where a group of partisan editors get together, formally or informally, to back it, it must be very difficult to see how many "objective" votes there are, and where to even begin to assess consensus. Not the case here, perhaps, but certainly with many FACs.) One thing seems clear: every "substandard" article that gets promoted creates more future work. On the other hand, trying to hold things to the existing really high standards, as tough as that may be, would pay off by providing some really great precedents, practical examples that would in turn possibly accelerate the process of producing high quality articles. --Tsavage 21:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I am on holiday with *very, very* limited internet access. I've added some contextual information to the lead as Tsavage suggested, but am unable (due to time constraints) to follow up on the "brilliant prose" complaint. In any case, I don't feel anything is particularly wrong with the writing, so an example or two in addition to the lengthy sentences problem might help — if this FAC doesn't work out, I can always work on the article next year. Johnleemk | Talk 01:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I'm posting this here to gain consensus: I think that the full text should be appended at the end of the article, right before the external links and references. This will create a sense of "building up" of interest in the article, culminating in the reader being so interested, he or she bothers to read the full text of the article. It's purely a readership issue, but I think it will improve the presentation flow as a FA. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 04:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• May I suggest moving it to Wikisource. - Mailer Diablo 05:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Oh, it's there already! =P - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Bah. I decided to be bold and just do it. Johnleemk | Talk 08:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Good boldness, then, as that was my only grousing, too. :-) Geogre 11:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... I'm cool with it, but does this mean that I should add the text of the Title II to the end of USA PATRIOT Act, Title II? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, this is a single article of a constitution. The USA PATRIOT Act is immense, and that would be the entire Act. As I understand it, it was rather intentionally written to be difficult to read and comprehend. I think this article discusses the nuances and importance of very specific turns of phrase in the Article, so the text is probably a necessary adjunct. I'm not sure the same is true of USA PATRIOT, as, apparently, both supporters and opponents of it are self-confessed non-readers of it. Geogre 15:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been a week - can we promote? -- Natalinasmpf 20:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

Semi-self nomination. Took Singapore Wikipedians a month to summarise and cleanup the article to its current form. Compare with before version Peer review suggests no significiant ideas/changes, so I think it should be ready by now. This is the first Singapore-related article going up for Featured Article Candidate. - Mailer Diablo 04:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, must admit it's a semi-self nom for me to vote too, but it's been a long way and I think it is up to standard. -- Natalinasmpf 04:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support:Good article. I haven't read the whole of it in detail, but overall, through the titles, pictures, and some portions I read, it looks comprehensive. Great visual impact, and I noticed that everything is properly referenced. Can't see any reasons why it shouldn't be featured. deeptrivia (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak support, haven't delved into it yet but looks good. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 04:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

*Object. Needs a good copy-edit. Overlinked (see WP's policy on trivial chronological links and common noun links, and the following pages Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous. Please use lower case for headings consistently. Tony 06:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• De-linked sections, date now consistent. Are you sure there is Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous? I cannot find it. For headings, only names that are not in lower case are official names given by the authorities, including the Standard Ticket. - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• AFAIK Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/archive28#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous is not official policy. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That's right—I wrote "see WP's policy on trivial chronological links and common noun links, and the following pages". The linking problem has been fixed: well done! I'll have a look at the prose later—it needs work. Tony 09:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support of course! Great job done. Article deserves what it really deserves. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. [Now strong object, see below for revised discussion]. I agree with the need for a thorough copyedit, with particular attention to lengthy sentences which really have next to no content, like this one: "Numerous measures have been taken by operators and authorities to ensure the safety of passengers travelling on the system." ("passengers travelling on the system" should just be "passengers"; and the sentence would be better in the form "X" and "Y" are among the measures taken by "Z" to promote passenger safety. Note that I write "promote" rather than "ensure"; there's a subtle POV/verifiability problem with asserting that such measures are wholly successful.) I don't understand the point of mentioning the original fares, without any reference to subsequent changes. Finally, the article misses one essential matter, which should be mentioned both in the introduction and the body: what share/percentage of commuters use the mass transit system, and is that share increasing or decreasing? Monicasdude 20:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is this, complete with citation: As of 2004, the daily ridership on the MRT and LRT networks hovers at about 1.3 million per day — a figure which pales in comparison to the 2.8 million daily ridership on the bus network.[2] The gap is narrowing as the rail network expands, and bus services are often withdrawn or amended to avoid duplication of services. As for the body, perhaps it could be emphasised more, in terms of usage across each section. I will think about it. The word "ensure" is used at the safety section of the MTR, by the way. -- Natalinasmpf 22:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless every commuter/passenger travels by rail or bus, that doesn't meet my objection. "Ensure" is the wrong word in the other article, too, for the same reason. Monicasdude 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, nearly every commuter travels by rail or bus (although they overlap)...there are taxis, although I am not sure whether that falls under this category. I have changed "ensure" to "in an effort to ensure", which means they are trying and want to ensure, but doesn't necessarily mean that it is ensured. Is that better? -- Natalinasmpf 02:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have my doubts that ever commuter in Singapore travels by rail or bus, but this may be a terminology problem. Are you really saying that private automobile traffic is negligible? The "Expressways of Singapore" article indicates that this isn't at all the case, and one of the related articles mentions that Singapore's public transit systems were expanded because of (anticipated?) traffic congestion.

As for "ensure," I think "promote" is the more accurate word, though your revision isn't far off. "Ensure" implies a goal of 100% safety, and if pressed I expect the people running the system would admit that you can't achieve perfect safety, and that there are very small risks that are tolerated, because the cost of eliminating them is excessive. (And there's nothing wrong with that, either; if I had, hypothetically, $1 billion to spend on public health and safety, spending the money to reduce an already very low accident rate in public transit wouldn't be my first choice. . . . Hmmm, the article talks about safety, but doesn't report the accident or injury rates. A conspicuous omission, unless it's one of those subjects that isn't talked about under local law. Monicasdude 02:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is nearly impossible to obtain accurate figures for private traffic (for the entire aspect of being private), but from one of the sources (I think it was mentioned in public transport in Singapore, I will go take a look), from a straw poll of Singaporean students, only 14% of students walk to their school. I thought you meant "commuter" by "users of public transport". For accident rates, I suspect the accidents mentioned are the only accidents that ever occurred, although electrical faults in the system (that causes trains to stall) are numerable but they affect convenience, not safety. I'm not sure exactly what is needed. People do commit suicide by throwing themselves into the tracks of Bishan MRT Station often, but I'm not sure this counts as an "accident" either. The fact that over half the population takes the bus is daunting in itself. I will go dig for more figures, if those exist. -- Natalinasmpf 02:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Private traffic is limited by the number of Certificate of Entitlement issued by Land Transport Authority monthly. And that's another story altogether, because some families do switch to private cars when the COE market goes low enough for them to afford it. Public transport is not used by the population just because it's more convenient, but also because they have little alternative as private transportation in Singapore is much more expensive. - Mailer Diablo 04:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Injury rates, yes I have the data. The LTA sets the standard of no more than 0.4 injuries per 1,000,000 customers. Between 1996-2000, this number has not even exceeded 0.18 for SMRT, and I believe it still has not for either companies. If this standard is breached, we'll probably have noticed because it will be on the frontpage papers (It happened to taxi operators), including a hefty fine. If you doubt my information, I can scan the brochure. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Dude, please see Ref 4. In Singapore, the authorities mean business when it comes to ensuring safety, and are more than willing to imprison you for endangering the lives of others if "promoting" doesn't work. There are really such cases before. See Laws of Singapore. - Mailer Diablo 06:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• To ensure something does not neccesarily reflect or imply successful implimentation subsequently. Compared to "promote", it can be interpreted as being more pro-active, which perhaps better reflects the way the authorities in Singapore enforces the rule of law and the way they do things to archieve their aims.--Huaiwei 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not according to most standard English dictionaries, or the Wiktionary. "Ensure" indicates an intent to make certain; e.g., the US wants to ensure that hijackers do not take over passenger aircraft and fly them into tall buildings. The article itself says that's not the intent of the Singapore authorities, who have rejected the idea of "installation of platform screen doors" in various locations, in part because of "concerns of high installation costs." The reference cited in the article on this point is pretty explicit, saying that the authority rejects the installation of "excessive safety features" that aren't seen as cost-effective. It also says that the official intent is to "enhance" safety, not "ensure" it. Monicasdude 16:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that to ensure indicates the intent to make certain. But again, does it indicate that the results will be certain? Show me which dictionary indicates as such. Saying the authorities are "half-hearted" about safety issues simply based on their judgement that platform screendoors are not installed seems to display too simple a level of assumption here. They do not have to spend millions of taxpayer's money just to "demonstrate" their commitment to safety, an effort which is likely to come under scrutinity and criticism by the general public. Other factors such as economics and politics has a part to play, so do we dismiss intention because external factors are restricting the extend to which they can realise their desired results?--Huaiwei 02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes they did not install the PSDs, but the authorities have decided to enforce a S$500 on-the-spot fine for anyone stepping beyond the yellow line. Tell me how is that a "promotion", and not an enforcement (to ensure safety). - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• When I asked at peer review, no feedback. When it comes to FAC, a big dispute comes up. This is what I get in return after spending 1 month and many trips to the library to rework on this article. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this is pretty normal for most articles. People seem to pay more attention to FACs.--Huaiwei 02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I take that back my words. I apologise. I was frustrated that my Internet connection blew in my face many times last night. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem that's frustrating you is that peer review is often not a very effective process, and attracts mostly editors who already have an interest in the subject -- who, for the most part, have already contributed to the article. FAC brings in editors with an outside perspective. I think the article is improving. I've done a copyedit to the safety and security sections, trying to make the language clearer and more direct. The article still needs a runthrough to remove the kind of sentence I mentioned in my initial comment, and insert whatever content is important into the remaining text; I don't know enough about the the subject to be sure I'm doing that accurately. And I've changed "ensure" to "enhance," since that's the term the system operators use, and its accuracy can't really be argued. Monicasdude 15:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Which then leads me to wonder if you are attempting to push in edits while lacking contextual knowledge in the topic under debate. Your recent attempts to revert my restorations of some of your edits proofs this point [3]. If you admit you lack some knowledge, then at least discuss it here when you notice someone else half-reverting what you edited. None of us are apparantly convinved that enhance should be given preference over ensure. The Platform screen doors prevent unauthorised access, and not limit them. Do you have sources to show anyone ever breaching this unlawfully? Finally, why remove an entire line, which is contextually important and further supported by referencing?--Huaiwei 15:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You really should review Wikipedia policies on civility, personal attacks, and ownership of articles. On two specific points: with regard to sourcing, if you want the article to claim that the platform doors are 100% successful, you need to support the point with sources. It's not the responsibility of someone who doubts an unsourced factual claim to prove it wrong. You need to provide a verifiable, factual source. With regard to "enhance" v. "ensure," I've inserted the term the relevant authority uses to describe its intent, in the reference cited in the article. There is a difference between the two terms: the text I propose is verified by the reference; the text you prefer is not. Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy that cannot be overridden by a consensus of editors on a particular article. Monicasdude 15:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks indeed, and that coming from someone who appear to be placing ego above the good of wikipedia and trying to force his personal viewpoint into this article even after failing to gather any concensus. There are little sources to show that platform doors prevent all cases of suicides and intrusions into unauthorised areas, simply because none has ever happened since 1987. Since you took it in your liberty to change the word, then do you have the sources to support your edit? As you say, no one owns this article, so why do you somehow think it is my onus to support a point, while you are not? I personally find your insistance in using [4] as the sole reasoning for "enhance" over "ensure" as lacking in reasonable depth. I suppose we cant use any other word in this article which does not appear in these sources as well? Just because the same reference claims that it is "committed" to the safety of commuters, we have to accept that whole-heartledly and without question, as thou propaganda and advertisement are acceptable as far as NPOV is concerned? You take one wikipolicy and overemphasize it to justify your aims at the neglect of others. Verifiability is very important. So is NPOV. The source you try to use to support your claims is weak at best, for while you take so much issue in its context here, you appear to be ready to neglect it in the sources you refer to. Do we still need to take your concerns seriously here, then?--Huaiwei 15:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop talking about me and resume discussing the article. Calm down. If you want to make a claim that a safety program is 100% successful, you need a verifiable source. I'm not claiming it is; I'm not claiming it isn't. The article text should reflect only what's verifiable; editing text to reflect that Wikipedia policy isn't NPOV-violating. Monicasdude 15:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• And you haven't even responded to my replies to your other reasons of objection yet (and even the one about 'ensuring' safety). So please. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• And you will do good doing exactly what you preach. I dont see how you could tell others to read wikipolicies and avoiding personal attacks when you are no saint either. In fact, least you dont realise, telling others to avoid personal attacks is a personal attack in itself. Dont spurn responsbility for what you did. You attempted to amend a word to signify a different meaning, so you arent exactly "claiming nothing". If you cannot support your own edition, in what position do you have to tell others to? I dont really want to talk about you, but you leave yourself open as a giant target board simply by the way you conduct yourself here. I think we can discuss the topic at hand without adopting a high-handed attitude, engaging in edit warring, and trying to fish our wikipolicies to support one's stand and to remind others about them when they are not due.--Huaiwei 16:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop talking about me and resume discussing the article. Calm down. If you want to make a claim that a safety program is 100% successful, you need a verifiable source. I'm not claiming it is; I'm not claiming it isn't. The article text should reflect only what's verifiable; editing text to reflect that Wikipedia policy isn't NPOV-violating. Monicasdude 17:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

After noticing [5], I discovered I dont really need to talk further about this (trival) issue. I am apparantly dealing with someone notorious in his craft. Enough said.--Huaiwei 17:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• In the latest twist of the ensure vs promote saga, a letter writtern by SBS Transit, one of the rail operators, to the Straits Times today uses the word ensure. [6]. The assumption that the operators only use "promote" and not "ensure" is proven false...and quite timely indeed.--Huaiwei 22:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't make things up. I never suggested that official sources used the term promote; I did quote accurately from official statements which used a different term. The letter you cite is from the public relations department of the company, and Wikipedia should not reflexively quote PR flakking. Monicasdude

• Land Transport Authority itself has also used the word 'ensure' in a similiar context. [7]. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• You consider quotes from public relations executives as unacceptable, yet you think it perfectly fine to quote from government officials. I didnt know governmental propaganda is more acceptable to wikipedia, but as I said earlier, if we are going to read comments from such sources with a pinch of salt, please apply the same standards throughout.--Huaiwei 04:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop distorting what I said. I said that a government statement of policy is preferred, as a Wikipedia source regarding the policy, to an editor's interpretation of that policy; and that, in a dispute over terminology, the language of the policy should be preferred absent verifiable evidence that language is inaccurate. Monicasdude 14:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• For fares issue, yes they are put in comparison, the initial fares of 1987 are shown at the magnetic farecard section, and the current ones under Ez-link. - Mailer Diablo 05:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The article has improved considerably, and is well-researched. --Vsion 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support Looks Great. It's well organized, well written, and comprehensive. Also its pictures are layed out in an organized fashion. Many FAs have thier pictures layed out in a messy fashion. I think picture layout should be part of the criteria. Recently I have been organizing picturers on pages. Tobyk777 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support. Excellent organisation and content, can't see any problems with the prose. Definitely a worthy featured article. Johnleemk | Talk 06:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It has been a long time since the push to improve this article through collaborative effort first stated, and it shows. Almost every section were checked and double checked, added, expanded, summarised, and than proof-edited, sometimes more than once. I cant really find any more issues with it except for small grouses like some pictures appearing underexposed! :D--Huaiwei 12:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. All the reasons I can think off has been listed above. --Cmyk 12:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Impressed with the artwork for that artist representation of the train network. --Raichu29125 16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I've copy-edited the whole article, phew ... Three points: (1) Please address my inline queries; (2) Check the n dashes I inserted for 'North–South' line and others (I left North East alone, assuming it's not 'north to east'. (3) Can we have some more info on the driverless trains, please? It's the only interesting point in the article, and might be a forerunner to many future constructions around the world this century. How has the public reacted? Were there initial objections? Tony 03:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not so sure if the n dashes are really neccesary, considering they are not used in official publications of rail line names [8]. As for details on the driverless system, it may be better for these detail to be in the North East MRT Line article instead without overflowing this article with too much specific detail relevant only to one particular line at present.--Huaiwei 03:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Right, and I've addressed your inline queries as well. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Better remove the n dashes, then. I still think just a couple of sentences on driverless trains would lift it, even if the issue is covered in a daughter article; it's such a radical move. Tony 05:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty will see what we can do...--Huaiwei 05:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Enviably good. ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 03:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A beautiful article, particularly comprehensive in terms of pictures and information. Ronline ✉ 07:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Very well done, except the images seem to be too big and have little to do with the sections in which they are placed. I would like to see the images cleaned up and the sections expanded somewhat. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 08:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Which sections? -- Natalinasmpf 09:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• And which photos? (BTW proper image copyright info is a requirement, but not photos themselves) I believe that the size of the sections are around right size - Expanded/additional information may be found at its respective sub-articles. Unless you want the article to bloat around 50k, like London Underground. - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• I think the current image sizes are done such that the layout of text and images fit nicely in terms of presentation. Shrink them, and the text appears to overwelm it.--Huaiwei 12:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• If he doesn't tell us what exactly the problems are, can we cross this out until its clarified? -- Natalinasmpf 11:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• We don't have to. This will be taken as unactionable, as we are not told in detail what is the problem. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• In any case, I've brought replacement photos! =D Should be up tomorrow. - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Good work.Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC!

My Rfa

• Support. Nice article, well structured, very informative, well referenced. Beautiful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, nice blend of text and graphics, easy to read, good structure. Sufficiently footnoted and referenced. Provides good material without being bloated with nonnotable trivia. Only complaint is that the article is a bit too long, suggest cutting down sections that have their own main articles. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 08:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong object. This article fails the general Wikipedia verifiability standard as well as FA criteria. First, the article is superficially researched. Most of the sources cited are press releases from agencies/sources involved in the operation of the rail system. Most of the other sources are local news media. There is no indication that the subject has ever been researched in accordance with [Wikipedia standards]. Second, the text of the article is often inconsistent with (sometimes outright contradictory with) the references.

For example, reference 8 supposedly backs up an apparently factual statement about the system planners' "agenda" priorities regarding "crime" and "terrorism." The material cited is available online here [9]. The source is a statement of opinion from a consulting business; it never discusses the actual "agenda" or priorities of the system planners; and it never addresses the subject of "terrorism." It is a very subjective piece of analysis; to pick a conspicuous problem with citing it as factual, note the source discussion's treatment of "discouragement of loitering." It says this policy does not address crime and security, but that it (and other policies) "had (unintended) spins-offs favourable in producing conditions desirable for the prevention of crime." Whatever the consultant's opinion, similar "quality of life" policies are implemented in other transit systems -- most conspicuously, I think, in New York City under Giuliani -- as part of a crime control program. Statements of opinion should not be cited as factual, particularly statements as dubious as this one.

Another dubious use of reference is #10, where the text refers to "plans" to introduce new security features; the source text indicates the installation should have been completed over a year ago; the article text is obsolete. Other references have similar timeframe problems; for example, the intro refers to closing a "gap" between rail and bus usage, as a current phenomenon, but the references which supposedly support it are based on changes over 7-10 years, not current usage trends.

More generally -- and in part related to the often poor match between text and references -- the text is riddled with NPOV and verifiability problems. Statements like "ensuring that there is a full integration of public transport services," "most problems have been rectified," and "a disparity that SBS Transit justified by citing higher operational and maintenance costs and lower patronage" are not verified by outside sources, are generally not sourced at all, and may be inherently unverifiable. In general, the article has a strong POV that the transit system is well-run and meets its planners' goals. This may or may not reflect general opinion, but it does not conform to NPOV/verifiability policies, and the pertinent sections need to be recast and properly sourced. To take a conspicuous example, although one of the transit system's goals is to reduce "traffic congestion" and limit private vehicle use, the available data (cited in reference 2) shows that the net effect of rail expansion is simply to reduce bus system use; overall mass transit use is essentially constant, while private vehicle use is growing substantially. The article should not take a position about the success or failure of the initiative, but to meet the FA comprehensiveness standard it must discuss the subject and present the relevant data in accordance with NPOV/verifiability standards.

Finally, it should be clear that the sometimes belligerent stance taken by the article's proponents is not helpful, and the way that they personalize editorial disputes is not appropriate. And the freequency with which those who support a candidacy refuse to address objections, but dismiss them as unaddressable, as has happened here, is disturbing. The responsibility for bringing an article up to FA standards rests on those who advance the candidacy; those who object are not required to do more than identify problems. Monicasdude 15:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

All FAs have contributors doing researches, dude. If there is no research, than it will be a stub forever. Then why many of the FAs have been researched. A good article needs lots of research. Everyone will have to do some research! What you said is illogical and made no sense! Are you trying to prevent the article from being promoted? Has anyone made so much complains about this? You have removed what I wrote at your talk page and you have been in similar controversies. Then why didn't you say when we were having our peer review. Why here? We have done our best here. We have did everything, then why don't you do it. I think you are trying to prevent FACs. Could you please give a better definition. You are only making criticisms which are not constructive. --Terence Ong ^Talk 17:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for giving a prime example of personalizing an editing dispute. As I have said before, stop talking about me and resume discussing the article. Monicasdude 18:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• "First, the article is superficially researched. Most of the sources cited are press releases from agencies/sources involved in the operation of the rail system. Most of the other sources are local news media." - Show me that you are able to obtain sources that are not involved in the operation of the system, and are not of the local media. Otherwise, this is considered unactionable. Consider the safety & security incidents, note that you attempt to discredit ref 8, which is a source by a foreign agency. Are you able to obtain references from foreign media pointing to these incidents? - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad faith response. No Wikipedia policy/guideline regarding FAs requires objector to FA candidacy to repair defects in research or noncompliance with Wikipedia policies. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• "The source is a statement of opinion from a consulting business" Proof please. I'd be glad to hear some background information about the agency that made you decide to discredit it. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement, in its original context, is self-evidently a statement of opinion/interpretation. Identifying a source as a "consulting business" does not "discredit" it, merely identifies it, and the nature of the organization is made clear on its homepage.Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• "similar "quality of life" policies are implemented in other transit systems -- most conspicuously, I think, in New York City under Giuliani -- as part of a crime control program.". "I think" is subjective. Again, factual proof please. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad faith response. Verification standards for article text do not apply to talk page discussions; the comment "I think" refers to "most conspicuous." Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• "where the text refers to "plans" to introduce new security features; the source text indicates the installation should have been completed over a year ago; the article text is obsolete" - refer to ref 10, "The whole upgrading exercise will cost SMRT about S$7.8 million, and is scheduled to be completed by 2006." - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Read your source carefully to avoid inaccuracy. The article discusses several different projects , and the main subject is a project that should already be completed, as per its title: " CCTVs at 35 elevated MRT stations to have recording capability by Oct 2004." Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• the intro refers to closing a "gap" between rail and bus usage, as a current phenomenon, but the references which supposedly support it are based on changes over 7-10 years, not current usage trends. Ref 2, look under public transport utilisation. The full data is avaliable on print reference. We did our checks. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad faith response. Editor acknowledges that reference does not support text and declines to provide verification of text. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I do not quite understand where your dissatisfaction with this line stems from. Changes in public usage trends can only be guaged by looking at changes over time. You insist historical data from 1994 to 2004 does not support continued trends today. How does data showing this trend in the period between 1994 to 2004 fail to demonstrate this, when it is the most current data available and 2005 has obviously not concluded yet?--Huaiwei 01:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• "ensuring that there is a full integration of public transport services,". SMRT Corporation operates a consolidated service of taxis, buses and trains. ComfortDelGro, parent company of SBS Transit, owns Citycab and Comfort taxis. Aren't all three forms of public transportation under two giant companies form integrated services? - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Common ownership has very little verifiable relationship to service integration. Verifiable sourcing is required for each case. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Very little? How do you demonstrate the lack of this relationship then? In addition, the quote you took was from the opening summary paragraphs, which may not dwell on this line in detail. If you may look further down, however, you will notice this line "Because the fare system has been integrated by TransitLink". TransitLink [10], for your information, is a company established by the two major transport operators, with a role of establishing and maintaining "a fully Integrated Public Transport System is one in which buses, the MRT and the LRT combine their services to provide a single planned network.". Perhaps we may help write the article for TransitLink to demonstrate this intergration instead of clogging up this article over these details?--Huaiwei 01:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• "a disparity that SBS Transit justified by citing higher operational and maintenance costs and lower patronage". Did you read my sources throughoutly? It in LTA's reply that I've posted above. I shall not repeat here. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Found something better. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The fare increase is not "justified" simply because its proponents claim it is justified, and the article fails NPOV because it omits the contrary arguments made by opponents. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The article clearly states that the justification comes from the transport operator, and not by the article's own conclusion. In other words, your charge on its NPOV would only be valid if the article states that the fare is justified without mentioning it was the viewpoint of SBS Transit.--Huaiwei 01:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• "In general, the article has a strong POV that the transit system is well-run and meets its planners' goals."..."goals is to reduce "traffic congestion" and limit private vehicle use" Private cars part of planner's goals, where? Don't make things up. from MRT article, "The network has since grown rapidly, as a result of Singapore's aim of developing a comprehensive rail network and reducing dependency on road-based systems, such as *read* the bus network." The term 'Private cars' does not even appear in History of the Mass Rapid Transit. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

'Bad faith response. Read your own sources and related articles, like this one [11] or this one [12] or this one [13] or this one [14] or this one [15] or this one [16], to cite only a few of many easy-to-find online references. Quoting a lousy Wikipedia article to support a not-very-good Wikipedia article isn't very convincing. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not attempt to read the entire text here, but this one caught my eye. If Moni is trying to argue that the MRT was built to limit private vehicle usage, and using those sources as a demonstration of this, may I just point out, that none of the souces mentioned by him makes any mention of that. The closest one could get is a reference to the entire public transport system, and not the MRT itself alone. Any person well aware of this history behind the building of the MRT, and the MRT debates of the 1980s will know, that the MRT was built as an option to move away from a public transport system dependent on buses, and not to directly alleviate road usage, even if it was also successful in contributing to the later.--Huaiwei 00:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Finally, it should be clear that the sometimes belligerent stance taken by the article's proponents is not helpful" - Two wrongs do not make a right. Assume good faith, please. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad faith response. Systematically responding to criticism by claiming an Assume good faith violation indicates an unwillingness to comply with Wikipedia conduct guidelines and policies. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• "The responsibility for bringing an article up to FA standards rests on those who advance the candidacy; those who object are not required to do more than identify problems." Not nessecery. Problems must be backed up with hard evidence that it is such, and actionable for a objection to stand. Failing which, it may be considered as a incorrect, frivolous, or bad faith objection per WP:POINT. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This does not reflect Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It is extremely inappropriate for an admin to fabricate policy to support his position in an editing dispute. The applicable policy states, in part, that If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised and Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. Policy does not require "hard evidence" of problems; this invented requirement makes very little sense in the FAC context, especially when used, as you use it, to demand that an objection to an unverified statement requires proof that the statement is false.

I note that, overall, you do not dispute the existence of the NPOV and verifiability problems I've cited, and that you make no effort to address them. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not that others really wish to talk about you, Moni, but your aggression in attempting to enforce your POV into an article promotes some discussion into the basis of your POV, all the more so when your concerns are not exactly echoed by any other. That you could go to great lengths just to insist on favouring a term over another when both are used interchangeably and by the very organisations you tried to quote from demonstrates the irrationality of the entire exercise. How else do we explain this irrationality without talking about you, then, when all of it stems from you alone?--Huaiwei 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• "your concerns are not exactly echoed by any other" - that's not a valid argument. Sometimes the minority are right; attempt to address them.
• "How else do we explain this irrationality without talking about you, then, when all of it stems from you alone?" - that is a personal attack. Even if you were attacked, don't attack back. Peace everyone. enochlau (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Peace please. Kindness here. Remember no personal attacks Thanks. :) My suggestion is to you dude, why don't you go and help an article reach FA status instead of making criticisms. Write something about yourself. I have a lot of my questions about you. Create something that is encyclopedic and of your own interest. You will be respected here if you help an article which FA status, than receiving dislikes and controversy. Comments only help make things worse, and rub salt into the wound. --Terence Ong ^Talk 06:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Your concerns are not exactly echoed by any other" - is a valid argument until you posted your comment below, which I wished you could have raised earlier. Anyhow, lets discuss some of them...--Huaiwei 09:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I will refrain from voting now; the article is reasonably good, but I have some concerns which I would like to raise. These primarily revolve around referencing (some have been raised by Monicasdude, but if I repeat them here, it means I don't believe they were answered adequately):
  • "... as a result of Singapore's aim of developing a comprehensive rail network and reducing dependency on road-based systems, such as the bus network." - reference please?
    • See [17], amongst many others.--Huaiwei 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "a figure that pales in comparison with bus patronage of 2.8 million bus network" - I think ditching the word "pales" would help give it a more neutral tone, and in any case, that part is ungrammatical.
  • "These operators also run bus and taxi services, thus ensuring that there is a full integration of public transport services." - reference please as to the ensuring of integration? Ensuring is probably the wrong word I think as well - too suggestive of perfect integration.
    • See points I raised above.--Huaiwei 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The first three sentences in the "History" section need referencing; I'm not demanding a reference of every sentence, but I think those are important facts that should be backed up.
    • Most of the history sections are writtern based on a single source, such as the books listed as references below. Will try to add in the references if need be, hopefully without overwelming it with reference after reference.--Huaiwei 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I find it odd how safety and security are discussed before amenities. It's probably more encyclopedic to discuss a whole lot of uncontroversial, established facts before going into such emotive aspects as safety and security. Minor issue, not something I'd oppose over...
    • That will be discussed. --Terence Ong ^Talk 07:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The safety section seems a little too glowing in its appraisal of safety measures. Perhaps a litle more criticism.
    • As this is just a summary, more of this criticism are available at the sub page.
    • Fact is there are relatively little safety issues on the MRT system, for incidents are few and far between. The "positive" slant of this section reflects its good safety record, so its difficult to "neutralise" it by over-emphasizing instances of safety breaches and accidents. Doing so may also be considered introducing a POV in itself.--Huaiwei 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A suggestion: could safety and security sections be merged? After all security is related to safety.
    • You may have the honour to do it. :D --Terence Ong ^Talk 07:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • See Talk:Mass_Rapid_Transit_(Singapore)#merge_safety_and_security.--Huaiwei 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Fire safety standards are consistent with the strict guidelines of the US National Fire Protection Association." - reference please?
  • "As of December 2005, 12 stations are undergoing retrofitting and will be handicapped-accessible by early 2007." - reference please?
    • LTA email by a user, Ignoramus. You can check it out with him and ask him for the source. --Terence Ong ^Talk 07:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I find the paragraph on paid and unpaid areas, and single trip/time-based fares confusing. Are they related? If not, they should go in separate paragraphs. Since that section is a summary of the main article linked, perhaps bullet points might illustrate the differences better.
  • "Fares are kept affordable by pegging them approximately to distance-related bus fares, thus encouraging commuters to use the network and reduce its heavy reliance on the bus system." - needs a reference.
    • Not that easy to provide a reference unless we start listing fares for buses here...--Huaiwei 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Magnetic tickets (1987–2001) section: too much detail for a summary section. Is it really important to list prices in the 1980s? This section together with EZ-Link cards and Standard Tickets (2001–present) could do with more references.
  • Section MRT rolling stock: could do with a more balanced approach. Problems with these vehicles are a glaring omission.
  • "Architectural themes became an issue only in subsequent stages" - needs a reference
    • This is evident in the design of stations over time, from simple boxes to elaborate works of art as explained in the subsequent lines, unless we need to further expand on that section?--Huaiwei 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "When completed, the line will connect all the existing MRT lines, and will allow commuters to travel around the country without passing through the downtown area, reducing congestion there." - reduces congestion? Says who?
    • I've changed the wording, the source is here. [18] --Terence Ong ^Talk 07:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "The Bukit Timah Line, when constructed, is expected to alleviate heavy traffic along the Bukit Timah corridor. The Eastern Region Line and Jurong Region Line will benefit residents at both ends of the East–West Line." - says who? Might benefit from writing in more neutral words, e.g. lose "benefit" etc.
  • References section: If these were used, it would be good to have them merged with the footnotes section, and have them referenced from the article body. Although it may be acceptable in high school to have a general bibliography section at the end, I think here you need to say which statements actually came from those sources.
  • "bolstering Singapore's reputation of being a "fine city"" - it is explained in the linked article, but captions should be self-contained.
  • "An artist's representation of the MRT network..." - lose the words "artist's representation" maybe.
• I hope these were constructive in nature and something you can work off. enochlau (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding about all the issues you have raised. I was the one who didn't do the major editing, it was Mailer Diablo, but now he is on an indefinite wikibreak, I don't know much about it. However, I can answer some of the questions you've pointed out. There is no problem in removing the word "pales", regarding the renovation thing, it was a user who emailed LTA and got a reply from them and was in the news, the source may have removed the article since. No problem with merging Safety and Security. A lot of this, I'm not sure but you may like to ask other SGpedians about this. I can help to change the caption, no problem. MRT fares in the 1980s and magnectic tickets played an improtant role then, to compare the fares then and now to see the difference. The rolling stock, can be expanded. Thanks for your comments. --Terence Ong ^Talk 06:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of the things written are factual, or there is no internet source due to the date (when there was no internet), or they have removed it. We have put all the criticism in already, there is no more, unless you would like to give a criticism. Uh...SMRT and SBS Transit runs bus and taxi services which is stated on their website, there are too many references and this tiny references are not really needed. --Terence Ong ^Talk 07:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You can never have too many references. If the Internet source is gone, what about printed material? It poses a problem with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Although you might like to try the Internet Archive... enochlau (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It is possible, such as when you have a reference after every single line or every word. If you may look at academic works and most publications, referencing is usually done after each referenced idea (or collection of ideas), and usually not on a point by point or sentence-by-sentence basis for that would be far too impractical and reduces readibility of the article in question. Most of the referencing Terence noted are actually available somewhere else, so we will try to look into it where possible.--Huaiwei 10:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Because I am going away for a while, I won't be able to follow the developments of this article. I hope I don't make it too complex for the closing admin but I shall support this article if the nominators show that they have addressed or at least considered the majority of the points I have raised above, otherwise consider this to be an oppose vote. enochlau (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support This article has come a long way and is up to standard. Good Job! Advanced 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me. SECProto 22:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apple Macintosh

Peer review 1 and 2 | FAC 1

This is the second nomination for this article. Several people have done an excellent job on this, and I formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Macintosh to work on it collectively together. The result is excellent. The article has a lead, image copyright status/sources are good, there are references, footnotes, the grammar/spelling is good, the flow is good, and its not too long and has been improved a lot since the last FAC. Please do not object for the 41k article size, there are FAs that are more than 60k that have not been objected. — Wackymacs 08:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Firstly, excellent article. It is reasonably clearly laid out, reasonably well referenced and certainly exhaustive. The photos are all in "good copyright nick". But it is too long. Yes, I know there are longer FAs, but this one could be shortened (and besides, maybe they need shortening too). One way may be to go down the route that the Jan Smuts editors have chosen: make a number of sub-articles that are in-depth expositions of the main article. I know that the "history" section already does this, but I think it ould be done more; ie on this page there needs to be less text, and on the sub-pages more. I would definitely support if that was done. As it is, I am weakly opposing, but if lots of people support I will change to neutral. Batmanand 11:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Support. We've done a lot of work here, and I think we've improved it substantially. I'll try to cater to your request; but besides maybe the hardware part most of the sections are too short to merit "outsourcing". But we've all come a long way (Wackymacs forgot to mention that it was the improvement drive article once) and I think that for all of this work the article should be recognized. --HereToHelp (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support—It's very good, thanks to Wackymacs et al. Other longish FACs have been approved—e.g., Microsoft—and here, I think readers will want to access the info in one place.Tony 03:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Support—Good, well written information. Useful images that contribute well to the article. --TangentIdea 02:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Support—Good article, just slightly above 40KB, but justified with the depth and clarity of the information presented. Good number of pictures. Altogether a great FA. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Information presented in a clear and well-organized way; length is adequate without being overbearing. Please don't ruin it with a Trivia section. Anville 10:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As you wish; no trivia section! I couldn't find anything to put in it, so I had given up anyway. --HereToHelp (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, mostly because it's way too long. Also, the color coding in the Timleline of Macintosh models needs to be explained. Another problem is that that section consists entirely of a single-use template, which should be subst'ed and then deleted. --Angr (t·c) 13:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• As others have said, the length of the article is because the article covers all the topics of the subject in the same place in a great length of detail which is good because its really comprehensive. There are other featured articles that are over 60k, this is only just over 40k. — Wackymacs 14:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Just because other FAs were too long doesn't make it okay. I would have opposed them too if I had known about them. I think a lot of the history can be moved to History of Apple Computer or Mac OS history, and duplication with those articles can be deleted. --Angr (t·c) 16:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Here's a classic example of an article that many readers will want to be inclusive; areas such as the history, the software, and market share are integrally linked in their technical and historical details. Perhaps a few details could be trimmed, but not much, in my view, without detracting from what is a logical, flowing, comprehensive account. I'm happy for the length to be retained. Tony 01:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Angr, check out {{Timeline of Macintosh models}} now that some of us have added a legend. Please don't hesitate to leave comments on that template's talk page.—t-bte288-c 01:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object on the following grounds: First, Macintosh and Mac are both registered trademarks of Apple, shouldn't this be indicated? Second, speaking of those trademarks, there's nothing in the article about the fight they had with the speaker company Macintosh (I hope I've got that spelling right, it's been a while) over the computer's name. Third, nothing is included about the infighting to keep the Apple ][ family going while trying to sell the Mac as well - I know it's in the History of Apple Computer article, but don't these things deserve slight mentions? On this point I disagree in part with Angr - I think you should touch on some things in brief, and THEN let readers get the in depth information. Yes it leads to some duplication, but I don't think this can/should be avoided. And what about Guy Kawasaki's official role as the "Mac Evangelist" (an idea copied way too late and far less successfully by Atari for their STs, TTs and Falcons in the early 90s). Or what about the "Apple Masters" program? One other thing, and I'm admittedly nitpicking here: the Power Macs also ship with a Mighty Mouse, and the Mini has no monitor, keyboard OR mouse. Plus you might add that the Power Mac towers don't come with monitors either... --JohnDBuell 00:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I know there is lots missing that you have mentioned such as the Apple II and Guy Kawasaki. Why should we mention they are trademarks? this is an encyclopedia, I know it led to a conflict with another company, but I don't think its very relevant because I *think* it was settled out of court. People reading the article already have enough information, an encyclopedia is not here to cover every single subject and bit of trivia about the Mac and Apple. — Wackymacs 08:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought your WikiProject goals stated otherwise. :P --JohnDBuell 13:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• The goal is to (quote) " improve and standardize the quality of all Apple Macintosh related articles to featured article standard." Since length is a factor in an article—although not an important one, at least in this article—that means that we don't have to knitpick at the details. It has to be comprehensive, yes, but not so much as to include every nuance of the subject. This article is already unfairly receiving compaints about the legnth; a trivia section would just exasorbate that.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Funny, I read "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has concise and detailed articles about every subject relating to the Apple Macintosh and Apple Computers." My objection stands. --JohnDBuell 22:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, that's true. And the article in question is relatively concise. Because it's long enough to provide useful information ("detailed", another word from above) but short enough to not ramble or go into too much extraneous info. There's nothing in that article that shouldn't be there. That's concise. There's everything in that article that should (pertains to the topic and belongs in an encyclopedia) be there. That's detailed. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The legnth is fine. We took the time to write that stuff, please, don't delete it. --HereToHelp (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I wasn't proposing any deletions, please re-read my original objection. --JohnDBuell 23:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Then why are some people angry about the legnth and you want it more in depth? The point is, if you want to add such a section do so yourself. But it is not needed. As Wackymacs and my above comment say, we are here to strike a balance between legnth and content. I think we've done a good job in that area. --HereToHelp (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has concise and detailed articles about every subject relating to the Apple Macintosh and Apple Computers." This does not imply that the project means to cover every subject relating to the Apple Macinotsh and Apple Computers in one single article. The goals of the project are all encompassing. However, there are several hundred Apple Macintosh related articles that the project has to work with. Your objection based on a lack of trivial facts (facts that are included in other Apple-related articles) can not justified by restating the goals of Wikiproject Macintosh --t-bte288-c 02:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• The only thing I found in a sub-article was my statement about the Macintosh division and the Apple ][ division fighting each other for marketing and sales dollars. I have found none of the other points addressed in any of the other 'sub-articles.' I hardly find Apple's ongoing history of trademark disputes trivial, although the one for Macintosh itself WAS settled, and has not resurfaced, unlike the Apple Computer vs. Apple Corps suits. I also don't think that the roles of the Mac Evangelist or the Apple Masters were trivial either - they did foster some outreach - Apple has had some user groups going on for well over twenty years because of these relationships. I'm still NOT budging from my vote. --JohnDBuell 02:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• The reasons many of these facts (not trivia... I apologize for making that assertion) have not been addressed in sub-articles resides in the fact that WikiProject Macintosh is brand new. Apple Macintosh was the WikiProject's first focus, and therefore we have not polished any sub-articles yet. This is no reason to keep the article-at-hand from being a FA, instead it is the reason that WikiProject Macintosh exists. This gives us incentive to polish all the sub-articles, not to add to the length of the main article. --t-bte288-c 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so why NOT fork off History of the Apple Macintosh, leave a summary on this page, move and develop the new page, reduce the SIZE of this page, as others have objected to, and everyone wins? --JohnDBuell 02:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Because people wan everything in one place. It's fine. Really.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Peer review comments were ignored and the same ones have been brought up here. Imagine that. It's still too long. Ignoring valid peer review is why that process doesn't get more involvment. - Taxman ^Talk 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Taxman, will you please specify exactly which PR comments you're referring to, and how, in your view, these might be addressed. Otherwise, your objection is not actionable. Tony 02:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth, but I would guess that Taxman is objecting to his comments in the second peer review not receiving any direct answer. I won't quote them here, since the link is at the top of this section. --JohnDBuell 02:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think he means the part about trimming it down that he posted there himself. I personaly redid that last paragraph of the history section.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I left detailed comments in the peer review on what the article needs thus it's very actionable. Tpny, please understand what actionable means before saying an objection is not actionable. The history section specifically is too long, and fixing that alone could solve the problem. It's 5 out of the 11 pages of text in the article. Is it worthy of 45% of the article? To support that the history would have to be the most important thing about the Macintosh. Is the history 2.5 times more important than the hardware itself? (That gets 2 pages). And I don't understand, HereToHelp, that paragraph still contains the exact same problem. It claims "Apple has seen a significant boost in sales of Macs, largely because of the success of the iPod." I believe that is far from established fact. The halo effect gets a lot of press and you can cite a lot of sources that discuss it, but many don't believe it is true. Much better would be to say something like X analyst, or Forbes magazine believes a large portion of the growth is..., or whatever the reliable sources would support (Apple's SEC filings might be good things to look at). Some prominent POV's would claim the improved sales of the Mac's are due to OSX being ahead of the comptetition. Point is, what is there is POV, and there's a lot more like that in the article. That one and the length of the history section are just the most egregious. - Taxman ^Talk 14:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I tweaked that paragraph again; care to have another look?--HereToHelp (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, that's better, but attributing the Halo effect idea would be better. You could even attribute it to Apple, because they state it in their annual report that they believe it. Also, the Mac unit sales is a qtr to qtr increase comparison. Probably better would be to use the year over year increase (which was still 38%). Choosing the qtr to qtr gain because it has the higher number is a bit POV. I will have to continue to object with the history section overemphasized as it is. There is nothing supporting it being the most important topic and worth 45% of the article. Balance is key to NPOV too. - Taxman ^Talk 16:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that we can't accommodate you. Oh—I don't appreciate that edit summary. --HereToHelp (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry for the lack of clarity, I was moving fast. FU was short for Follow up, and we use it commonly for that at work. I can see now how it could be misinterpreted. Sorry. But I feel the length of the history section is an obvious problem. - Taxman ^Talk 12:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oh...*laughs with hindsight*.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support despite the article's length. This is a topic that is impossible to narrow down any more. After editing by plenty of Wikipedians the article has been refined to the most important information. The peer reviews were heeded, but it would not be beneficial to shorten this article anymore. The additioin of a trivia section would undermine the encyclopedic nature of the article, and any more product specifics would simply add to the already contested length. After hard work by several people, this article receives my support. --t-bte288-c 22:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• "This is a topic that is impossible to narrow down any more." Thank you! I agree entirely. We have to sarifice being concise for being comprehensive. Being over 32k does not instantly disqualify an article. We had all of Wikiproject Macintosh working on this; it's good enough for a FA.--HereToHelp (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm a machead myself, but this article seems someone incomplete. It's very good of course, but there are no references to either the Macintosh TV or the Power Mac G4 Cube, two of the most important (design wise, not sales wise) macintoshes created. I think a paragraph about "failed" designs would do the article well - Apple tries a lot of experimental, avant garde stuff that sets them apart, and the article should reflect this and the price for such. Also there are dubious image copyrights, the worst of which is Image:Steve_Jobs_with_iMac.jpg which has *no* rationale at all, despite being copyrighted and ultra high resolution to boot! - JustinWick 02:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point there - there was a 'coffeetable' book about Apple's designs a few years ago (with a cube prototype from the early 1980s!) that I'm still kicking myself for not buying at Borders.... --JohnDBuell 02:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I would suggest putting the table of current models further down below the timeline and before the hardware details, as this seems the more appropriate logical sequence of the page. David | Talk 15:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Very strong support per all other supporter's comments. (DISCLAIMER: I use a Mac PowerBook G4. :)) --Cjmarsicano 19:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong support. It would be odd to shorten the article. I think other encyclopedias have much longer articles, and this article is very comprehensive and thus needs to have many sections. There aren't really any sections that are much too detailed in comparison to the other sections. Ronline ✉ 02:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• support. I don't think the length is a problem in this case. 43kb isn't all that long anyway, and it looks like a great article. Tuf-Kat 02:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. One of the best articles on wikipedia in a long time. What a great read, good use of images aswell. Don't shorten it. Great stuff!---(Smerk)

• Support. I also put a lot of work into this article (shortening it from 52k to a bit below its present length), and I can say with confidence that it's long, but not too long. Right now it's a good compromise between shortness and details.  grm_wnr Esc 11:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment... well, okay, nitpick. The image at the top is captioned as the "first" Macintosh, but if one looks closely at the dialogue box on screen it says it's Finder version 4.1 -- and "512K", which would indicate the second Macintosh release... ～J.K. 06:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• This has been highlighted before, the website it is from states that it is a 128K Macintosh. — Wackymacs 08:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• There's a difference between "128k" and "first". I noticed that the menus were not in English (Spanish?); could it be that this was the first Mac released outside the US, or in that language, or some other early "first" that wasn't the 128k? If the site actualy says 128k and we can't find a better PD image, keep it. If it says "first"...well, we got problems.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Italian, if I'm any judge (Spanish doesn't have double z's), but as Wikipedians, we should be better aware than anyone that web sites are capable of being wrong. ;o) Seriously -- were there any design differences between the "original" 128k and other pre-Plus Macs, besides the amount of RAM? If not, we can keep the image and weasel out of the problem by saying this is the first Mac "case design" or something along those lines. ～J.K. (who's never used a Mac older than a Plus) 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Was the 512k Mac even put into any other languages? That aside, I think that a new image is preferable. Yes, all websites are fallible, but an unvandalized FA should be accurate.--HereToHelp (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I note that a recent edit has delinked a few of the remaining (and thus inconsistent) trivial date links, e.g., 1998. The article is otherwise heavily linked, since it coveres relatively technical information, so this is a welcome move; I note that not linking trivial chronological items is now WP policy—see Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. Additional information is available at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous. If you support the use of the newly developed bot to bring articles into line with the MoS in this respect, please add your voice to Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please.3F. Tony 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. So, other than length and a few nitpicks, I thinkthat the article on the whole is ready for featured.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Something else I noticed that really IS lacking is any discussion of Apple's various attempts at making servers. There was an attempt in the 1980s to make a workgroup server after desktop publishing took off, but it never materialized (although it has been documented, and I think some prototypes were photographed). Then there were the servers that ran A/UX and AIX, which, like the later Power Macintosh G3 and G4 servers were really just "off the shelf" models with server software (A/UX, AIX, AppleShare, AppleShare IP, Mac OS X Server 1.x or 10.x) preloaded. I think some models had various build-to-order options as well. Then came XServe, which already has its own article. It MIGHT be worth a mention, but it's certainly fodder for a whole new article, if one isn't planned already. --JohnDBuell 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The information you mention is already included in sister articles about the Apple servers, including Xserve and the Workgroup servers. I don't see any reason to mention these as they are not really Macintoshes as such. Apple don't class them as being in the Macintosh family of products. A/UX itself is already mentioned in the Apple Macintosh article. Xserve also has its own mention (in the current line-up section and the lead). Adding more information to the article would extend its length even further, a very disputed fact that a lot of people don't like and have used as objections for this featured article candidate; we don't need to make the article longer. — Wackymacs 18:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I only said that it MIGHT be worth a mention - please don't put the proverbial words in my mouth. I found some of the information in the pertinent XServe article, but I'll be darned if I could find anything on the previous attempts, except in the A/UX article. I do think it really would behoove the project to eventually create a history sub-article, within which all of these projects could and probably should be included. --JohnDBuell 18:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well suggestions like this and this type of discussion may be better suited for Talk:Apple Macintosh because its making this FAC page really long as it is. I'm not sure about a History sister article, because I think readers prefer it when all the information they need is in one concise article without the need of having to read several different pages. A history article for the Apple Macintosh article would also clash with History of Apple Computer. — Wackymacs 18:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object The article is fairly well-written and easy enough to read, and covers the general hardware and software evolution of the Mac in reasonable detail. However, it lacks critical balance, largely by failing to properly explain how the Mac has been marketed. The article recognizes the (albeit very one-sided) "Mac vs PC" two-platform PC market with frequent references to Windows throughout. However, a clear explanation of what the Mac is and how it is "different" from Windows, is not presented. We have instead more of a product-brochure level of coverage, with the addition of phrases like "the Mac has been criticized for" to create a sense of balance. I therefore have a problem with both comprehensiveness and POV. (The "common knowledge" framework I'm assuming is that "most" people reading Wikipedia use either a Windows or Mac machine, and have heard of both, but are not necessarily familiar with anything beyond the fact that they are "competing brands".) Specific problem areas:

• The Macintosh is not adequately described - It is not made clear that the Mac is essentially a hardware-plus-operating system package deal (with a minor exception during the "clone" period)--a closed system, as it were, with Apple controlling everything--while Windows as an operating system that is run on any number of hardware packages by any nunber of manufacturers. This is not esoteric, it is fundamental to understanding many things about the Mac, including how it always has high-concept design (compared to the old Windows beige box), high-profile advertising campaigns--an overall massive brand push compared to "PC"s--and has been two to three times the cost of a comparable Win PC. This has been added to the lead.

The basic information is now there. However, the lead needs a good rewrite to make it a little more easy to read, clear and...compelling. For one, there is some confusion and redundancy between the first sentence of the article, and the third paragraph of the lead section, which together make up what should be one piece of information. Furthermore, having introduced this "unique" aspect of the Mac (hardware+software), the body of the article doesn't elaborate. Why this marketing approach? The Apple II wasn't closed in this way. So what happened to set Apple on the h/w+s/w course?

• Apple's history of "leaving behind" of its customers through fundamental changes in OS and hardwre is not clearly noted A defining feature of the Mac's evolution is the periodic changes it has made to move the product forward that have essentially forced customers to buy new software and/or new machines. This is not necessarily good or bad, but it is notable (and not the case with Windows). The article fails to mention that when Mac moved to PowerPC, old software was not compatible with the new architecture, and s/w developers did not offer free upgrades, so users were forced to upgrade both hardware and s/w (often expensive DTP and image editing packages). The next two instances of are wrapped up in the article in one sentence: "Older Mac OS programs can still run under Mac OS X in a special virtual machine called Classic, but this will no longer be possible when Apple switches from the PowerPC architecture to Intel processors in 2007." In fact, the "virtual machine" mode was far from a transparent and effective solution (lots of problems were caused, new software was often required), so the upcoming switch to Intel will actually be the third time existing customers are forced to reinvest simply because of major platform change. To maintain NPOV, these two points should be clearly explained in context, as they are simple, technical facts (which had and will have significant practical impact on existing Mac users). This, along with all of the flaws of the Mac, are addressed in a new section.

This is not adequately covered in the new section, and in any case, the proper place would be in the appropriate areas of the hardware and software histories. To say, "They changed the computer architecture" (PowerPC) and not say "which made all of the old software obsolete" is IMO a big omission. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• The software situation is not clearly explained The desktop publishing and Software sections neither explain the basic situation that the first great DTP and graphic design software -- Pagemaker, QuarkXPress, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc -- came out first on Mac. With or without an explanation that this provided a first inroads into the graphic design and publishing world, this is important Mac history. Design houses, small publishers and the like made a commitment to Mac hardware that was triple the cost of comparable Win machines, because of the availability of key software that was later fully ported to Windows.

Still unaddressed; see comments further down... --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Effects on the technology industry" section is not clear and not sufficiently supported The impression I'm left with is that the Mac blazed trails. Did they R&D this products? Did they find ways to bring them to the market affordably before all others? Or did they simply provide existing options earlier, because they were selling higher priced machines?

The new paragraph certainly adds a new perspective. However, I'm not sure where it lies in the POV department, and should at least have citations. I think it addresses/fixes the point, but since this is FAC, I have to consider that it doesn't seem to meet FA other criteria, like verifiability and NPOV. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• The Mac vs PC controversy is not directly addressed This is an enduring feature of the Macs existence. A brief closing paragraph, beginning: "Some Macintosh owners may be said to belong to a so-called "cult of Mac", and indeed many self-identify as such. does not at all properly represent the major debate that has surround the choice of Mac over Windows, from DTP to the different desktop video options today. A brief summary of the traditional and ongoing arguments is necessary. It is now very clearly adressed in the new section.

What I'm referring to here is the ongoing Mac vs PC consumer-level debate. This is a distinct and noteworthy part of Macs history (more so, if comparisons need be made, than the single instance of that Superbowl add). I'm talking about everyone from regular home users to all types of professionals (typically, artists and video editors), engaged in the: "Which is easier/better/more reliable/etc" debate. This is a cultural phenomenon all its own (encouraged by Apple all along, as in their Switch campaign). It could be summarized in as little as one well-written paragraph. It should be. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• There is no Critics of the Mac section In many different types of Wikipedia article, there is a criticisms or issues section. Certainly, for the Mac, there is enough well-documented criticism of the overall marketing practices to merit the same. Generally, the idea that the Mac is a heavily-marketed, slickly packaged, over-priced computer that appeals to fear of technology in a certain segment of the market ("the Mac is easy to use, promotes freedom"), deserves at least the same paragraph or three devoted to "Advertising". See the new section.

Yes, some of this is now mentioned, but it is not well-integrated. The "Advertising" section is still out of place. It should be "Marketing and Advertsing" or something like that, and discuss Apple's overall approach, not just highlight an ad or two. There were a few main campaigns that should be mentioned. All of this could be accomplished in more or less the same space that Advertising takes up now. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Extremely POV, pro-Mac, speculative, and poorly supported summary paragraph What is this about? Why is it suppored by things like "surely" and link to the definition of "conventional wisdom"? Because I see Macs in every other Hollywood movie, does that mean that directors and their set designers also "use Macs"? Market research indicates that Apple draws its customer base from an unusually artistic, creative, and well-educated population, which may explain the platform's visibility within certain youthful, avant-garde subcultures. [14] [15] Furthermore, conventional wisdom holds that the platform appeals especially to the politically liberal-minded; even Steve Jobs speculates that that “maybe a little less” than half of Apple's customers are Republicans, “maybe more Dell than ours.” [16] [17] This particular stereotype is reinforced, surely, by the company's pattern of political donations, by Al Gore’s membership on its board, and not least by Jobs’ personal history (most recently in his role as advisor to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry). [18] Nevertheless, well-known Mac users include the likes of conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, an outspoken Apple evangelist, and even George W. Bush.

This is still there. It's kind of interesting, but just because there are citations doesn't make it NPOV. It's really a reiteration of what seems to me like Mac's marketing objective, to maintain its small market share with loyal, affluent, new-product motivated segment. A more "objective" summary may be that: "Mac markets specifically to affluent people who want to avoid dealing with tech" or something like that. To imply that somehow Macs are "more suited" to artistic and creative people requires more than sales surveys and demographics of Mac owners. --Tsavage 20:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it's easy to read my points as Mac-bashing. That isn't at all the case. If I come to this article wondering, "So, what makes the Mac so different?" (as I imagine many readers would), I'd leave with no new understanding or insight, just some extra trivia about models and a sort of timeline sense of product development. A comprehensive article on the Mac has to be more than hardware and software specs. --Tsavage 01:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC) UPDATE: I'm sorry, I still haven't had time to fully reread the article, and probably won't be able to for another day or so. I did skim it, and the more complete description in the lead is good, however, at least some points were apparently not addressed (for example, making clear all of the killer desktop programs that appeared first on the Mac, like Freehand, QuarkXpress, Photoshop, etc). If this nom hangs out here for a couple more days, I will definitely do my bit and follow-up, otherwise, it's in the hands of the Arbiter of Consensus... Thanks! --Tsavage 00:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Jaw drops to the floor Well, I'm glad that you're so...concerned with our article. We'll try to implement these at once...but if you could help, we'd sure appreciate it. I'm not sure if I can galvanize WikiProject Macintosh before this article gets processed for FAC. I've been looking for something to do—really—and it looks like you just made my day. Breathes a deep breath and prepares for a very long night --HereToHelp (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm writing a section to adress the all the POV issues and kill about half a dozen stones in one throw. --HereToHelp (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you're having fun! I unstruck the objections of mine that you crossed out, not because I don't think they've been addressed (I haven't even checked), but simply 'cause, I wrote 'em, I get to strike 'em... ;) Really, though, if anyone can cross out other people's objections, there's no way to keep track of what's going on... Later on... --Tsavage 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What? I spent all of thirty seconds formatting the strikeouts...

I'm glad to see that someone's working on this with me. Have you considered joining WikiProject Macintosh? Oh—thanks for copyediting my userpage. --HereToHelp (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We've got a problem with the footnote numbering. I can't quite pinpoint the problem, can someone take a look at it? --HereToHelp (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. Sheesh, this page is now 32k.--HereToHelp (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The changes seem to have broadly addressed at least some my concerns. I know time may be running out on this FAC (though they do tend to go on...), so I'll go over it all hopefully sometime today. Meanwhile, an enhanced suggestion (partially mentioned above): more complete coverage of the "killer apps" that first emerged around the Mac would greatly benefit this story. Pagemaker is mentioned in 1985 for DTP. However, Adobe Illustrator (1985?), for vector graphics, with typography applications, and bringing forward PostScript, is not mentioned. And, over the next 4-5 years, QuarkXPress (1987), Freehand (1988?), Sound Tools (1988) and Photoshop (1990) emerged. All were, initially, for Mac-only. These became defining "desktop" digital tools for DTP, digital photo editing and image manipulation, graphic design and audio editing, and in many cases remain so today. A succinct account of these events in one place would go a long way to establishing part of the reason for the buzz surrounding the Mac from its incepetion, and specifically in illustrating why many "creative" types had reason to embrace the Mac hardware--for the software--because it could do on the PC level what no other (Win) option could come near. At the time. --Tsavage 16:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm on it.--HereToHelp (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. So much for the WikiProject helping out...if there's anything else, just say so and I'll try to get to it.--HereToHelp (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about not helping out with you much HereToHelp - I've been at school all day. I might be able to help out a bit more now that I'm on a school holiday for Christmas. The article looks even better now, but on the Talk page someone requested for a section about legal issues involving the Mac, see Talk:Apple Macintosh at the bottom. — Wackymacs 18:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't blaming you specifically, I was just saying that there are 18 members and only one of them is helping, but it's alright, I overreacted. As for the legal issues, I hink that shouldn't be too hard considering we now have a ready-made source.--HereToHelp (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If anything else needs to be done, I'm available. Oh—don't indent the next section.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So much for not indenting...but you'll find the section on the killer desktop publishing apps in the first paragraph of that section. if it still isn't clear enough (and it is clearer), you can clarify it further with a few easy edits.--HereToHelp (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I started to review, but it's hard to tell what's going on with all of the recent revisions. For example, the killer apps mention, which was there a couple dozen revisions ago (I had to check back in the history) is now gone. That's weird, and the excision leaves a reference that no longer makes sense ("All of these items were unique to the Macintosh..."). Therefore, I have to conclude that the article is not stable. --Tsavage 23:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you had to come to that conclusion. I'll read over the whole thing again and remove such statements. Plase continue to check back and hopefully change your vote.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What I was explaining (as you'll see when you read it) is that someone has already removed the (your?) recent mention of Photoshop and the other killer aps (an in so doing, left a sentence that doesn't make sense). I don't see the point of reading through the whole thing again, if people are actively undoing changes made during this FAC process.

Yes, I saw that, but there were other changes that I fixed. As for DP, 216.165.224.71 keeps reverting me but I think we've reached a compromise. I don't blame you for citing stability, though.--HereToHelp (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to implement your suggestions on Desktop Publishing, but these anons keep reverting my changes! Take a look at the page history if you want to see their comments in the edit summaries (they seem to explain their logic reasonably well but I am more or less unfamiliar with desktop publishing). Instead of me being the middle man, I'd appreciate that you go settle this, or something along those lines.--HereToHelp (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the anon comment you referred to: Actually by 1987 the leading dtp software for the mac was pagemaker, macpublisher II/III and ready set go. xpress didn't make its mark til later. PS wasn't released til 1990 (note heading is 85-89 Regarding that, there are two problems with the "fix" based on my objection. First, your entry, while indeed mentioning the programs, was simply an insertion into the existing text, which didn't really put things into context or explain anything new. Next, reasons the anon deletion don't make much sense. Your edit didn't say those were the leading programs at the time; in fact, during that early period, both h/w and s/w were just muscling up, and the early adopters were looking at everything that became available. From its launch, Quark was a strong page layout competitor (whether or not it was the "leading" one, which meant little in those early days), and soon enough emerged as the leader which I believe it is to today. Photoshop (1990 release) doesn't fit by date into that section (not a reason for deletion, simply a move), and that only underscores my point that there are problems with the article that can't be fixed by a few minor alterations. In this case, it should make clear the basic fact that the early Mac was the first platform for a whole range of new desktop applications, including DTP, graphic design and audio (musicans and the electronic music/production revolution is as much a part of the Mac story as DTP/graphics). Photoshop is typical of the omissions here: it is a household word these days, and was developed entirely in the Apple/Mac follwer zone that certain software developers of the day gravitated to (i.e. Photoshop was developed as a "Mac" application)--a Mac article that covers third-party software has to mention this. --Tsavage 20:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and put all those software programs back in, taking measures to compromise: Pagemaker was first, but the rest of these were important, too. Hopefuly that version will stay put... --HereToHelp (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Good work done to the article. Lots of information to readers. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 05:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support-Good article covering the entire historyCuBiXcRaYfIsH 02:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

At last: someone who doesn't want the history section trimmed.--HereToHelp (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delrina

Re-(Self) Nomination. A thorough article on the company best known for having created WinFax. Has already gone through a peer review and a previous FAC round. I believe I have taken care of all the outstanding issues with this one: have done a thorough copyedit, re-worded the intro paragraph and added points they may have required further clarification. Have also dug into the corporate reports for the firm (thanks to the local reference library!) and managed to fill in some remaining "holes" information-wise that I found. Found further info on the Berkley Systems Inc. v. Delrina case, which was about the only contentious item I could find _that was documented_ relating to the history of the company or its products. Captmondo 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, though the red links found near the end are annoying. «LordViD» 18:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just fyi, have plugged some the link "holes". Just as a matter of interest, is there a guideline on how many links should be "fixed"? For example, I am not an expert on cc:Mail, but I can see the need for an article on it by somebody, if not me. Does that mean that I am obliged to "fill it", as I would rather just point it out that it should a) exist and b) be filled by someone who does know more about the subject than myself. It makes most sense in this instance for me to fill in links to Delrina-related personalities and products, but I was leery about straying too far from known territory. Would like to hear back from anyone on this point, as it relates how to much or how little I felt obliged to create Wikilinks in an article. Captmondo 19:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Red links can't be used as an objection, as they don't affect an article's content. However, they are a bit annoying. My advice is to leave them red if you aren't familiar with them, so if and when this makes the main page, someone with the knowledge and interest can create them. It's really up to you, though. Just do what you want with them if/when you feel like it. The Catfish 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very comprehensive, detailed and well written. The lead is impressive, and the article discusses a very difficult topic but covers it very well with pictures and lots of references. — Wackymacs 18:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. My only real regret is that there's so much to say about the company's earlier history that the juicy meat of the article - the flying toaster case - ends up so far down. I wonder if splitting the intro into two paragraphs would help draw attention to this? And what about an internal link from the intro to that section - I'm sure we had something similar on a recent frontpage article (the New Zealand architect whose lunatic asylum fell down). — Haeleth Talk 20:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

**Not sure I would want to do that in this case. Over time I think Berkely Systems v. Delrina should quite possibly become its own article, but in the meantime I think that what is currently there covers things off nicely for someone who is just casually interested in the case. That is of course IMHO. ;-) And in the end it is not the central focus of the Delrina article, just a particularly interesting facet of the company's history/legacy. Captmondo 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Skip last comment. I see what you have done (and what you meant) and I approve, for what it is worth. Captmondo 20:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - and thanks for helping me catch all of the Berkley/Berkeley typos :) --JohnDBuell 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Great content, good references and well-designed footnotes. Good use of illustration. Article interesting even to people not very interested in software considering its review of the legal case with Berkeley Systems. - JustinWick 01:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. A consistent referencing sytem is not used throughout the article, there are inline cites without corresponding numbered notes and there are some html linked refs in text that do not use the footnoting system and are not fully cited in the references for future tracability. See Hugo Chávez for a method to link multiple inlines to one ref if you need to.

The section Acquisition by Symantec and aftermath is poorly written in comparison to the rest of the article, megere bitsy paragrahs into longer ones where necessary.--nixie 02:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

re referencing and See Hugo Chávez for a method to link multiple inlines I'm holding off on my new read and "vote" until some of the changes arising from this FAC are complete. But I want to comment here that the issue of referencing for a comprehensive corporate profile should be more thoroughly addressed. Although the Hugo Chavez article was only referenced for an example of linking multiple inlines, since it was mentioned, the fact that it contains barely readable paragraphs due to the sheer abundance of citation links should also be noted. These further have the tendency to be broken by future edits, decreasing usability, and require an extra order of Wikipedia-literacy to use and maintain. IMHO, in general, objections based on detailed recommendations for referencing and citation style should be based on specifics of the article and article category. For example:

• Is the References section complete? Does it contain well-documented sources that would seem to allow verifiability of the general contents of the article, and the general subject area?
• What specifically requires "pinpoint citation"? What are the controversial statements and explanations of arcane topics that are not specifically cited?

I believe this is all entirely consistent with both WP:Verifiability, WP:CITE and related, and with practical reality. Hope that helps the processs... --Tsavage 20:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I have found the reference in the Hugo Chávez article you are talking about, and will look into converting everything to the format you suggest. This may take a little while, but will let you know when this is done. Will also look into expanding the "poorly written" Aftermath section, though I tend to disagree with the argument that short paragraphs are necessarily bad paragraphs. Captmondo 14:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe I have fixed the footnote/referencing problems pointed out, and have also re-organized/added to the Aftermath section. Captmondo 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - This is a comprehensive and well designed and composed article. It's got items of interest for those interested in the industry of which this company was a part, with insights for those who might not know the milieu as intimately. VickiZ 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object; same reasons as nixie. Footnote numbers in the text must match the footnote numbers in the list; one-sentence paragraphs are indeed bad. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Paragraphs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:23, 14 December

2005 (UTC)

• • Have fixed the footnote numbering/inline links problem, which I believe was the underlying issue. Have also re-jigged the organization and wording of the offending one-line paragraphs that had appeared near the end of the article. I won't dispute not keeping to the house style, but I would argue for flexibility on this point if not overused, and if used as intended, as emphasis. Captmondo 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object: The article is complete and for someone like me who doesn't really understand software, it's terminology and various systems, it is quite easy to comprehend. What lets it down is the erratic placement of the images. (I assume someone more knowledgable than me has checked the legacity of so many images in copyright in one single article?) They seem to have just been plonked in regardless of section or appearance to the article as a whole. The footnotes system seems to be as erratic as the images - I know they can be a pain to organize but the cause of the problem is (I think) in line references causing the footnotes to be confused. Inline references are useless and need to be placed at the bottom of the page with the other references, one can footnote to them if they are of vital importance to a certain section of text. Inline reference is no use to anyone printing the article anyway so put them down below where they belong. My points are all things which can easily be fixed, I look forward to changing my vote. Giano | talk 19:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Am planning on concentrating on the footnoting issue possibly tonight -- and you have pointed me in the right direction as to what the underlying issue is, so thank you! I am confused about the comment about the images appearing willy-nilly though. I thought it was quite orderly, with a forms screenshot adjacent to the Forms section, a WinFax screenshot adjacent to the WinFax section, a Box Shot of CommSuite against the communication software section. The three images used for the multimedia section are: product box shot, followed by illustrative album cover, then a screenshot of a further multimedia product, all of which (I believe) are fully explained both in the captions and in the body of the text. If you just don't like the arrangement of those three images, I can remove two of them, but I think the article will suffer for it. Captmondo 20:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

*You don't need to remove any images so long as they are all legit. I'm not obsessive (like some) about images all being on the right hand side of the page, or even the same side but it would be beneficial to the article if they were at least in one section or another noy inbetween. To my eye it would be better if they were dispersed evenly throughout the article. I don't like that big template much in the lead, but I suppose it's OK an article on this subject matter. Giano | talk 23:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've come up with a different way of ordering the image, which I think is the best of both worlds. And the footnoting issue has I believe been resolved. Captmondo 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: OK that's a lot better. I see the images are still breaking the line separating various sections. To my eyes it would better still if you could fix that, but if that's allowed within the style guidelines then so be it. I'll support the article now as it is very good. Giano | talk 15:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent job well done. This article is amazing, especially for such a simple topic. Long live Canadians! —Hollow Wilerding 23:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• My concerns above were addressed, thanks! I still Object (apologies for not noting this before): The "Trivia" section with just one item should be merged into an appropriate section elsewhere. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Issue fixed, thanks, Objection struck; no time right now to review further. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Done! This has been merged with the "Aftermath" section. I did have this in the trivia section as this is not a fact that I can easily back up with a reference, and thought it more appropriate to throw it in the trivia section as a result. I was there and remember it happening that way, but I doubt there are is documentary evidence I can show for this. If there is a further contention on this paragraph, I think I would just delete it, as it should not "drag down" the quality of the rest of the article. Cheers! Captmondo 04:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If you can't find a verifiable reference for it, then you need to delete it. WP:NOR and all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Duly removed! Captmondo 10:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks for fixing the footnotes. Two more things, are the links in the external links section, links that people might be interested in or were they used a refs- external links used to write the article should probably be put in the references section so it is clear that why were consulted to write the article. Secondly could the trivia section be merged into the article, I guess it would probably go into the Acquisition by Symantec and aftermath section.--nixie 04:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I take your first point, and have moved all of the links that I used for research purposes into the References section, and left the rest that did not add any further info (but may still be of interest) in the External Links section. As for point two, I have removed that paragraph altogether (after having first merged it as you suggested), as Bunchofgrapes pointed out that it goes against WP:NOR. Captmondo 10:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Ok Captmondo, this is well written article. however, i think we should wait a couple of days until it's featured. today is the day wikipedia featured it's dullest, most frivilous article. though Captmondo's article is by no means dull, the subject matter is a little dry. something like the Spawn Man's Dinosaur article is the perfect antidote to the tedium of shoe polish. then after a couple of days we could feature this article? Veej 23:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between Featured Articles and Today's Featured Article, the one shown on the main page. It usually takes a few weeks for a FA to get onto the front page after promotion; there's no set schedule. And I take exception to your categorization of Shoe Polish. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I seriously doubt that you have made a convincing case for a valid objection, but will accept your support, conditional though it may be. One person's tedium is another's treasure. As for scheduling as a Feature Article on the front page, there is a process in place for that, and you can see what is currently slated for the "front page" in upcoming days for December. Having said that, I am guessing that it will take another week or so for the Delrina article to (hopefully) pass full muster as a Featured article candidate, and probably will not appear on the front page until January at the earliest. Captmondo 14:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support The article is easy to read, the summary stands up on its own, the article proper maintains a consistent level of detail and covers the subject thoroughly to a depth that seems appropriate for a software company profile, and Delrina in particular. I did make a couple of what I consider minor changes to the summary, mainly, repositioning the paragraph break to a more logical spot, and adding a mention of "flying toasters" (which I believe is, along with WinFax, one of the two details likely to come to most people's minds). That said, my support is based on the article as it stands. I did take the time to more thoroughly go through the references than I might have for previous FACs, with the question: Could I reconstruct this article from "common knowlege" plus the cited sources. I believe could; in any case, I don't have a problem with verifiabilty, from what's presented. The writing style could be slightly more...peppy, but as is, it is just fine, and neither sounds overly clinical and press release-like, nor over editorialized in a chatty attempt to capture interest. I also read a couple of other computer software-related FAs. All in all, seems to meet FA criteria to at least the best of current standards. --Tsavage 16:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Comment I have to agree with HasBeen. I think there are legit quesitons about Wiki featuring a currently avaialable commerical product. Rlevse 14:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What are the legit questions? Does it promote something people profit off? Sure, but so do a whole host of other FAs -- to some extent, any article could theoretically lead to more interest in the subject, and therefore increased sales of related books or other material. Why should this have anything to do with FA status? (I'm aware of the argument that putting this on the main page could look like advertising. I find this argument completely unconvincing, and it is, in any case, irrelevant here, since it's a long-standing principle that every article is FAable, even if it would be inappropriate for the main page) I haven't looked at the article in question, but what is the harm associated with a good, unbiased article on a branded topic? Wikipedia could do far worse than contain neutral, accurate and comprehensive information on corporations and their products -- as a matter of fact, that would make Wikipedia a uniquely useful resource. Tuf-Kat 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Copies of Majora's Mask are no longer being produced. The game is well-known but has been obsoleted with the obsoletion of the N64 by the GameCube, and, soon, the Revolution. The product is only available through resales or through stores that never sold their full stock. It is not current. - Cuivienen 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment HasBeen, if you are going to mention "brand placement" as a concern for FA status, please cite policy. I see nothing about this at Wikipedia:What is a featured article. --Pagrashtak 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment'. If it's no longer available (but it says it was avail as a GameCube til at least 2004), then perhaps the article should mention that. Not everyone will know this. Rlevse 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• CommentCurrent?This is for the N64 which in videogame industry terms is ancient.This game is long gone from the spot light.The current systems are even being replaced (GC/xbox/ps2).--Technosphere83 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• The above is a Comment, not an objection. The Legend of Zelda is a clearly recognisable brand name. That may lead to questions about product placement, not necessarily the content of the article. --HasBeen 09:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I realize that your statements are a comment and not an objection. However, this is not merely a vote — it is a discussion. I must once again ask you to cite policy; Tuf-Kat is correct, I don't feel that this is a valid concern. Please do not raise concerns about this article becoming a front page article here. Objections to that belong at WP:TFA, should MM be nominated for such. --Pagrashtak 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Tuf-Kat and Pagrashtak. --Naha|^(talk) 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree: this is as valid a comment to make under the circumstances as the rebuttals. --HasBeen 10:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support This article is very well referenced for a video game article, which are commonly plagued by reference problems. --Pagrashtak 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Well written, well sourced. Its a shame that the voting fraud incident occured with this article. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Decided to help out and organize the footnotes under the new inline citation. this will automatically order information as more sources are added to the article. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 06:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - as previous nomination - Hahnchen 18:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The inaccuracies and structural flaws I pointed out during the last nomination have still not been addressed. Fredrik | tc 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just for the sake of clarity, would you mind copying the remaining actionable objections to this page? Thanks. --Pagrashtak 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • See below. Fredrik | tc 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Wow, this is surprisingly good. Although it could use a bit more clarity, I say that I have to Support this article. Dee man45 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - great article! --Naha|^(talk) 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Here are some issues that come to mind.
  • "It received some criticism for this" is unsourced.
  • The "fixed 3D" issue should be mentioned among the technical developments, not gameplay, because it has nothing to do with gameplay (it is in fact directly related to the extra 4 MB of memory)
  • "possibly the Lost Woods" is pure speculation
  • The section on "Basic controls" isn't needed. All of it except the first sentence which really should be moved to the top of the "Gameplay" section and related to OoT (basic controls are the same in both games) should be merged with "Masks and transformations"
  • One image has visible emulation artifacts, several images are in the wrong resolution.
  • Most images are boring; only one shows action, none shows dialogue. Certainly images could be used to demonstrate more of the gameplay and interesting settings. At least, I think there should be one image of each transformation, and the "Dungeons" section should be illustrated with several images.
  • "while its predecessor had been cited as one of the greatest video games of all time, Majora's Mask has not." is incorrect; the article even cites an example further down. HW reverted my correction of this error without explanation.
  • The text is littered with poor prose and questionable conclusions. While most seems to be correct, much of it is illogically structured, linking things that are connected or emphasizing facts that are not important. Here is just one example:

The gameplay in Majora's Mask is arguably deeper than that of Ocarina of Time. Its predecessor features bombs, arrows, and music (in the form of an ocarina) as tools to solve many of its puzzles; Majora's Mask includes multiple instruments as well as time travel and character transformations through certain masks to add further layers of difficulty and variety to the quests in the game.

Both games extensively use predecessor feature bombs, arrows, and music, so this misses the point. The use of multiple instruments adds no depth to the gameplay so it shouldn't be mentioned. The line "to add further layers of difficulty and variety to the quests in the game" doesn't say anything.

• • More generally, "one thought, one paragraph" is violated in multiple places. For example, the first paragraph under "Gameplay" jumps between comparing the game to Ocarina and (redundantly) explaining the storyline.
  • I want a separate section, with more content, about the use of a three-day time cycle. It is by far the most interesting and unique aspect of MM's gameplay
  • What is "The proceeding rooms are filled with obstacles through which Link and Tatl must navigate." about? This is trivial and doesn't advance the story.
  • I think the "Dungeons" section should be renamed, merged with "Characters", expanded to cover the entire world of Termina, trimmed, and given "Main article:" links to the articles Termina and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask characters.
  • Most of the story can be told without the spoiler tags.
  • The information on development is incomplete. The section should include the original working title, important announcement dates, and at which game shows it was previewed.
  • There is nothing on bugs or speedrunning (except a single external link for the latter).

Fredrik | tc 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Gameplay is deeper

No objection at all. The problem with the cited paragraph is its complete failure to describe what you just did (!)

You are asking for a separate section about the three day time limit in order to appeal to what you believe to be the best aspect of the game; unfortunately, everyone else doesn't think the same way you do. It could be considered a gimmick, or it could be considered pure genius; this difference of perception could cause a flame war between fans of the game on Wikipedia. A situation such as this would be terrible.

Hold on a second; I didn't say it is the best of the game, or the most clever. I said it is the most peculiar aspect of the game, which is why it warrants extra attention; this would be true even if it were just a gimmick.

In any case, the gimmick view doesn't seem to be well supported. On the contrary, most critics refer to it as being central to the gameplay (along with masks). For example: "The object of Majora's Mask revolves around two things: masks and time.", "The way that time flows and is interleaved with the masks is what's most impressive." (IGN), "the game's time-sensitive nature" (Gamespot), "time [...] happens to play a very important role in this game" (Gaming Age).

If there were a real controversy regarding whether the time aspect is a gimmick, the case for writing about it in depth would only be more compelling.

"The proceeding rooms are filled with obstacles through which Link and Tatl must navigate," advances the story; it shows that Link and Tatl were with each other for a period of time before the true quest began.

The game segment advances the story, but this sentence doesn't explain that. This problem occurs elsewhere in the article. Fredrik | tc 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Alright, I just put a lot of work into the article. I looked into the "It received some crit..." issue, and didn't find a lot to support so I rewrote to avoid saying that. I removed the Lost Woods speculation. The Basic Controls section has been absorbed by Gameplay and Masks + trans. The "while it's pred..." sentence has been rewritten. I rewrote the "poor prose" example, but I imagine this hasn't yet solved that entire point for you. I rewrote the "proceeding rooms" bit to convey that the section made Link get used to his new Deku Scrub body. The Dungeons section is now Termina and includes the characters section and the rewritten Temple/Boss sections, as well as the requested links. I moved the spoiler tags to not include the first part, which is not really a spoiler, but I don't know about moving it any further. As far as the bugs and speedrunning, I feel that there is nothing notable that would warrant inclusion in that section. It is Wikiproject policy at WP:CVG to keep information such as bugs to a minimum and only include them if they are notable. It would be appreciated if you could look over the article and strike out any objections that have been addressed. --Pagrashtak 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but the prose and use of images still needs to be improved. Certainly long bug lists are inappropriate, but major ones (or the lack thereof) and mention of bugs from Ocarina of Time that have been fixed would be interesting. Speedrunning is certainly relevant; in addition to the current world record, the "6 day challenge" should be covered. Fredrik | tc 03:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had addressed the "Dungeons" issue, do you feel it needs more work? I've just addressed the "development" section issue also. I'm not really sure how I'd write a section on the lack of bugs. While I also would find a section on speedrunning interesting, I'm just not sure it's encyclopedic. I think there would be a lot of people who don't find that interesting. I think we might have to disagree on those points. --Pagrashtak 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it needs more work; images would really help. The development section looks fine now. Regarding speedrunning, there's plenty of precedent; see for example Quake or Metroid series. Fredrik | tc 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A "three-day cycle" section has been added. I also moved material around to keep the "three-day cycle" and "masks" thoughts more confined to the proper areas. I placed the new section below the masks section, as I feel the masks are more important than the three-day cycle. --Pagrashtak 16:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been reorganizing as I edit and have just done some copyedits and slight reorg. Please see if your "one thought one paragraph" and "poor prose, questionable conclusions" objections have been addressed. If not, perhaps you could provide examples. Regarding the dungeons section, I believe I've addressed the renaming and merging bullet (which can now be struck), just not the image bullet, correct? --Pagrashtak 22:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful! The images still need work, but this objection is minor. I will therefore change my vote to support. Fredrik | tc 05:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectSupport I agree with Fredrik - nice! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support this is the level of quality I have been trying to achieve with the Xenosaga page over the past week or so. Outstanding article, and I agree with a previous user: it "gives fancruft a good name". I am impressed. 14:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. A lot of work has gone into this article over the last few days, and it really has improved markedly. Great job! Jacoplane 17:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support - formatting looks good, the information's good. I'm not a fan of the game, but this certainly looks like a great article. (Ibaranoff24 23:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

• Support - Great article, very well done everyone! --darkliight^talk 10:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This is acceptable enough for me. 64.231.168.58 20:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose. The article is fairly comprehensive, but I'm experiencing a few issues with references and detail:

1. There is no citation for the release dates of the game. I know this is picky, but if one was unsure of the date and required it to complete an article, they could have slipped any random date into the slot.
2. The "Temples" section is far too detailed for an encyclopedia. The descriptions of how to battle and defeat the video game boss are much too in depth, and an everyday, common reader would probably have no desire to read every single word in each sentence.
3. Twinmold, the guardian of Stone Tower Temple, is actually two creatures: giant sand worms (inspired by previous Zelda boss Lanmola). Citation? Source?
4. Lack of wikilinks, as I've noted on the talk page.
5. Players must plan what to accomplish in one cycle — attempting to complete too much could result in running out of time half-way through a task and being forced to abandon it and start over in another cycle. This is a poorly-written sentence. Could serve as a run-on sentence.

• 64.231.163.117 02:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment For the date, 64.231.16...can I just call you 64? I'll look it up, but I'm sure that the one there is the true one. The Temples are a critical part of gameplayand the oeverall experience; I'll try to trim it down, but it is still important. There is no source whatsoever that Twinmold was inspired by Lanmola, so I'll delete that, but anyone can tell you that Twinmold is a double sand worm boss. I agree with wikilinks and the run-on; I'll see if I can do something about that. Dee man45 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you mind signing with a non-annon account. Also, i looked into your date issue, i came across the following. [19] and [20]. In both articles, the dates don't agree with each other. So just to point that out. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 04:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Dinosaur

After it was denied for FA status last time, I made major repairs & hopefully fixed this great article. Please vote support & get this article to the main page... Spawn Man 08:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC) BTW, I'll scratch out requests I think I have completed, please unscratch if they are not....

Please don't unilaterally alter objections from other editors. Only the person who makes the objection should declare it resolved. You've missed the point on objections I made that you struck out, and I've restored them. Monicasdude 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Noone else has had a problem with it. You came in here, with a flimsy opposition. I fixed most of what you said, & as my right to be able to see what is checked off, I am able to strike out what I think is resolved. No one else has had a problem. I asked you to ellaborate, so do so or I'm afraid I have to strike the opposition so I can keep track! I'm not going to ruin my whole effort because I can't keep track of what I've done. Spawn Man 03:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Spawn Man, please do not alter other people's votes, no matter what the circumstances. Raul654 uses these votes to determine whether to promote an article. Chick Bowen 23:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not alter them. I was merely making an innocent attempt to keep track of what I'd done. Never knew there were so many rules.... Spawn Man 22:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. hopefully it'll make it this time.... Spawn Man 23:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good enough for my liking. —Hollow Wilerding 14:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, nice article. Dinosaurs will always be a part of history. Rawr! --DrippingInk 14:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object NeutralWeak Support.

1. Get a better picture for the lead. The only reason to have a B&W photo would be if it was the first dino bone discovered (which was later lost) at the discovery site. Try to get a drawing of a living dino.

   I've made the same proposal here. CG 18:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Captions. Expand them, and add periods.
3. Expand the content. Get help; yes it's the AID (change the template on the talk) and was the Collaboration of the Week, but see if you can interest a WikiProject.
4. There are numerous objections on the talk page. Don't delete the stuff in the todo list; use strikethroughs (<s> and </s>). Fix just about all of them.

Meanwhile, it is a good article; with nice references and size. Try to keep it under 50k. But for now, I'm opposed. --HereToHelp (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Try to expand the captions, and keep copyediting.You'll get there. --HereToHelp (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

By captions, you mean the picture captions, am I right? If so, I do not know how I could possibly add dates to them... Spawn Man 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No, not dates. make them informative. Add links and periods. Make them useful. --HereToHelp (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh! Periods, as in "."s and making the captions complete sentances! Time frame would be nice (one of the three eras is fine), but the main thing is to make the captions whole, useful, gramatically correct sentances. --HereToHelp (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My bidding? Right....Well, this looks pretty good. Not an instant hit...but good enough. Gor for it. Congrats. --HereToHelp (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your bidding master.... You rang???. Spawn Man 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll try my best, but you have to be blunt with me, for example I have no idea what B&W means, so therefore cannot fix the problemo. For this request, Captions. Expand them, and add periods, could you please give me an example of what you want, as this I do not also understand. I will also try & enlist the help of the Dinosaur wikiproject, but I fear they are pretty much dormant. So other than that, thanks for feedback & try to explain what needs doing in "simple english" if you will. Spawn Man 22:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • As an alternative, I could swap the opening T rex skull photo for the photo of the triceratop's skeleton, so as it is not just a skull picture that opens, or even swap it for the sauropod picture further below that. Comments would be appreciated. Spawn Man 22:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC) BTW, We did have a "drawing of a living dino", but it was on the verge of copyright infringement.

• Support. The pictures are fine, can't get much better without copyright issues. The content is just enough to not clutter the article, and there are many auxillary articles listed that expand on it. Dinoguy2 23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, regrettably. It's a good article, but the single-sentence sections all need to be merged into something more coherent. —Kirill Lokshin 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've lengthened out the one sentence sections. Hope this sways your vote? Spawn Man 23:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Support now (although "Saurischians" and "Ornithischians" probably don't need their own section headings). As an aside, is it a good idea to indicate Molecular paleontology as a main article if it doesn't exist? —Kirill Lokshin 23:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It wasn't my idea to put that title there, but I think it should stay incase someone with the expertese in the field wanted to create an article about it. Could everyone please say whether they would like this link to stay or go? thanks, Spawn Man 23:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support This article has truly improved thanks to the article improvement drive. Tarret 23:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't mention the 6 hours of work I did..... :) Spawn Man 23:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is now a very strong article on a doubtlessly fundamental topic. Soo 01:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Article does not cite about 80% of the assertions it makes. As one example, "while it was once believed that birds simply evolved from dinosaurs and went their separate way, some scientists now believe that some dinosaurs, such as the dromaeosaurs, may have actually evolved from birds, losing the power of flight while keeping the feathers in a manner similar to the Ostrich and other ratites" is a uncited generalization, and the paragraph to which it belongs is vague, weasle-ish, and its other claims are also uncited. By extension, most of the paragraphs in the article are similarly flawed. The lead section is weak, being both vague in its summary of dinosaurs but also containing overly-specific information that is not found anywhere else in the article. John Ostrom's discovery of Deinonychus and the renaissance it supposedly triggered is mentioned no where else in the article. The only place that explains where dinosaur knowledge comes from is the second sentence of the lead, leaving much to be desired—Where are fossils found? What does this suggest about dinosaurs (that they reigned the entire Earth? that certain species were restricted to certain areas?)? What is the geologic window in which dinosaur fossils are found and how do they fit into the broader natural history? The first two sentences expect you to do math to figure out when the dinosaurs reigned. Why is information about fossilization and reconstruction in the "Size" section? The mystery and controversy over the KT extinction event in relation to dinosaurs is not given proper weight, failing to mention how it has implication in things like religion and future possibility of species extinction. The information in the classification section contradicts what is said in say, the pterosaurs article, and that section is additionally badly structured and difficult to follow. Years that are irrelevent to this topic are being linked to despite Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) recommending against it. The article uses self references like "this article" and "see below" and phrases that will be invalid soon ("five years ago", "recently found"). The interesting topic of how people thought of dinosaurs in earlier times is limited to a sentence. After reading this article I have come away feeling unlearned about such an important topic.—jiy (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am saddened to hear that Jiy. Although we strive for complete perfection in FA's, we cannot always do so. I'll try to fix as many things as I can & will reply personally to you soon. Alas, I did not write most of the uncited sentences you suggested above, so I alone would not be able to cite them. Another point I'd like to discuss is that of the KT extinction. How, may I ask, does the extinction affect the future possibility of species extinction? Also, if you read on the dinosaur talk page you would notice the discussion on whether to actually involve creationism or religion in the dinosaur article. Please leave your comments on this subject there. I personally think the section on extinction is quite adequate; It not oly gives an indepth, overall summary of extinction theories, but also gives the link to the main article on the subject, allowing the reader to delve further into the subject. Why add to this section, which has its own page, when there are other sections in need of bigger work which do not have their own page? We have been told to keep the page size to under 50k, so in satisfying your requests, we may be failing another. Please take this under consideration. I would assume that the information which editors have gotten their information from is from the books & papers & sites under the references section & the external links section. I will reply further on your talk, but will try my hardest to adequately fix your shown problems.... Spawn Man 04:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) BTW, I hope this oppose is not because I gave you an earfull about disrupting the images?

(following posted at jiy talk)

In reply to your lengthy paragraph about why you oppose, I would like you to do one thing first, to make it much easier for both of us, please divide your reasons into bullet points. I cannot quickly flip through & search for what is needed when all I see is one giant block. I'll try & address all your problems now, but I can't promise I did not miss one or two.

As per subpage, I did not write most of the uncited sentences you suggested above, so I alone would not be able to cite them, but I would assume they were taken from the references stated. If wish to dig through the 1,000 plus edits on dinosaur, find the editor who wrote them & ask him which sources he used for the sentence he wrote a few months ago, then be my guest. I would assume that zero would remember, & since you said that "over 80%" is uncited (I would assume this is a definite exaggeration), pleasing you would require deleting 80% of the article, meaning there would be nothing left. We could complain about it, but lets admit it, over 3 quarters of wikipedia article are uncited & will never be cited. So although your request is legitimit, it is practically impossible.

I will work on the lead section. It absolutley needs work, you are right.

Some of your questions are answered if you read in depth, such as "Where are fossils found? ". Under the history of discovery section it states what some of the general hotspots are & where they can be found. If you want something more specific, please explain.

From my post on the subpage; Another point I'd like to discuss is that of the KT extinction. How, may I ask, does the extinction affect the future possibility of species extinction? Also, if you read on the dinosaur talk page you would notice the discussion on whether to actually involve creationism or religion in the dinosaur article. Please leave your comments on this subject there. I personally think the section on extinction is quite adequate; It not oly gives an indepth, overall summary of extinction theories, but also gives the link to the main article on the subject, allowing the reader to delve further into the subject. Why add to this section, which has its own page, when there are other sections in need of bigger work which do not have their own page? We have been told to keep the page size to under 50k, so in satisfying your requests, we may be failing another. Please take this under consideration.

I do not understand what you are talking about involving the pterosaur article, please explain.

I will change the "5 years ago" reference etc. lso, what would you like me to change the "see below" statements to? "See this section" or something else? Please elaborate.

That's basically it. I'll get on it as soon as I can. Kind Regards, Spawn Man 04:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - This may be a somewhat lengthy article, but is just enough to give enough details, without getting lost into the details. It gives a good overview of the new insights in taxonomy. In other words : it's a good starting point if you want to know more about dinosaurs. Just a pity that there are no better pictures available; they would give even more credit to this article. JoJan 09:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, the text is less than brilliant, much of the article is single sentence paragraphs, there are uncomfortable self referential links, the TOC is overly long sections broken down unnecessarily, particularly the bird/dinosaur section and the fields of study section, and as jiy point out there is too much weasel langauge, where primary research backs up the point, cite it. There shouldn't be {{main}} links to unwritten articles. There is a mix of footnotes and harvard notes, references should be in a standard format throughout the article. And while on the references, WP:CITE states you should actively search for authoritative references to cite, so in an ideal world the primary research discussed in all the footnotes would actaully be listed, rather than (or in addition to) the regurgitated simplified media version.--nixie 11:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed the single sentence paragraphs, funnily, a while before you posted your complaints on here. I fail to see which paragraphs are still single sentences. In regard to the "uncomfortable self referential links", could you please explain what you mean by this? The way I'm reading it, it sounds like I should give them a pillow & a personal massage? The weasel language will be fixed, but alas I did have to sleep last night, & now since there has been an outcry to remove the molecular paleontology link, it will be removed. Spawn Man 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, there are too many redlinks. I removed one "Main article:redlink" which shouldnt have been there, but there are still a few remaining. Also not sure about the pic layout changed in this edit which sounds like a threat. It was an interesting easy to read article though, I think its close. ---- Astrokey44|talk 12:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • (i) Presence or absence of redlinks is not mentioned in the criteria. It is better keep redlinks for articles that are needed than tactically delink to remove them. (ii) What bearing does the putative "threat" have on whether or nto the article meets the featured article criteria (the only potential relevance I can see is 2(e) - "stability" - but moving images does not amount to an edit war). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ALoan here. Astrokey44, you have given me no problems to fix what so ever! Red links are inevitable & I cannot change what happened in the past with the image re arranging. Either come up with something I can fix or remove your vote.... Spawn Man 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrokey44, I have checked all the article for as you say, "there are too many redlinks". I only found six. For an article this size, it is excellent. Plus all the red links were to key articles that may be created by someone with experience. Your objection is looking rediculous if I may say so. It has nothing to stand on what so ever. There are little red links, no main article redlink any more & the edit summary cannot be changed. Spawn Man 23:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

ok since the main article redlink isnt there anymore Ill remove my objection. Are there any other pictures which would work here, it the sort of article you would expect to have alot of good pictures. I found a couple from commons which might work ---- Astrokey44|talk 03:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Support now. I didnt mean to give the wrong impression before, I do think its well written and comprehensive, there were just minor things which I think have been fixed now. It would make a great featured article ---- Astrokey44|talk 05:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I have completed the following tasks from everyone:

• Gotten a better picture for the lead.
• Change the AID template on the talk page.
• Wrote to get help from a WikiProject.
• Fixed just about all of the to do's on the talk page.
• Merged & rewrote the single-sentence sections.
• Removed the phrases, "five years ago" & "recently found" from text.
• Reduced ToC, particularly in the bird/dinosaur section.
• Removed the main article redlink.
• Have removed all self references.
• Have removed all links to years, per manual of style.
• Have expanded captions.
• Have added periods/full stops to all captions.
• Removed double punctuations.
• Moved all citaion boxes to directly behind the punctuation.
• Merged short paragraphs in the definition section.
• Got a citation for the Oort Cloud section.
• Got a citation for Bakker's work in the warm blooded section.
• Replaced "The study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, is detailed in the July 14 issue of the journal Nature." with a citation.
• Rearranged hip structure paragraphs to suitable liking.
• Most foot notes now point to actual printed references.
• Corrected dino dates in the lead so readers do not have to do the math.
• Removed all harvard style references into footnotes per MoS.
• Expanded & cited parts of the evolution section.
• Sourced that darstardly Cretacious changes section.
• Sourced part of the history section, as well as many other sections.
• Explained the theory of the Gondwanaland break up & dinosaurs.
• Removed all POV problems in the popular clture section that I could see.
• Deleted turok evolution picture.
• Deleted Barney picture.

• • Please, could everyone tell me if the like the way the pics of the dinosaur hips, set out by ALoan is adequate? Spawn Man 22:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object—Good work on this so far, but there is a lack of inline citations in portions of the text (the last three level 2 sections have none, and the "Areas of debate", which should arguably have the most citations of any section, has only three). Additionally, none of the notes point to actual print references. Also, the formatting of the citations is poor -- the number should immediately follow the punctuation, and there should be no repeat punctuation (see no. 15 especially -- to make it right, just remove that last period). I'll fix this tomorrow if I get a chance. Last thing I'll mention is that there are a number of very short paragraphs in the "Definition" section. Combining some of those would be helpful, but others seem very poorly placed ("Dinosaurs are extremely varied...", for example). Hope this helps. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think the history section needs a source, even if it's only one at the end of the section (if one source covers all the material there). And there are still weasel words and unreferenced claims in the debates and extinction sections:

• "It has been claimed that..." in Evidence for Cenozoic dinosaurs
• "some scientists, most notably Gregory S. Paul," in Skeleton
• "The study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, is detailed in the July 14 issue of the journal Nature." in Lungs (replace with citation) Done, can you see if I've done it properly?
• "according to an investigation led by Patrick O'Connor" in Lungs (documentation?) Completed with above.
• Gizzard and Care of Young don't have any source (maybe incorporate care of young into the reproduction section, and gizzard into a new section called "anatomy" or the like -- that would help reduce the size of the TOC as well)
• "The theory first proposed by Walter Alvarez in the late 1970s" in asteroid collision (publication info?)
• "The environment during the late Cretaceous was changing dramatically." in environment changes. To me, a non-scientist, that sounds rather speculative. Is there a source for that info?

Note that when I say inline citation, I mean either footnote or parenthetical citation -- I believe that's common usage but I thought I'd be explicit. I say that because I'd like to see page numbers on those sources, if at all possible, and including them might look better if done in footnotes. In that case, the note itself might simply list the first author's last name and the page number, allowing the reader to refer to the references for the full bibliography (see welding, for example). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, one more thing -- re the hip image, I'd prefer to see most of the caption text in the article itself. Just keep "Blah hip structure" in the image caption. I don't have a problem with the actual placements of the images, since there really isn't any other option other than galleries (won't be able to read the text) and stacking them (looks bad, unless that section doubles in length). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Support—A few more inline citations need to be added, but I'm planning to do a little work on that this afternoon. Overall, a really well-done article; Spawn Man has done a great job. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, I'll see what I can do. I admit however, I may need help with the citations part, I'm new to it... Spawn Man 00:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Support, This article has been GREATLY improved. The time and effort clearly shows. And while there could still be some tweaks, here and there, it makes the grade as a good general overview article. Inline citations are more a question of style preference than a requirement.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Conditional Support, so long as no one else objects to unreferenced factual statements, I think this article is very good and shows what's great about wikipedia. - JustinWick 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Support. There are certainly some sections that could benefit from some expansion, and perhaps a few things that ought to be wikilinked. I'll admit I haven't read through the article word-for-word, so I cannot really speak to the language, but it's certainly a more than long enough article, with plenty of pictures, and most if not all of the relevant headings/sections. LordAmeth 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Object. The article still needs a thorough copyedit to remove sharp changes in tone (e.g., "The Jurassic Park movies also inspired a couple of console games"; "In fact, most dinosaurs were much smaller than we would expect".) Some texts that fail the verifiability test survive (e.g, the intro comment about Gondwanaland; the fossils may corroborate the theory, but certainly don't prove it). The bringing-back-to-life section is speculative at best, not encyclopedic; the pop culture discussions, in general, have NPOV problems, and suggest that the idea of humans and dinosaurs being contemporaneous is in some way plausible. Monicasdude 16:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have said on your talk page, I feel I have completed your tasks. You have not ellaborated on how I can do more, but instead attack me. Plus, if you want a request done promptly, do not use "long" "waffle" words, (usually said to make the user sound more important), like contemporaneous. I have not idea what the heck that means & it isn't in the text. Use proper words please. Spawn Man 22:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Triceratops 1.jpg is tagged as GFDL and Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike. Both of these require the creator's name and copyright statement to be included with the image, but there's no sign of it. I could delete the image or keep it, but I cannot find any sign of creator other than the person who uploaded it... Please ellaborate..
     • You could try emailing the uploader and ask if he created it. --Carnildo 00:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. The image Image:Barneythedinosaur.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but Barney is only mentioned briefly in the article. This does not seem to qualify for fair use. Removed picture
  3. The image Image:Turokevolutionbox.jpg is tagged as fair use, but seems to be used for decorative purposes only. This is not allowed under Wikipedia:Fair use.Removed Picture
  4. Much of the "in popular culture" section is unsourced. For example, what is the claim that "Jurassic Park, brought dinosaurs into the media spotlight"? Dinosaurs were popular well before that. I do not understand the problem here. I have rewritten the example above to sound less POV, but I did not know you needed to cite obvious things like "Jurrasic park lead to two sequels" or "dinosaurs have been used in these games..." Please explain
     • The statement "Jurassic Park had two sequels" is a fairly self-evident fact and does not need to be sourced. The statement "Due to the popularity of the movies...dinosaurs have become a permanent fixture in today's world" is an opinion, and needs to be sourced. --Carnildo 00:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  --Carnildo 07:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, I feel I've fixed most of what you've asked... Spawn Man 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - tremendous piece of work for a fourteen year old. Some of issues identified above are real, but I'm certain SM will get to work on them over the weekend.--File Éireann 10:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: This article has really turned around. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck

[edit] Prostate cancer

Partial self-nomination. This is an article we've worked on at the Medicine Collaboration of the Week, and the topic certainly merits a featured-standard article. We've been working hard on this article and feel it has improved significantly. It has had a peer review which can be read here. InvictaHOG 07:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support:Extremely good and informative page. Well referenced important subject. Should be on the front page. Giano | talk 08:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support a good informative article that provide many references. Would do nicely on the doorstep. Scoo 16:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, on a few technicalities, the numbered references in text do not have corresponding numbered notes, look at using a system like that in Canberra where the same ref is used more than once. I don't think the headings within the radiation therapy section add anything to the article- they break up the text and the TOC unnecessarily. And it would be nice to know the prognosis for men with prostate cancer in places other than the United States.--nixie 05:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the an with ref throughout and reformatted the radiation therapy section. Prognosis in other countries is related to life expectancy, with most developing countries having fewer deaths because they don't live long enough! But as far as hard numbers, as usual, they have been hard to come by. When you have limited health care, you have limited public health. The prognosis section has been targeted for some expansion, but nothing has really been forthcoming yet...InvictaHOG 11:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• The notes are still funky, it happens somewhere after note 40.--nixie 11:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

After looking at it now, I still see a problem with the references system: If an external link is added somewhere in the article, all the numbers of the references will be screwed up. Also, the refs have to be in the exact order they appear in the article to match the right number. Does another system/template exist that works better? Or would it be better to remove all the numbers from the reference list? --WS 11:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ref/note is not ideal, but it is the best system, and ideally the numbers in the text and the numbered refs should match, so don't remove the numbers. The numbering should automatically happen if the notes in the text and the list are in the same order. If a note is referred to more than once (which will cause a numbering problem in the text numbering), use the system that is used in Canberra which enables multipe cites of the same number to the same note. Alternatively use a different label for each use of the same note, foe example notes 9 and 40 have the same label, which is causing one of the numbering issues. You may also want to include commented out instructions so people that may add ref subsequently know how to do it.--nixie 11:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what happened and fixed it for this article. I like that you can use ref_label to identify numbered links, but it seems fairly cumbersome to make sure that link 4 stays link 4 (which seems to be the way it works from the tag). In any event, they now line up (though I duplicated a reference instead of using ref_label). We should come up with a better system. InvictaHOG 01:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I reworked the prognosis section into an actual prognosis/epidemiology section. I have included what statistics I could find from America, China, Japan, Africa, India. It's difficult to know how reliable the data is, but it's all we have! InvictaHOG 02:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts, support. There is still one minor problem, note 27 on the list of references links the note 10 in the text and vice versa.--nixie 02:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Conditional Oppose - It's a wonderful article, and it contains a ton of great notes/references, which is very important for medical topics. There are a few paragraphs in the "screening" session that do not have notations explaining what their sources are - I apologize for not having the time to read the sources completely (surely that can be understood) but unless there's a consensus that it's obvious where one needs to go to find information to support statements like this:

Prostate cancer screening generally begins after age fifty, but may be offered earlier in black men or men with a strong family history of prostate cancer. Although there is no officially recommended cutoff, many health care providers stop monitoring PSA in men who are older than 75 years old because of concern that prostate cancer therapy may do more harm than good as age progresses and life expectancy decreases.

Fantastic article in all other respects though, and whatever is decided here, everyone involved deserves kudos :) - JustinWick 02:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a reference which not only goes over some guidelines (unfortunately, there are a multitude of guidelines from different well-respected groups) but also offers a view into actual practice. InvictaHOG 03:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The physicians working on this have done an excellent job of presenting an informative, easily read, and well referenced article. Edwardian 19:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I think this is an excellent article; well-researched and documented. Great images too. Rlevse 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object Not up-to-date with groundbreaking recent research. If anyone is interested, let me know, since I am an expert on scientific topics. Cognition 21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What 'groundbreaking recent research' are you referring to? Something specific? --WS 18:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Support: I also like the article & quality of images. This article highlights an area popular ignorance, & could potentially save lives. well done Medi Collaborators. however, i think we should wait a couple of days until it's featured. today is the day wikipedia featured it's dullest, most frivilous article. though this article is by no means dull, the subject matter is a little dry. something like the Dinosaur article (or even corvette/TGV) is the perfect antidote to the tedium of shoe polish. then after a couple of days we could feature this article? Veej 00:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone else mentioned this when you made a similar comment above, but being a featured article is not the same as being Today's Featured Article.165.139.116.60 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The above was me forgetting to sign in The Catfish 05:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks great and with plenty of references. The Medicine CotW seems to be accomplishing a lot of great things! Tuf-Kat 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• comment:I skimmed through it quickly and well appears okay in general. Makes me feel like I should go get my prostate checked. It has some good images however, maybe some statistics (on the population demographics and on how many people get prostate cancer), I think, could be in the format of a graph to lighten up the subject? (it is good as is though!). It seems to talk mostly about the medical side of diagnostics and treatment. (Technical!) What are the psychological effects or the "lifestyle alterations?" (maybe not important either, because you could do some further reading) ... All these examples are to say that everyone learns differently... maybe an anecdote might please the more tactile learners... 1) how do people cope with it 2) Are there any famous people that have had this disease and coped with it? (probably in the links at the bottom, I know, I should read the article completely, but these are only my impressions) --CylePat 03:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Good use of inline citations, looks good with one exceptions: too many short sections - I could tag several as them as 'stub sections'. This also results in a rather too large ToC. Expand the sections, or merge with others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TGV

This is a self-nomination, although other people, notably Willkm, deserve much more credit than me for the great work they have done on this article. The article went through a peer review already (archive), and I think all the comments have been taken into account. The article is comprehensive, well-referenced, and has plenty of nice, free, images. The only unanswered question I know of may be the size of the article: at 47 Kb, it may be slightly too long. It is a complete guide, and it looks good as it is now; some sections could, however, be moved elsewhere and summarized if necessary. Schutz 00:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Very good article! Two minor technical points, though: (1) the "References and Further Reading" section should be broken up into separate "Notes" and "References" sections, and (2) anything already linked in the text should be taken out of the "See also" section. —Kirill Lokshin 01:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. I have removed quite a few "see also" entries, although I have kept the Shinkansen, even though it is briefly cited in the history section, to keep the list of high-speed trains intact (it should perhaps become a navigational template sometime). Schutz 08:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Great! Support from me, then. —Kirill Lokshin 16:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And while I am at it: see Template:High-speed trains, linked from High-speed rail. Still a bit too rough to be put on the TGV page, but it is a start. Schutz 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• mild Support. I helped out with formatting, copyedits and added some information on recent news events. I agree that it's a little long and suggested a possible subarticle on the talk page. Slambo (Speak) 18:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think this article is too long at all. Topics like those one require a great deal of detail, and I think anything under 96k is acceptable (Hugo Chavez is a mite bigger, but not inacceptably so). Andrew Levine 22:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Good detail on all aspects now. Willkm 23:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Eurostar main page link is a bit vague - perhaps specify that this is only about the actual train, rather than the whole Eurostar operation? Willkm 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Looks very complete, good work. Some minor comments from someone who knows very little about rail transport:

• Could have explained what LGV meant earlier (preferably when the term is first used)

• Done. Schutz 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• The fourth paragraph under "Tracks" is confusing - I suppose it was made from a bullet-point list, but from what I think it means it should be rephrased to something like: "Track alignment is more precise than on normal railway lines, and ballast is built into the stronger profile. [really not sure what the last sentence means]". Link sleepers, too, maybe?

• I've added a link to sleepers and took a stab at clarifying the wording regarding ballast as well, plus added a link to profile. Hope this helps.--Lordkinbote 22:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why is the current of the Italian high-speed line mentioned? Does it run TGV as well? After all, high-speed rail is a different article.

• Seems like a fair comment to me, although I'll wait for confirmation from someone else before making a change. Schutz 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• This seems to relate to the Protests against the TGV" section (2nd paragraph), and is therefore appropriate information to include.--Lordkinbote 23:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't know. The protests seem to be about the Lyon-Turin line, that is, an extension of the TGV. However, the "tracks" section include information about the Rome–Florence and other sections, as well as information about Austria, all places where the TGV does not go, which makes me question the relevance, just like Sam Vimes. Schutz 23:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's true, it does sound a bit odd. I've rewritten it a bit - if you think it makes more sense now, great, but if it still sounds out of place in this article then definitely scrap it. It is probably a minor detail which isn't actually necessary here. I think the connection is that the new lines will join it up direcly with the France-centred "European" LGV network and TGVs will run straight through. I've also cut Austria, but added Switzerland, where TGVs do go. Willkm 00:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, but... in Switzerland, TGVs do not use LGVs, so it does not really fit under All LGVs connected directly to the French network .... Too late for me to make the change now, but will look at that tomorrow if still needed. Schutz 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Good point. I've got rid of Switzerland as it's not relevant to this section. Willkm 01:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Avignon TGV station, opened in 2001, has won particular praise as one of the most remarkable stations on the network" - who praised it? Inline citation, maybe?

• I have found two references; the first one could probably be omitted (it is not terribly relevant), but it does contain some praise, and is online. Schutz 23:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• I've added another very relevant online one Willkm 00:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hope you don't mind the nitpicking, I just want an FA to be perfect. ;) Sam Vimes 17:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not only do I not mind, but I am grateful — this is how things improve. And it is better than not getting any comment and not being sure if anyone actually read the article ;-) Schutz 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Fully agree and appreciate the nitpicking :). Willkm 00:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Nitpicking now dealt with, support. Sam Vimes 14:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, article looks like a good FA, even at its current length (some FA's have been much longer, especially the image-intensive ones!).--Lordkinbote 00:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well done! - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now Good start, but there's too much POV against the TGVs. Cognition 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I didn't get that impression on my most recent read (granted, it was before many of the edits that have during this nomination process). Could you give a few examples? Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 21:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, I don't know much about it, but this seems like an interesting and comprehensive article. Tuf-Kat 01:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A great article about an interesting subject. Just one thing - the lead section seems a bit too long, making the article look unbalanced at the top. Ronline ✉ 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Looks good, but references mentioned in footnotes should be repeated in the reference section, plus some external links used as references miss 'last retrieved on... info.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitution in the People's Republic of China

Self nomination. I spent about three weeks writing this article from scratch. Quite a few issues were resolved through peer review. All referencing is now finished and I think the article covers the topic quite comprehensively. Yeu Ninje 23:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Just on first glance, I would recommend a lead picture. Perhaps the image wiht the blurred light labeled "Street prostitutes in the bar district of Sanlitun in Beijing." should be moved up to the top of the page. I will be able to take a better look at the article later. -Scm83x 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've moved the image to the intro as you suggest. How does it look now? To me the image seems a bit awkwardly placed, maybe because it's landscape rather than portrait. Yeu Ninje 09:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• It does look only a bit awkward. I just also noticed that the same thing I mentioned was in your peer review, so you should really consider finding a picture that is suitable, now that it's come up twice. -Scm83x 11:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, it's just hard to find photos illustrating prostitution. Prostitutes don't take too kindly to being photographed, especially since the practice is illegal in China. But no matter, I'll have another search. Yeu Ninje 12:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. I have just gone through the article and fixed a lot of grammatical structures etc. that I didn't think sounded good. I think that you have done an excellent job and that this is now 80%-90% on the way to a FA. I have two reservations:

• The article mainly seems to be written from the perspective of law enforcement, and there is almost nothing exhibiting the prostitutes' points of view. I am sure that with 10 million prostitutes in the PRC there is a very good chance that some of them have written of their experience. Also what are the prevailing feelings of Chinese academics (especially feminists) on prostitution? How is prostitution depicted in popular media in China (I don't know the exact degree of control which the CCP has over their entertainment industry, but are there some notable depictions of prostitutes in Chinese film, TV, recent literature, etc. that have shaped public perception)?

*I don't understand the last part of the sentence "Following a 2000 police campaign, Chinese economist Yang Fan estimated that the Chinese GDP slumped by 1%, due to the lack of consumption on the part of female prostitutes." Does this mean "...due to a drop in the patronisation of female prostitutes"? I wasn't sure enough to change it. Andrew Levine 19:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• • After the campaign, a large number of female prostitutes lost their livelihoods. Because of this, they consumed less and there was less demand for production, hence the slump in GDP. Yeu Ninje 20:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to some of Andrew Levine's concerns:

• The views of Chinese academics are mentioned throughout the article. For example, Pan Suiming is quoted a number of times. Other academics referred to include Zhang Ping, Shan Guangnai, Xin Ren etc., either within the article or in notes. The views of Chinese feminism are also covered with references to the All-China Women's Federation and women's groups in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The prevailing views among Chinese academics is mostly expounded in the "The question of legalisation" section.
• It is true that law enforcement takes a large part of the article, but that is just because most of the secondary literature focuses on these areas. No authoritative survey has been conducted of prostitute's attitudes or public perceptions of prostitution in China, so most literature on prostitution in China relies on sources given by Chinese law enforcement.
• To my knowledge, nothing notable has been published by a prostitute about her experiences. This is because of strict governmental controls, the general conservatism of Chinese society and the fact that many prostitutes are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds without much education. Still, there is some discussion of prostitution from the perspective of sellers of sex. For example, "The potential benefits of prostitution as an alternative form of employment include greater disposable income, access to upwardly mobile social circles and lifestyle options."
• With regard to popular media, I've expanded the "Prostitution in the media" section, citing the depictions of prostitution which have started to emerge in the arts. Yeu Ninje 21:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns have been adequately addressed by Yeu Ninje, who deserves praise for what I hope will be his second FA in a month. Andrew Levine 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Shanghai Surprise Support, VERY good article! I hope it makes the main page to piss off the Chinese Government:> --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: While this article mentions failures and difficulties in policing, it would be interesting to note the collusion between the industry and the authorities. A discussion of actual punishments handed down for prostitution (for example this versus the minor detention and release of a foreigner) will be useful. Another resource is here. While this article is very comprehensive on the legal aspects, this also means the coverage is lopsided. I dont know if this link will help expand the types and venues section. More could be added on what kind of people solicit prostitutes, what kind of people become prostitutes, and on the actual act of prostitution itself. --Jiang 01:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that you referenced the LegCO candidate incident (note 39) as evidence that "the Chinese media has publicised numerous cases of government officials being convicted and disciplined for abusing their positions for prostitution". This is an inappropriate reference. He was a Democratic Party candidate (not a Communist Party official), and the criticism of the Central Government was that it was trying to discredit, through this arrest, a candidate hostile to the Central Government.--Jiang 01:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced the incorrect source with another, and incorporated the LegCo candidate incident into the media section of the article. Yeu Ninje 04:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added some more information on the acts that prostitutes commonly engage in. Some of the other elements you mentioned, like governmental corruption, actual punishments handed down, and profile of prostitutes are dealt with in the text. Governmental corruption in particular is dealt with at some length. The summary of Pan Suiming's Red Light District is very useful. If there's any additional information from that source which you think should be added, please go ahead and add it. Yeu Ninje 08:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. You do realize this will never make it to the main page even if featured, right?--HereToHelp (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is that? Yeu Ninje 20:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Prostitution was the main-page featured article on May 3, 2004 according to Talk:Prostitution. So what's the big deal? Andrew Levine 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: it's not listed as a featured article on Featured_article 140.32.75.31 13:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not listed there because it is a Former featured article. And yes, it was on the main page. Andrew Levine 17:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The removal discussion can be found here, if you're curious. It looks like it would still need considerable work to become Featured again, but it has also improved a bit since its FA removal. If someone is desperate to get Prostitution featured again, I'd suggest starting by making Prostitution in Germany, Prostitution in Japan, Prostitution in Thailand, etc. as good as possible, so that the overall article has a solid foundation. Anville 18:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Good article. I would like to see a lead picture; however, none of the pictures in the article right now seem quite the one, and I recognize that finding illustrations for this topic is difficult. Anville 09:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Still searching for a lead picture. Question: is a lead question picture absolutely necessary for an article to become featured? Yeu Ninje 10:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I presume "lead question" is a malatypism for "lead picture". According to WP:WIAFA, "including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." You've clearly surpassed that point already! ;) Supposing that it ever makes the Main Page, Raul654 would pick the best image of what's there, trim and scale it down, and use it with a (probably) compressed version of the lead section. Anville 15:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: One more voice in the chorus isn't needed, but this is a truly impressive body of work with exceptional research. Of course, one could wish for all sorts of things (the old Marxist allegation that prostitution is the primary metaphor of capitalism, with cannibalism coming in next (particularly Marxist fiction has employed these metaphors)) and that the re-emergence, therefore could be seen in that light, etc., but none of that would actually be important nor add a whit to this well done article. Geogre 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Tons of references given the article is of medium length. Great discussion of legal and cultural issues. Incredibly informational, and very interesting subject material (yes I know that's not in the guidelines but I contend it does make a difference as to if anyone will actually read it). Contraversial subject, but reasonably NPOV language. Congrats to all involved, we have a winner :) - JustinWick 02:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support article is well referenced and written. it's good to go--Jiang 04:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] De Lorean DMC-12

By far my favorite car of all time, and it deserves featured article status. I worked on cleaning it up (turning lists into prose, language, etc) and I think it is well referenced (has inline citations in footnote form too). It went through peer review as well. — Wackymacs 08:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Informative. Almost comprehensive. It would be good to have some quantitative sales figures, if at all possible. deeptrivia (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Can you see if you can stop the text jamming up against the info box at the start? Please see my inline comments throughout. Present and past tense may need to be checked throughout for consistency. Tony 15:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object:Support
  1. The image Image:DMC publicity photo.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but is used for decorative purposes only. It should be removed.
  2. The image Image:DMC12-interior.jpg is tagged as "fair use". It's quite possible for a Wikipedian to make a free-license replacement, so there's no reason to use a fair-use image here.
  3. In the description of the engine, "Gas mileage was said to be 19 mpg". Is this street mileage, highway mileage, or closed-circuit mileage at the car's most efficient speed?
  4. The "suspension", "Production changes", and "Pricing" sections need wikilinks to appropriate articles.
  5. It would be nice to have an exterior photo of the car with the doors closed.

  --Carnildo 22:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've fixed all your objections except for point 3 (which I don't believe can be used as an objection, rather a suggestion/comment). Thanks for pointing the things out that you did. — Wackymacs 10:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Looks good. Thanks for the picture -- everyone wants to show off the gull-wing doors of the De Lorean, so even though there are five of them that show up for a local parade each year, and the staging area for those cars is right in front of my apartment, I've never seen a De Lorean with the doors closed. --Carnildo

• Support, as much information as I could want on the subject. Andrew Levine 02:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Informative article, maybe a little too detailed in places (but it's about a car, so you need the detail). The sentence 'At least three DMC-12s were used in various adult pornography films parodying the Back to the Future trilogy' intruiged me. Maybe you can give an example title of one of those movies. If the images are cleared for fair use, I'd give this a go. -- Cugel 10:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: well-referenced and comprehensive. Who could want to know more? Batmanand 11:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Mild objectMild support: Great pictures; lousy captions. Expand and add periods. Also resolve the issues on the talk page "pending taks" template. Perhaps you could elaborate on the popular culture; mention Back to the Future more than once. Great start; fix it up a little as I've mentioned and then I'll support. --HereToHelp (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have fixed the image captions. I've also added a mention of the Europe/UK models which had the right-hand drive. I don't see any reason to mention Back to The Future any more, its already mentioned in the lead and in the popular culture section with enough information. The pending tasks on the Talk page were made back in January 2005, from looking around I can't see much more information that can be suitably added to the existing article, so the pending tasks are redundant. — Wackymacs 18:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks okay now. Chaged my vote above to a mild support. I'm still not crazy about the article...but okay, sure, let's have it be featured. Part of it is that this topic is narrower than some other FAs, Evolution is a good example, so it won't be so long and have as much data. But this looks good enough.--HereToHelp (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Great Scott... igordebraga [[User talk:Igordebraga|*]] 16:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Minor Object - How many times is it really necessary within the introduction and first two sections to beat it into us that Giorgetto Giugiaro designed the thing? :) Also, down in the "Special DMC-12s" section, can the sentence: "leaving the driver stranded on the road at night this happened to De Lorean owner Johnny Carson." not only be fixed but, if possible, referenced? You MAY also want to mention that DeLorean offered a job to Andrew Probert after seeing the modified DMC-12 designs for Back to the Future, but that Probert declined and eventually wound up working on Star Trek: The Next Generation (and a drawing that Probert did as a lark of a futuristic looking Enterprise became the concept drawing that led to the final design of the Enterprise-D, but that probably belongs in his article, not this one :).

• Okay, prose is better, but what about the references for statements like the one about Johnny Carson? Skip the Probert trivia item, it's not that relevant, though it was interesting (it's on the BTTF DVD set if I remember correctly). --JohnDBuell 12:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support If all minor but cool subjects on wikipedia had this great of coverage, well we'd be set :) - JustinWick 03:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Phelps

Ok, lets try this one again. Comprehensive, well referenced, extremely detailed account of Phelps' life and works, and as NPOV as possible given his extreme views. Covering his entire life from birth to the present day with substantial content on all periods. If you're going to object, do so objectively if you'll pardon the pun, not because of personal feelings about the guy. exolon 02:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral/Comment. I'll pass on saying yea or nay, but I will say this: the only thing I'd nominate him for is a firing squad. Blech. -- Cjmarsicano 02:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. This is well on its way to Featured Article status. I will have to read through the whole thing more carefully later, but what strikes me most is the use of inline references, which should be avoided in featured articles. I prefer a footnoted system (like that used in Hugo Chávez or Rosa Parks). Andrew Levine 03:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, detailed and surprisingly neutral account. The citations have been improved greatly. Andrew Levine 18:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Support. Inline citations (all the html links in the context) need to be converted to footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnote. The references section is extremely disappointing with only three refs for an article that is 64.6k!, the suggested limit is 32k, see Wikipedia:Article Size, you need to copy-edit and seriously cut down on the info in the article, its just too long. — Wackymacs 07:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Those of you wanting footnotes, rather than inline citations - can you point me at the FA criteria for this? I can't see it on there. 84.68.106.31 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. 32k limit is decidedly NOT a feature article criteria.. We have a couple dozen very good FAs that are over that limit (some of the best are over 60k), and are much more interesting to read because of their comprehensiveness. It is much more important for a FA to provide a very detailed look at its subject than for it to be compatible with a tiny minority of legacy browsers. Andrew Levine 17:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • True, and I would object to just removing information from the article to cut it down to size. However, Wikipedia:Summary style - division of the articles into detailed sub-articles which are summarized in the main one - is a good thing, and while not a criterion, is starting to look like a good idea in this particular case.--Eloquence* 15:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object, as before: The image Image:Phelps51.JPG has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 07:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I know he's an asshole, but do we really need such an ugly picture of him as the lead image? --Carnildo 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You could move the 2001 pic to the top, and put the 2004 in the health section? 84.65.180.192 13:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Reminder: There is no preference in FA's for inline vs. footnotes, and length is more impressionistic than bytes. Some really, really long articles have been FA's, because they've really, really needed to be that long (e.g. Restoration literature), and the 32 kb is a now otiose "preference" more than requirement. Geogre 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Footnote comment: Inline references are as Geogre points out absolutely fine, and footnotes are by no means mandated over them. Please see John Vanbrugh for the kind of inline references that are recommended. These work well for print sources, but inline links are deprecated for FAs, and should indeed be converted to footnotes. A couple of reasons: automatically-numbered links in the text cannot be mixed with automatically-numbered footnotes (which somebody might need to add at any time, to refer to a printed source), as the numbering of both kinds will get seriously screwed up; and inline links won't carry any information at all in the coming print Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • See the discussion on the talk page about reference styles. Raven4x4x 06:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Well written article with solid citations, and considering the circumstances, does an excellent job of being NPOV. Oh, and to the user above, the copyright info for that pic has been fixed, so you might want to consider changing your object status.Timmybiscool 04:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Ditto from above commentors. Plus I just finished (*PHEW*) footnoting the damn thing, so maybe some above detractors objecting on the isssue of footnoting can now go back.Mistergrind 06:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'm impressed by this. Everyking 07:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Despicable man, but I support. Hydriotaphia 08:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's very comprehensive and detailed and about as neutral as possible when it comes to the man. User:Medico_Dinamico
• Support, though as I nominated it not sure if that counts or is intrinsic to the nomination. Apologies for not getting to the objections before others, my online time has taken a sudden drastic cut due to personal circumstances. Appreciations to the other editors who've looked at and sorted the objections. exolon 20:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support I forsee great strife if it ever makes the Main Page. Anville 10:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Good article, but would benefit from being written in Wikipedia:summary style. Borisblue 06:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the article reflects a lot of hard work put into it, it's way too long for the subject matter. You could begin making the size managable by cutting some of the extraneous details about Phelps' family members. Here are some other things I noticed:

1. The introduction section does not really explain why Phelps is notable. In addition, I really dislike the phrase "an alleged cult." Alleged by whom?
2. I would eliminate the following sentence: "Ironically, his boxing ability would become the subject of one of his most infamous quotes, when he would later advocate spousal abuse as being Biblical." Foreshadowing doesn't really belong in a Wikipedia article, and it's a misuse of the word "ironically."
3. Why is there a section titled "Conversion?" The prior section says he was already a devout Baptist.
4. The phrase "citing Biblical restrictions on marrying divorcees" makes it sound as if there really is a Biblical restriction on doing so for laypeople.
5. The following segment is very confusing: "the only Phelps children to meet him were Mark and Fred Jr; Mark, Nate, and Dorothy claim they never knew their grandfather's name until the Topeka Capital-Journal ran an article in 1994." For one, the children are not mentioned before; also, Mark is listed in both sections.
6. The following sentence is confusing: "Phelps left Mississippi for Bob Jones University. While there, he was part of an unsuccessful mission to convert Mormons in the town of Vernal, Utah." That makes it sound as if BJU is in Utah.
7. There is no reference for the claims about shooting the dog and making racial slurs.
8. Was Jonathan's attacker a woman dressed as a man or vice versa? You would think the latter, but you call the attacker a "woman" and use "she." (The story doesn't really need to be in anyway.)
9. This segment is also hard to understand: "In order to become an attorney in Kansas, the applicant must have a signed affidavit from a judge attesting to the applicant's good character. Because of the reputation Phelps had garnered during his time at Washburn, not to mention his actions at Eastside and later Westboro, no judge was willing to sign the affidavit. Phelps finally managed to bypass this by submitting affidavits from his friends the Hockenbargers, and copies of letters of good conduct from his days as an Eagle Scout." Was Hockenbarger a judge? If not, how can you say that he needed an affidavit from one?

Sometimes, the most difficult part of writing can be choosing what to include. I think you have a ways to go on that part with this article. Mwalcoff 01:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White's Tree Frog

I have created this article, and run it through peer review, and there seems to be no more additions needed. It was improved gretly by the peer review. I think it is a good, comprehensive article and hopefully ready for featured article status. --liquidGhoul 23:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• No vote yet: What kind of "gland" is on its head? In the distribution section, it says they're in northern and eastern Australia, but in the section before it said, I think, that they're only in northwestern Australia. Was that the magnificent that's only there? A bit confusing right along there. Geogre 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Changed the similar species names all to common names, to make it a clearer, and added the types of glands present in magnificent tree frog. --liquidGhoul 01:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I'm a sucker for tree frogs, and the writing looks good, comprehensive, and clear. I've done a slight copy edit on a couple of rough spots. Geogre 11:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Ribbit. Oh, sorry - crawk. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic article, though I'd recommend a copy-edit! —Hollow Wilerding 01:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support very well done AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 04:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Would be nice if you attempt to fix the red links by creating those articles or removing those links. Otherwise looks good! — Wackymacs 12:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No problem, I will create them in the next couple days. --liquidGhoul 12:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why people are so opposed to red links. While blue links are usually better than red links, some stubby articles are more disappointing than a red link and give a misleading impression of our coverage. Sometimes it is better to know that an article does not exist, since it encourages editors to create a decent one :) It is certainly better to have a red link to an article that should exist but does not (such as magnificent tree frog) than delink the words. Over at WP:FLC, we interpret the criterion of usefulness as requiring a supermajority of blue links, and reject lists dominated by red links; on the other hand, we also reject lists that are tactically unlinked to eliminate red links. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: For whatever it's worth, I think in specialized articles, in particular, redlinks are good for us. Who is going to jump in to read an article about White's tree frog (other than when it's on the main page)? Froggers. Those folks will have an interest in frogs and possibly some expertise. They are, indeed, exactly the people we want going, "Oh, heavens! No article on my favorite amphibian? Let me write it!" They'll do the research and fill out something in detail, and they might stick around. If they see a blue, they might well pass it by, figuring that it will be of the same quality as what they're reading. The same principle would be true of any area where academic training is necessary, although it might not be very true of popular culture topics. Geogre 13:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I was mainly concerned with the lead section, as that shouldn't have red links if it ever gets onto the front page. --liquidGhoul 13:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, please write them if you want to: mu point is just saying not to be scared of them or badgered into writing a stub just to turn them blue. I guess Raul654 would reword to avoid redlinks (or tactically delink) on the blurb for the Main Page. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Aloan is correct on both counts -- in the past (when red links were more common) I edited them from main page blurbs all the time. It's also not a very weighty objection on the FAC that something has a lot of red links. Raul654 15:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I must agree it shouldn't be used as an objection, and I wasn't. I was using it as a suggestion for further improvement, note that I did Support. I can't believe we're having this in-depth debate over red links. — Wackymacs 15:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Cute Support. What an attractive creature, it can come climb vertically up my glass anytime. Seriously, this article is beautifully written. I really like the way the style and choice of words highlight the charm of the frogs (yet in an unobtrusive, encyclopedic way), and also how considerate the text is of the ignorant reader. P.S. They inhabit toilets! They become overweight and it makes them look dumpy! They call, but we know not why! They're docile! I want one! Bishonen | talk 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC).
• Object—Poorly written (full of redundancies and lack of clarity). I've edited the first half; please address my inline comments. Tony 08:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have adressed some of your suggestions and edits, but had problems with others. Please see the discussion for my reply. --liquidGhoul 11:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Just as long as it ends up clear and concise. I've adjusted some inconsistencies of tense (present/future) and number; can you go through the rest of the article and iron out this issue, if necessary? Tony 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: Great page - well written, and illustrated. I don't have a problem with red links, I don't like to see too many, but I suppose when writing on a subject on which Wikipedia is lacking red links are going to be inevitable. lacking. That said, it's a good informative page. Giano | talk 11:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object; inline citations do not appear to cover the entire article's text (for example, the Taxonomy section). Please add more or demonstrate that I'm wrong. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Inline citation are not required for featured article, and in my opinion they are not really necessary for uncontrovertial information. In addtion to the inline cites that are provided for relvant points, this article has a refernces section that list other works cousulted writing the article. From the criteria:

(c) "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources);--nixie 02:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• re inline citations do not appear to cover the entire article's text I'm still not at all clear on the practical application of citations in Wikipedia, and I believe that's very much in development. Verifiability through verification is great in principle, but the practical application is much trickier across the entire range of topics known to mankind (which is what Wikipedia is about). From what I can gather:

• General encyclopedias as I recall use bibliographies rather than inline citations (further research is faciliated, but the text as a whole is assumed to be trusted), whereas specialized encyclopedias (like, a legal encyclopedia) obviously need to.
• Reputable news publications don't cite sources, but the reporters are expected to be able to essentially go to court on the verifiability and accuracy of their research.
• Student academic papers are subject to different levels of citation requirement, for example, higher standards for graduate than undergraduate. And the requirements vary across disciplines. Also, university level papers (often) encourage or require original thought, unlike Wikipedia, so citations are necessary to clearly distinguish between what is original and what is derived or incorporated from elsewhere.

WP:CITE is only a guideline. Wikipedia Forum for Encylopedic Standards in part notes: "The guidelines must be flexible because of the broad range of topics that they must apply to. Citations of academic topics may benefit from more rigorous standards than popular culture topics."

A basic decision as to whether a citation is required seems to be the question of whether a statement is "generally known". "The sky often appears blue," doesn't have to be cited. "The sky often appears blue due to selective filtration of visible light (or whatever)," probably has to be cited. "'Hollaback Girl' is a pop song," presumably doesn't. But "'Hollaback Girl' is hip hop-influenced pop song," presumably does, or if not, why not, as it's doubtful that "most" people can immediately identify a "hip hop influence". Yet, to cite at that level for that topic is absurd. So it doesn't seem that a categorical reference to WP:CITE or a call for copious inline citations is clear or usefully applicable to every article on the FAC page. IMO. --Tsavage 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on clarifying my views on a subpage in my userspace. For now, I'll say that because virtually all writers of wikipedia are virtually anonymous (unless they provide their name, or we can deduce their identity from checkuser and their ip address), we have absolutely no credibility in the eyes of many. We must go above and beyond the normal practice of encyclopedias. Because non-experts write the majority of our articles, we must show that those non-experts are making abundant use of the writings of experts. The ease of verification and research is another bonus, because no college student in his or her right mind will want to cite a wikipedia article in a research paper or thesis. They shouldn't have to scour through 8 different reference works in order to find verification of what the article is saying. As for "copious" inline citations, I find that in many cases, it's possible to write a well developed paragraph (or even a multi-paragraph section) from only a few pages of one or two sources. Sometimes it just takes finding the right source. So don't worry, citations after every comma and period annoy me too. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 02:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is now clearly off-topic for FAC, nonetheless, INTERESTING, so... It seems in part to me that the Wikipedia NOR+NPOV+Verifiability premise is sound in principle, but ultimately a defensive (even self-conscious) position in practice, and at odds with the reality of the project. What is this trying to prove to whom? If "we" wanted an academically traditional body of work, then (given what I judge is now around a million US dollar a year current funding drive/budget) wouldn't it be more efficient to hire a bunch of cause-driven researchers (give 'em an annual honorarium of $20-30K or whatever), put 'em in a house near a big library, hand them the "rules" and have them write this free-for-all encyclopedia? Within a year, a team of 20-30 Wikipedia research scribes could produce thousands of articles, all "well-written and verifiable", at least to the best of the current Featured Article standard. But I don't think that's the point, nor the drive that has given Wikipedia all of the energy and momentum it currently seems to enjoy. Is the goal to shove people into bureaucratic boxes by forcing them to increasingly adhere to "citation standards", or instead perhaps to figure out a way to emphasize the "assume good faith" principle that is obviously a central operational principle now, and vet articles in a more creative way? (BTW, I couldn't find the user subpage you referred to...) --Tsavage 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion to the FAC talk page, and responded there. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 17:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've replied there at some length: in summary, though, my opinion is: Objections based on citations should be quite specific about how the objector is interpreting WP:Verifiability for the particular article and subject area, or should reference an equivalent FA as an example. Inline citation clutter, for one, can be real obstacle to plain old readability, so deployment of same should be guided by the case at hand. (Also, clarification, my reference to Wikipedia funding wasn't intended in any way to question that end of things, and I do realize the hardware/IT requirements are tremendous, it was just a way to emphasize a point... ;) --Tsavage 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Dumpy Tree Neutral. I'd like to see a little more smoothing-over of the language here and there (I made a pass at it), and I'm pretty concerned about all the one-and-two paragraph sections, which I would urge you to find a way of combining. (Moving "conservation status" into the "range" section? Breaking out a separate "ecology" section and moving it into there?) I'd be remiss in my duties as the food FA guy if I didn't ask what they taste like. :-) Just kidding. I think. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't totally agree with merging the "Conservation status" section. Conservation is a big issue when it comes to animals (frogs in particular) and if someone was looking for the info, they might miss it under another sub-heading. In the end it is about trying to give information in the best way possible. --liquidGhoul 05:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Correct. Giano | talk 07:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Bunchofgrapes in principle about the stumpy paragraphs; why not merge the two paragraphs in each of 'Conservation status and 'As a pet'? The smoother flow would provide the information 'in the best way possible', in this respect. Tony 14:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Just one question - why isn't Image:L caerulea2.jpg included in the article? LordViD 09:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I decided not to use it. When I uploaded it, I was intending to replace original image, but I changed my mind, and decided to keep it. I am still trying to improve the photo, so I just kept caerulea2.jpg, and will update it once I get the good photo.--liquidGhoul 03:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Many other animal articles have a "popular culture" section or something similar -- is there nothing to say about this frog in popular culture? Tuf-Kat 17:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not that I can think of. --liquidGhoul 03:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support It's jauntily readable and seems to get include all of the important gear. As a non-expert on all possible angles relating to this subject, no obvious unanswered questions came to mind, and I felt competently informed about this topic... Yet another frog... ;)(I looked at citations a little more closely in this case, but nothing that seemed radical was offered in the text, so the general references presented seemed just fine) --Tsavage 00:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Great article. I love to see animal FAs. One question - what are down pipes and tanks? --Bad carpet 16:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Australian Capital Territory

A workup project from WikiProject:Canberra, it provides a comprehensive summary of the history of Australias smallest territory.--nixie 07:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Such a perfect article on a topic that I never thought would work, but needs more references. Part of this is my fault, as the small areas of this I wrote dearly need them, but there's quite a few places that could do with specific references. Ambi 10:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything else that needs an inline citation, and there is nothing in the article that I could not verify from the sources that are already listed. If there are other references you used add them either as notes or into the general list.--nixie 10:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Will take your word for it, and will fix my own tomorrow. Ambi 10:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Though should admit as a member of wikiproject Canberra I have helped a little with the editing of this article. --Martyman-(talk) 12:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment – I think the section titles should be more terse. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you have in mind? As far as I can see, they're clear, concise and get the point across perfectly. Ambi 13:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Search for a capital city location --> Search for a capital, Establishment of the Territory in law --> Establishment of ACT; Government and the ACT --> Government; The development of Canberra --> Development of Canberra etc =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It wasn't a "search for a capital". It was a search for a site for the capital. "Establishment of the ACT" could refer to just about anything in the article; the section refers specifically to it being established in law. "Government and the ACT" fits in better with the article at large; a "government" section is best kept in the territory itself. Only the last is unobjectionable. Ambi 18:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I also think that the section headings would fail to convey their subject if they were shortened as suggested.--nixie 21:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

          Ok, it was just a suggestion. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

          • How about "Search for a site" instead of "Search for a capital"? Raven4x4x 07:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

          • Search for a site for what? The section headings should be descriptive.--nixie 13:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support good article.--cj | talk 06:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article. Go you Aussies!!! MyNameIsNotBob 07:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, comprehensive, factually rich and well-written. --bainer (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A good history of the ACT. Well done to those involved in developing it. Capitalistroadster 08:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - comprehensive. Natgoo 12:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Can't fault it, well done. Agnte 13:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - After looking at the reference under the 4th note, it does not appear that all of the text in the lead and first four sections (nearly 15kb!) of the article comes from the references described by the corresponding four notes. I'll support when either I'm proven wrong or more citations are added. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not in favor of providing copious inline cites for uncontrovertial information, it is not encyclopedic writing, all the facts in the article have been checked from the sources listed in the references. Anything that may be controvertial, primary reseach, or that has good online resources has an inline cite.--nixie 23:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • An objective of WP:CITE is "To facilitate quick and efficient verification of facts." That is how Wikipedia-writing varies from encyclopedic writing. Wikipedia needs copious inline cites for credability (for example, simply stating it is in some book is not efficient). These articles are supposed to be the best Wikipedia offers. As such, they should go that extra mile to satisfy every guideline. That is why the standard keeps getting tougher and tougher to meet, and more and more is expected. Right now all I think that is expected in terms of inline citations, as you correctly stated above, is for primary research (someone's argument, opinion, view, etc), and also quotations, and controvertial facts (or facts that are not expected). However, as time goes on, FAs will be expected to efficiently prove more and more stated facts. --maclean25 05:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
      • If you feel that too many inline citations hurt readability, that's fine; just use inote for the less controversial ones. I still prefer regular notes, but especially in light of recent questioning of Wikipedia's quality and truthfulness, I feel that we need to cite our sources so that original contributers don't have to be called back to clarify from which sources they got their information. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
        • These sections are now better footnoted. If you are implying that every bit of information in these sections should be directly referenced with inline citations then you are going well outside outside the FAC requirements of appropriate inline references. --Martyman-(talk) 22:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I know, but I feel this is an area in which we need to go further than we currently do. Thanks for adding a few notes; I no longer oppose. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 19:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Very well done article. Rlevse 15:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support—Good stuff, nixie.
• Support. Nice article, interesting, well resourced.--Dakota ^{t e} 17:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional support Object COMMENT ON CHANGE OF VOTE: in this case, my objections as detailed were the entirety of my complaint (well, they weren't "examples only"), and those have been satisfied. MUCH revision and addition has taken place; while LONGER, the article creates a more complete picture of the people and activities and overall timeline involved. To be blunt, a major point of my original objection had to do with my perception that the "aborigines" were simply being written off ("21,000 years and some moths", as it were), and the method of appropriation of their land simply not mentioned; "racist" is such a strong word, (N)POV is Wikipedia's framing; "centric" seems to be a euphemism that can do the job amongst...reasonable people. Whatever, I no longer find that POV to be clearly or actionably present (others may disagree ;). Conditional support only refers to readability—the writing still seems clear to me, but I can't honestly reset and give the new version a readthrough in the next day or two with all of these thoughts and details floating around. So, if there are other objections to the general writing style, based on new length or other post-FAC revision details, I would tend to support them. Of course, one FAC can't go on forever, and I think I've vigorously supported my initial vote to a useful conclusion. Hopefully you get what I mean... :) Thanks! --Tsavage 19:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  Original objection: The article reads quite smoothly, and the information is presented for the most part clearly. My objection has to do with comprehensiveness and NPOV. For one, I'm not clear on the scope of the article. The existence of the Australian Capital Territory was new to me: the introduction did not fully answer the question, "what's ACT?", and did not clearly convey what exactly the article was intending to cover. Also, I found the coverage of the aboriginal "indigenous people" and the "Europeans" puzzling, and seemingly somewhat skewed to a POV I couldn't quite pin down ("white"? European? Australian?).
  • The intro does not provide a succinct and complete explanation of what ACT is - Where exactly is it located in Australia? How big is it? What's the population? Is there anything special about the geography, the climate? As the "capital territory", does it have any special standing as a region in Australia? I realize this is a HISTORY, but in setting up such a specifically focussed article, I'd like to know what I'm reading about right off the top.
  • The intro is confusing: this is a history of what exactly? - Part of this is due to how it is written, but mainly, the summary, "prehistory" and pre-Federation sections don't hang together. I gather that ACT is a "political entity" that was created in 1938, with a (political) history beginning in 1901. However, as (presumably) an unnamed piece of land, ACT has an additional history (and prehistory) of human settlement going back in all 21,000 years. ACT is less than 70 years old; why am I being presented with "moth-eating aboriginals"?
  • The role of the aboriginal population is not adequately explained - 21,000 years of settlement is summarized in a few sentences. There is no satisfactory description of the tribal situation at the time of settlement: How big was the tribal population, where were they located, what were they doing? Were there treaties made to gain control of the ACT territory, or was it simply claimed because no-one was there to argue otherwise? In the article, single paragraph (somewhat dismissively) suggests that an insiginificant number of non-hostile aborigines were hanging about, occasionally contacting the "Europeans" for work or handouts, and that they eventually simply faded away. A reference to "reserves" is not explained. The citation is to a seminar?
  • The choice of the term "Europeans" to describe the settlers is not explained - I believe only one mention of the "British" was made, otherwise, the term "Europeans" is used throughout to describe the settlers. Were there other settlers than the British? I can understand using "Europeans" in some cases for a discussion of, say, the Americas, where the British, French, Portugese and other Europeans all had their go. Is it the same situation here? If not, Europeans seems overly broad and vague. Is this a British colonization, or a European invasion? I'm not clear.

Overall, the article does not make its meaning plain. It does not clearly state what it is about, and then sets up a historical framework, beginning 21,000 years ago, that it fails to fully fill in. It also suggests a POV that is not "neutral", but favors the activities of "European settlers" over anyone else around. --Tsavage 18:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the lead section does a good job of summarising the article. I have just looked through a selection of already featured "History of X" articles and none of them go into detail of describing the place like you have suggested it should. This is should be covered by the Australian Capital Territory article. You seem to be giving two different arguments here. First you seem to be arguing that the history of the ACT should start fromt eh creation of the ACT then you complain that the article is European heavy. The aboriginals left very little record of their presence, I am not sure how you expect their section to be expanded to match the later sections in length. The aboriginal reference is obviously a book. Are you suggesting scientific conference procedings are not "Authoritave" becaus ethey are from a seminar? --Martyman-(talk) 22:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply: Re two different arguments, I'm not suggesting the article should do anything, I'm evaluating an FAC submission, as presented. The article introduces (in fact, explicitly frames itself with) aboriginals, 21,000 years of habitation and European settlement. I'm simply taking it from there... --Tsavage 02:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, are you suggesting that we should be carefully explaining the nationality of every person mentioned. The european history of the are begins almost 40 years after the "british" settlement of Australia. By this time many people would have volantarily migrated to Australia, and it would be very wrong to assume all of the settlers where British. Is the word european no longer acceptable? --Martyman-(talk) 22:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply: "European" is way too vague. If ACT requires a detailed history, its own article, then I'd expect a little more about the people who "founded" it than something as nonspecific as "European". Is that a group by enthnicity? Language? Religion? Political philosophy? Are the British and French equivalent for colonization purposes? You don't even seem that clear on who the Europeans were: many people would have voluntarily migrated. They would have? Well, did they? If so, who? Dutch merchants? Portugese convicts? WHO are these "European" people of ACT? --Tsavage 00:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Tsavage: European, is being used as a catchall because the area was not settled by a specific group of people. It was settled by various people moving in and taking up land grants over a period of time. They can not all be defined as "English Convicts", "Irish Imigrants" etc, because each person has a different background. European is as about as specific as you can be without accidently ommiting people. Specifically there are definately English, Scottish, Irish, Second Generation European-Australians and almost certainly many others. --Martyman-(talk) 06:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the first 'Australian Capital Territory' in the article should be a wikilink? That would immediately guide the reader to further information if they were unfamiliar with the topic. Natgoo 22:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's already linked in the text, although another link wouldn't hurt. I don't think we should be expected to add a whole bunch of general ACT information into a history article because someone is too lazy to click a link. As to the remainder of Tsavage's objections, they're conflicting, unnecessary, and, without screwing up the article, unactionable. Ambi 00:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply: You're rather rude and dismissive (as well as wrong). This is a FAC review process, remember? I understand what the article is trying to do, and no doubt most of the raw material is there. Unfortunately, it is poorly structured and presents a non-neutral POV—it's OK, but certainly not superior. Subarticle or not, it still has to be reasonably self-contained. The problem is that the "Australian Capital Territory" is simply not widely known, at least, outside of Australia, so the "History of" must explain what it is in some detail (the rewrites to the lead improve on the original situation, but I'd still like to know more). Readers shouldn't have to preread other articles to make sense of this one. Geographic details are given in the body of the text, yet the lead, even in revised form, only provides a vague description of what ACT is. This is an example of the poor structuring. Next, if the article chooses to put itself on a 21,000 year timeline, it must follow through with the details. Basic unanswered question: how did the British take over the territory from the aborigines? That seems kind of fundamental to a detailed history subarticle. And there is indeed a -centricness (Euro? white?). Case in point: The Ngunnawal people and other linguistic groups are known to have inhabited the region for at least 21,000 years before the present. The 19th century was a time of exploration and settlement in the region. So, the only people capable of "exploration" and "settlement" are...Europeans? In 21,000 years, no-one else "explored" or "settled"? This is obviously a POV framing of the account. In the same way, not covering how the territory was acquired, but going into relatively minute detail about the activities of the Europeans, demonstrates this POV. The article could limit itself to the "political entity" that is ACT, and provide a historical account of the legislative process and subsequent actual development, but it tries to be much more ambitious than that and fails quite miserably. Moth-eating aboriginals, huh? These are simple, basic, obvious problems. If fixing them "screws up the article", then don't bother. As is, however, it is not FA quality. --Tsavage 23:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You over-estimate out ability to write an unwritten hisotry. The Australian Aborigines did not have a written history, so other than listing all the locations and approximate dates of artefacts, there is little we can actually do to fill in 21,000 years of history prior to settlement. Following settlement, where in this area there were few reported conflicts, it was actually widely held that the Ngunnawal were extinct - like the Tasmanian Aborigines. While it is probably not the case, there are very few resoruces that go beyond cataloguing archeological evidence.--nixie 00:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you miss a major portion of my point. I don't necessarily think History of ACT should go back 21,000 years. However, that's what it does, and then, not so well. I'm evaluating what's there. Writing quality and comprehensiveness are more than simply well-constructed sentences and adequate citations. There has to be a narrative with a logical flow. This isn't point form notes, it's an article, that should present a cohesive (and hopefully accurate) story. If we're going back into aboriginals and Europeans, then, get ALL of the basic facts straight, OR, explicitly account for why there are gaping holes in the account. I shouldn't have to read the History of Australia in order to understand History of ACT. I shouldn't be informed about aboriginals on the land for 2.1K years(!!!), and then not be at all clear on how the aboriginal->European transition occurred. What kind of comprehensive history is that? --Tsavage 01:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion of contracting the article to a polictal history of the territory is pointless. This article was specifically written to cover the area outside of History of Canberra which starts from 1911. I fail to see how ignoring the existence of the original inhabitants all together would improve the article. The major problem with your other suggestions is that there is no history for the aboriginal presence before european settlement, and the history we have of the aboriginals since european settlement is patchy at best. For example, many historys claim the Ngunnawal people died out around 1900, while we still have people claiming to be of Ngunnawal descent alive today. What you are requesting we attempt to do would have to violate No original research. I have a couple more anecdotes of european/aboriginal interactions I could add but I doubt these are going to satisfy you. --Martyman-(talk) 02:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

reply: Martyman Fair enough, maybe this is just a communication thing. As a non-Aussie, I really have (had) no clue as to what ACT is, or as to its very existence, and, after reading the article, I wound up with slightly MORE questions than I'd started with: so...what is ACT? That's my bottom line problem: article does not make itself clear. I'm assumeing you are quite familiar with many things Australian, like ACT. I'm not. Many readers are not. I may not be representative of "many readers", but in any case I know about kangaroos, Canberra, Sydney and its opera house, big gobs of desert, Kylie Minogue, right-wing Howard, aboriginal tribes, reefs, British convict colonization, recent major droughts, a few other things LIKE THAT. (Oh yeah, Dietrich vs the Queen). Whatever. Point is, ACT is WAY not among them. Nor is Australian history. So, when I come to an article, any article, I want to be able to read it and go, not read it and read half a dozen other articles. And in the case of ACT, I'm not into the fine points of unrecorded aboriginal history, it's just that, if you say who got it from who (as the article does), make that story clear! I don't come equipped with conventions about how Australian history is covered... --Tsavage 02:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Several editors have made efforts to clarify detail in line with Tsavage objections, however without signifcant restructuring from a chronological account of history or removal of information, which I think the editors involved in the article would not support, there is little more that can be done to improve comprehensivness of the early part of the article when the data does not exist.--nixie 23:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply: I am really quite impressed that my humble and solo objections have been so vigorously and well acted upon! I will reread the article and restate my position ASAP, in the next day or so... Thanks! --Tsavage 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• On your point about appropriation, the British claimed Australia as terra nullius, therefore they didn't have to do anything to take land from the Aborigines, there are some instances of the British making deals with the Aborigines for their land like Batman's Treaty but none were made in the ACT area. There were no settlements for them to take since, in the large part, the Aborigines were nomadic and had no permanent man-made settlements. There also wasn't a mass influx of Europeans to the region so the two groups could coexist without much interaction for some time. Since noone has written an account of what happened exactly (at least that I have been able to find) it would be pointless to speculate in the article.--nixie 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support I am entirely new to this subject, well Australlian History in general, and I found it an interesting high quality read. --Computerjoe 20:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, with the disclosure that I have done some minor tweaking to the article. Kudos to nixie, Martyman et al for an attentive and substantial piece of research, the article is at the very least easily comparable to other FAs of its type- well done!--cjllw | TALK 08:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dietrich v The Queen

Support The article is accurate, unbiased and a true account of a significant case in Australian legal history, well written and detailed and to achieve the level of quality it has, would have taken a lot of effort given the difficult nature of writing case law. --Never29 13:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Needs images, if possible. Also, it'd be better if the referencing was more extensive and easier to see which facts related to which references. The latter two (of three) references don't work. --Oldak Quill 14:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hi there Quill, re images - I doubt this is possible for two reasons; (1) availability and (2) legality. Further, given the context there is no added informative benefit to the reader of having a picture about a case involving the criminal prosecution of an individual who is not famous or notable, it is the legal judgment here that is notable, being a landmark High Court case.

• references - Perhaps there is some confusion with the references. You are right that the article is jam packed with facts, the majority of which come from the original High Court judgement. This is referenced in the infobox. All of the "facts" in the judgement were excepted as evidence; (i would assume that if a court of law accepts a fact as evidence, that should be enough to verify it?) Referencing each fact to the judgement may prove problematic - the judgment is some 36,000 words! I understand this may be confusing to somebody with a non-law background, trying to assess its quality. I wonder if your opposition would be reversed if the judgment was also referenced in the "References" section of the article? But also take into account my previous comments on this matter. Thanks for taking the time to consider the article. --Never29 16:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Mild oppose: There is an image of the Australian court, which is one of the image possibilities. The plaintiff, however, should have some court photographs (photos from his arrest(s)) that would be public (assuming that Australia, like the US, Canada, and UK, releases government photos). If none of those are available, a photo of one of the prisons might be good. At any rate, having only a single image does seem at least one too few. The prose is good, and the story is interesting. The only thing missing in the writing at this point is a comparison to other nations (optional). Although these comparisons are implied and stated in passing in the description, a short historical background on the right to counsel in constitutional democracies might strengthen and isolate the topic better. Geogre 14:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I expanded the section about the right to counsel in other countries (particuarly the United States), and added a low-resolution copy of his mugshot which was published in the newspapers. This had to be claimed as fair use, only the United States releases government material into the public domain. There may be more images later, Rich is to stand trial soon (next year, I believe) on another matter, and there is likely to be much publicity. --bainer (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: My mild objection has been answered. I'm surprised a bit that there isn't a license for government stock in Australia, but not awfully so. Fair use is probably easily maintained. Geogre 17:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Government (and other) images can be used under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 1968, but this is limited to certain purposes which are not compatible with the GFDL. There is a fantastic image of Rich robbing a bank near my house earlier this year on theage.com.au. Will try to chase up the copyright status of this, though I suspect it is owned by the bank and the chance of licensing will be nil. --bainer (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support: fantastic article.--cj | talk 09:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, having written most of this, I'm obviously quite pleased with it ;) --bainer (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Slightly on the short side, but covers the content well, and is by far the best article we have on an Australian law topic. Kudos to Thebainer for writing it. Ambi 10:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support And very well written, interesting article. Agnte 13:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Concise, reads well, interesting, seems comprehensive, and updated to the present. --Tsavage 19:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object.
  • Where does "indigent defendants" come from? It seems important but it is just stuck in some brackets.
  • Use of a contraction (ex. didn’t).
  • The Victorian Crimes Act 1958, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United States Bill of Rights are quoted in the body but do not appear in the references.
  • Poorly constructed sentence: "Unlike some other international treaties, Australia has not incorporated the ICCPR into its domestic law with any specific legislation (unlike, for example, World Heritage laws – see Commonwealth v Tasmania)." and "The High Court ordered that the verdict of the original be overturned, and ordered a retrial".
  • Completely unsourced quotation "to declare that a right which has hitherto never been recognised should now be taken to exist." (and unclear on who asked the court to do that?)
  • Inconsistent reference system. Why are some footnoted and some not? The section number of the quoted Victorian Crimes Act 1958 is given but not for the US Bill of Rights quote, or the Cda Charter quote.
  • Section headings do not conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). Use of sub-headings is questionable. What does "The right to a fair trial" and "Miscarriage of justice" have in common? are these supposed to be the defense arguments? Funny that they had a trial on whether the trial was fair. --maclean25 06:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've added more footnotes to make it absolutely clear. The United States Bill of Rights is not divided into sections, and so sections are not given. Section Ten of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which was wikilinked to) is likewise indivisible into sections, it already is a section. However, I've added references to them anyway.
• I've also reworded a couple of sentences, and changed some of the section headings, were these the ones you had problems with? --bainer (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my concerns so quickly. With the headings it was the use of the word "The" which was not needed (of course it is the case, I was not expecting another case). "Arguments" is fine, so would "Case" or "Trial". Consider renaming "Background to the case" so that it is parallel with the other major headings ("Arguments", "Judgment", "Consequences", "References") But really, it was the "Miscarriage of justice" that seemed awkward. Just from browsing the table of contents it appears that is what happened: that it was a miscarriage of justice. But after reading the paragraph it turns out that was just an argument (a commentary or an opinion). That led me to also question the previous sub-heading "The right to a fair trial". I just want to make sure the sub-headings are parallel and dividing the section appropriately. --maclean25 09:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Generally (in this and other law articles I've written) the "arguments" or "case" section is split into subheadings along the lines of the arguments which were actually heard before the court. It may be a little confusing in this instance because of the rather generic names of the arguments, but they are mentioned in the first paragraph of the "arguments". --bainer (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support:An interesting read, and a potentially difficult page to write, full of legal minefields and jargon. However, this is well written and explained. Giano | talk 11:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- ALoan (Talk) 14:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks excellent. I'm not sure why the last two references are formatted differently and are apparently not cited anywhere? If those references weren't used, they should be removed. Tuf-Kat 17:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Adams

Self-nomination - This article was recently in Peer Review, and most, if not all, suggestions made there have been carried out. (Peer review archive is here). While there has been a Douglas Adams article on Wikipedia since November 2001 (six months after his death), I have been working on the article since May of this year. I think it is a major improvement over the way the article looked six months ago. The author's most famous work, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was made an FA earlier this year, and I feel it would be fitting to have the article about the author himself also become an FA. Quoting one line of my own from the Peer Review: One snag that his published biographies point out is how difficult it is to keep Adams's life in any sort of chronology, since he was working on several different projects at once, especially during the late 1970s and early 1980s. One other thing that might give some reviewers pause are the images. When I started, there was just ONE photo, the promotional photo at the start of the article. Since then, four TV screenshots have been added - I know this may put some people off, but it's hard to review someone who was interviewed quite a bit on TV and wrote for different programmes for TV without a few screenshots! He also did a lot of writing for radio too, but I thought that trying to pick out a few soundclips from his body of work wouldn't do them justice! As Adams was also known for his writing, three book cover images are also included in the article. I genuinely look forward to reading other's opinions on the state of this article, and hope I can make everyone proud - I really DO think it's another example of good community work. --JohnDBuell 00:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Object. Looks good, and the image additions help a lot (make sure not to make them so small that they're invisible, though), but could use some copyediting for style issues. Avoid linking to any non-essential pages—all the year links should be removed unless genuinely important or part of a "Month Day, Year" link.

Done.

Avoid inconsistencies (a footnote appears directly before a period in one sentence, directly after one in another sentence; after is better) (a comma appears inside of the quotes in ""The Remarkable Fidgety River,"", but outside in ""radical atheist","; outside is better)

I think I got all of these.

I'll try to help. It's difficult, and will take more time than most changes, requiring a full read-through to be sure. Of course, it's nitpicky enough that I don't oppose based on that alone. -Silence 04:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I just pasted the article into MS Word and discovered a couple of typos that I should have caught a lot sooner. I also cleaned up a few of the sentences, but tried not to let Word's grammar/spell check influence me into making the article inline with US English usage :) --JohnDBuell 23:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[A]nd make sure to include Fair Use justifications for images like Image:DNA_with_H2G2_towel.JPG. Also consider trimming the External Links section by at least a couple of links; it's starting to develop into a farm. -Silence 01:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll recheck the other images, but I got that one. I also found one redundant link that's actually first mentioned in the Notes section. Images are always hard for me, with sizing - I've got a NICE widescreen monitor, but I know that's not common, so I try to leave the images as not being too obtrusive.... --JohnDBuell 02:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Generally with horizontal images, 200-300px is a good size, though it depends greatly on context. With vertical images, a bit smaller, since the "px" marker is in terms of horizontal length, not height. Anyway, you clearly haven't been told what a "Fair Use rationale" is. Just saying "Fair use is claimed for Douglas Adams and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." will just get Wikipedia's ass sued if someone feels like taking it that far. :) See images like Image:Chavezninas.jpg for examples of proper Fair Use Rationales. Anyway, images that still need Fair Use rationales: Image:Douglasadams.jpg, Image:DNA in Monty Python.jpg, Image:Remarkable Fidgety River Title.jpg, Image:DNA with H2G2 towel.JPG, Image:The Pirate Planet Writers Credit.jpg. -Silence 04:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I think that this has become a growing issue - I don't think it was as much a concern when the Hitchhiker's article was put through Peer Review and FAC as it is now. I'm not blowing it off - in fact it's probably a good idea to go back and re-review past FAs to make sure they're staying up to the current standards. I appreciate that you're offering help with this :) --JohnDBuell 04:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, I'd certainly agree with you that it's a relatively recent focus of FAs, and I bring it up exclusively to stay consistent with every other FA of the last few weeks, not out of any personal concern whatsoever for copyright law; personally I think the whole issue's a great big buzz-kill, necessary though it may be. :f But if it's gotta be done, best for you to know what you've got to do early.
• It's also certainly true that the FA standards are constantly changing, shifting, as the imaginary "perfect article" changes a bit with each new innovation and Wikipedia agenda. And with each new trivial requirement, the actual encyclopedia content itself shifts further and further into the backseat; the writing itself is the last thing most reviewers check when looking at a new FA nominee, whereas in a typical encyclopedia it would be the first thing checked, with editors poring over every line for errors. There are probably more typos in a typical Wikipedia article of over two pages in length than there are in the entirety of a typical print encyclopedia. (Not to suggest, of course, that typos are the most insidious threat to articles; they're a relatively minor inconvenience compared to many other subtle textual errors that can manifest.) :) Er, but I'm digressing big-time.
• It's tremendously true that most FAs from a year or two ago could never get Featured in today's FA world, at least not with a lot of revising. Standards change, and they change faster and with more vigor than people will bother to go back and nominate old FAs for un-FAing. So, it's not safe to assume that all FAs are equal; there's sometimes as big of a quality gap between one FA and another as there is between a stub and a good article. But, er, anyway, yeah; someone'd best get on those fixes. -Silence 04:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually went back through all of the images included in the article, and tried to write up a better "fair use rationale" for each. As I said on your talk page, I hope this is on the right track :) --JohnDBuell 05:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak support. Comprehensive, although a lot of the information in the HHGG section is not really about him, but about HHGG's production history in general. Those should be dealt with in the sub-articles, and it be rewritten to concentarte specifically on his part in it. Also, could use with some general copyediting, but nothing substantial that would warrant any strong objections on my part. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, since most of the history of Hitchhiker's (until 2001) really revolved around Adams, the two really do intermingle. I don't want to sound critical, but do you have any specific suggestions? What would or wouldn't belong? Or should it be summed up/tightened up a bit more? There are detailed histories of the radio series and the TV series on those two pages - no one has yet written a page on the 20+ year development history of the Hitchhiker's movie, and I think that it would/does warrant its own article. --JohnDBuell 03:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and attempted a re-write and "tightening" of this section. Let me know if you think it helps! --JohnDBuell 04:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, take the last three paragraphs of the section, starting from "The books formed the basis of..." and ending with "dedicated to its author", which barely mentions Adams at all, especially in the middle paragraph about the production of the movie. I'm not saying do away with them entirely, but the information should relate more to Adams personally, like the rest of the stuff above, and if it doesn't at all, then it should be tightened or excised. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've cut those three paragraphs down to two, trying to bring Adams back as the one who wanted the movie done for over twenty years, and who also had a part (literally) in the posthumous radio series in 2004-2005. --JohnDBuell 12:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object - will have to read again later (the last version I read is two years old), but so far it is obvious that a longer lead section is needed. An article this size needs 3 good-sized paras that summarize the most vital info about the man and his work. --mav 17:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggested during the Peer Review that I'm not very good at writing lead sections and asked if anyone wanted to either add another paragraph, or redo the existing ones. Sadly, nobody took me up on it. --JohnDBuell 19:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Three of us have done a bit of work on the lead section now, making revisions and expansions. Proto started it, and IainP and I have both done some of the revising and editing for accuracy. --JohnDBuell 21:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good now. I'll have to read the article again to see if I can support. --mav 05:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, either remove those redlinks, or turn them blue. I'll do the lead for you. Proto t c 14:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Say WHAT? I have never EVER seen an article denied FA just on the grounds of 'red links.' That's NOWHERE in the criteria. --JohnDBuell 17:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC) (postscript: I'm not trying to sound like I'm taking this personally, or trying to start a personal attack. Far from it. I'm just trying to explain my incredulity.)
  • Objecting on the basis of too many red links is generally inactionable (in that it does not apply to the material being nominated) Raul654 13:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think a Featured Article should have red links. There. I've said it. Proto t c 10:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I have to disagree. Knowing that Wikipedia is expanding, and knowing specifically where Wikipedia can expand, into places that nobody has written an article for yet, I think these are both good and necessary concepts. I've taken a few "redlinks" out of other articles and built new ones, and I think they're constant invitations to new editors (though soon it'll only be new registered editors) to expand on what we already have. --JohnDBuell 12:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - This is a good wikipedia article and deserves recognition. SillyWilly 00:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Looks excellent. Tuf-Kat 17:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blues

Self-nom: Great article. Very comprehensive. This is a central topic in music and (Afro-)American culture. The focus is threefold: musical style, history and influence. The history section is also a review of all blues sub-genres, listing most prominent artists. It is referenced more than 1500 times. I think we need to get it featured.

This article has been twice peerreviewed: Wikipedia:Peer review/Blues/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Blues/archive2

Vb 12:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Wow...it's brilliant. One peeve: the audio samples box obscures some of the text in the lyrics section on Firefox 1.5 under a 1280*1024 resolution. If this can be fixed, I will gladly support. Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't that more a bug of the template than of this article. This bug does not happen on konqueror. I don't feel competent for fixing this. Vb 14:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, well, not that big a bug anyway. Support. Would like to see it moved, though. Johnleemk | Talk 17:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks fine on Firefox (OSX) for me. Tuf-Kat
• Support terrific article. My only question is am I the only one who would have expected it to be called The blues? Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • My spontaneous answer was Yes. Because thought the same as you did. I was bold and moved the page. Vb 14:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support, agreed that it is a terrific article. It has been moved to the blues, which I think is incorrect -- article titles don't generally use articles in their titles (if that makes sense) unless it's a proper noun like an album title or band name. Tuf-Kat 14:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Reading your comment I thought: let's think about it. Even The Netherlands redirect to Netherlands. So now I think Tuf-Kat is right. However I am not sure anymore and I am awaiting your comments. Vb 14:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Tuf-Kat is one of the major contributor to this article. I think he is the one who put that many references. I thank him however for the support. He's not been active on the page for a while. Vb 14:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I should have mentioned that I was a major contributor. Thanks for taking it the extra step! Tuf-Kat 00:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Further Comment, I'd like the second paragraph of the lead to be expanded a bit, and I'd also like a footnote for the claim about the origin of the term "blues". Tuf-Kat 04:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
        • My source is the very authoritative tresor de la langue francaise. But there must be some English sources. Maybe not on internet... Vb 11:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
          • My library's Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edition 1989) gives Handy's "Memphis Blues" as the earliest citation for "blues." I have changed the attestation, as English sources are generally preferable to non-English, whenever possible, on the English Wikipedia. Andrew Levine 19:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
            • The French source supports also the earliest citation of George Colman's "Blue devils" (1798). Does the Oxford English Dictionary support that too? Vb 12:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. My objection on peer review has been fixed very well. This is an article that really needs to be featured. rspeer 15:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Should be "Blues", not "The blues": The Middle East redirects to Middle East. Also, some images need fair use rationales: Image:BluesBrothers.jpg, Image:BBKingClub.jpg. -Silence 16:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Your first comment has been addressed by Quill. Your second one maybe correct but I have really poor experience with the fair use practice. I'll try to do my best. Could you help? Vb 11:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have taken the liberty of moving the artile from "The blues" to "Blues" in accordance with Wikipedia precedent (Netherlands, United States, &c.) I have checked for any double redirects and changed the {{redirect}} template to {{other uses}} as well as changing the title of the article in the text and adjusting this nomination. --Oldak Quill 18:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for doing that, Quill. That was really a stupid idea of mine. Vb 11:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support. What's in a name? This article is wonderful whatever name it lands on. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 03:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, has just about everything I could expect from this article. Andrew Levine 02:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. First, the choice of images and discussion in the latter part of the article leaves the impression, which I doubt was intended, that blues has morphed into a mode of music dominated by white artists. Second, the article needs a thorough copyedit, not just for things like Howlin'/Howling Wolf, but for segments like "On the other hand, John Lee Hooker's blues is very rigorous. It is based on the rhythmic repetition of a single phrase accompanied by a single electric guitar. His very personal style can sound very monotone to some, but many recognize in it a kind of rhythmic trance typical of the Delta blues." Third, the section on the 1960's acoustic revival is inadequate; it needs discussion of the role of Newport and the efforts of people like Dick Waterman to locate nearly-forgotten major blues performers. Perhaps most important, the set of references disturbs me; it excludes any of the major books devoted specifically to blues research/criticism that come to mind, like those of Robert Palmer, Peter Guralnick, and Elijah Wald (to pick three names that occur to me immediately, not to suggest that those three writers would be sufficient research) or any of the biographies of major artists. I don't like the way the article feels constricted and categorical; you'd never guess from reading it that Louis Armstrong, Bob Dylan, and Duke Ellington made significant blues recordings, or that the Paul Butterfield Blues Band was influential (particlarly on white audiences) in the 1960's. Monicasdude 16:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your comments. They seem to stem from someone who know a lot about blues. I hope you will soon be able to contibute to this article as an editor.
    • To your first comment: This impression was really unintended. However I think Stevie Ray Vaughan is an influential musician who deserves a picture in this article. It is moreover true that now both black and white audiences have mixed. As contemporary artists (1980-present) are listed Jessie Hemphill or Keb'Mo which are definitively non white. I would be very happy if you could provide us some more precise hints how to get rid of this impression.
    • About copyedit. My mother tongue is not English so that it is difficult for me to write the perfect brilliant prose. I have put the copyedit tag which has been removed by a copy editor after three different copyeditor did the job.
    • In this article we have mentioned the 1960s revival. We have not aimed and comprehensiveness. One could mention the Newport festival but this article is an overview article which is already quite big. Are you sure Dick Waterman and the Newport festivals are really worth being mentioned at this level or shouldn't we need a daughter article for these?
    • I agree with your comments about the bibliography. Well we have tried to find out references to assert some claims. It was maybe not professional enough. I am very sad you have not acted as an editor. The article would have been definitively better. The question is whether -- though this article is not perfect -- it is not worth being featured. Compare it with comparable articles like jazz.
    • Louis Armstrong, Bob Dylan, and Duke Ellington have indeed made significant blues recording but they were definitively not blues artists. Here I don't agree with you. We have stressed the point that blues appears at unexpected places and that many jazz artists are using extensively the blues form. I don't think it needs to be said more often.
    • I don't know Paul Butterfield I'll have a look whether he is worth mentioning.
  • All in all I think your comments need more than just a bit of edit and I will try to do my best to address them. I however have to think a bit about it. Watch this page! Vb 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have tried to address your objections -- as far as I feel able to do so. Please don't hesitate to provide further objections. Vb 12:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant object. I really like the opening sections of the article and was on a path to support, but the "Musical and social impact" section is something of a mess, mixing history (spiritual as pre-cursor), analysis, and random facts; it also has some awkward language that needs work. A few other comments: the bit on the etymology of the term should include the fact that the term came generally to refer to the type of sadness often expressed in the songs; the History sections could use to be less of a listing of artists and more of an explanation of the development of the music (for example there should be more explanation of how the postwar migration from South to North (particularly the Delta to Chicago) and the change from informal performance to nightclub entertainment for working men influenced the diversification of styles, something that is covered in some detail in several of the references listed); finally, I must agree that a copy-editing scrub is in order for style and grammar. Jgm 22:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I hope you will participate soon as an editor. I think you could contribute very well.
    • We have tried to provide the following structure to the impact section:
      • Broad influence of the blues as a musical form
      • Influence on R&B. Because this influence came via gospel-soul-funk, I felt we needed to discuss first the link between spirituals and blues.
      • Influence on jazz.
      • Influence on rock.
      • Influence now as an element of the american culture.
    • Your comment sounds as if it weren't a success. Could you maybe precise your comment so that we can attain our aim. About akward language: We need a pair of fresh eyes. Please copyedit!
    • About the bit of etymology. OK. I'll do asap.
    • OK we have said the Chicago blues is very influenced by the Mississippi blues due to the migration. We should stress it better. I don't know what you mean about "nightclub entertainment".
  • As for Monicasdude's comments, I think they are really constructive and I hope I'll be able to address them. Though I am a blues fan I don't know everything and your help would be very acknowledged for very concrete suggestions. Watch this page! Vb 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have tried to address your objections -- as far as I feel able to do so. Please don't hesitate to provide further objections. Vb 12:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear reviewers, since its nomination, this article has been changed according to your suggestions [21], could you please check whether we successfully responded to the objections and whether one can remove the copy-edit tag. If not please let us know. We need some feedback. Vb 17:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Object: The article contains a great amount of interesting info, and obviously represents a lot of work. My objection is with comprehensiveness. I have struck my previous support (below) because it seemed to be "inactionable". Here is more specific support. A lot of information is presented, however, a clear narrative does not emerge. I did a quick bit of research, and quickly came up with much information that made me question many areas of this article, for balance and for accuracy. In a topic like this, it is very easy to establish a POV that may distort the subject. Some examples (these are examples, not "every instance of a problem", the problem as I see it is greater):

• Listing and generalizations are often used in place of detail and context. For example, the article says, "Classic female urban blues singers were extremely popular in the 1920s, among them Mamie Smith, Gertrude "Ma" Rainey, Bessie Smith, and Victoria Spivey. These women were among the first major musical stars in the country." It fails to note:

• Mamie Smith was the first to record blues songs in 1920 with her versions of "Crazy Blues", and "It' s Right Here for You" [...]selling over a million copies in less than a year, and finally ending up selling over two million copies. The success of "Crazy Blues" prompted other record companies to also try to find other female blues singers that could match the sales of "Crazy Blues". It was a very important record, because it opened the doors of the recording industry to African-Americans, whether they were Blues, Jazz or popular singers or musicians. Smith herself really wasn't that much of a Blues singer. She was more of a vaudeville performer, although she included Blues and Jazz numbers as part of her act.

Well. Don't you think this article is long enogh (48K)? I have the feeling your source is not in contradistinction with what stands in the article. Do you really think we have to go into the controversial issue whether Smith was a blues performer of not? This is intended to be an overview article not a 200-page scholar publication. This is the reason why we have tried to make some generalization and categorization without going too much into the details. I consider the example you provided not correct so please provide another one. Thank you. Vb 12:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Referring to the length of the article as a reason for excluding info is, um, IMO quite bogus. And your statement, Do you really think we have to go into the controversial issue whether Smith was a blues performer of not, perfectly illustrates my problem. Dealing with issues by omitting them, rather than by covering them through skillful writing, is a big problem, and for one, with NPOV. An "overview" should be a really well-conceived and executed distillation of the facts, not a word count target and no "wrong" statements. Much bad journalism is of that latter category: it gets to a point, and doesn't say anything "wrong", but still can and often does miss conveying a true and fair picture. Bottom line, in a topic as broad and contentious as this, if you don't have ALL of the info spinning around in your head like a front-loading washing machine whose agitate cycle never ends, you can't properly boil it down to a great overview. --Tsavage 23:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Here is the paragraph we are discussing about:

  City blues were much more codified and elaborate.[29] Classic female urban blues singers were extremely popular in the 1920s, among them Mamie Smith, Gertrude "Ma" Rainey, Bessie Smith, and Victoria Spivey. These women were among the first major musical stars in the country. Bessie Smith, known as the "Empress of the Blues", was perhaps the most well-known and respected of these women, and one of the top performers of her day.[30] Her mentor, Ma Rainey, similarly respected, was called the "Mother of Blues". According to Clarke,[31] both performers used a "method of singing each song around centre tones, perhaps in order to project her voice more easily to the back of a room" and Smith "would also choose to sing a song in an unusual key, and her artistry in bending and stretching notes with her beautiful, powerful contralto to accommodate her own interpretation was unsurpassed".

So what does it state? (1) There exists a style called "classic female urban blues" with a set of well-known performers. (2) The style was very popular in the '20s. (3) It describes the style using citations of scholar works. Not more than that. It even doesn't claim that this style is clearly to be categorized into the blues category. The question is not the count of the words but the emphasis to be put on the topic in comparision with other sub-genres or historical evolution of the blues. It seems to be clear that the classic female urban blues has had a huge impact on the history of the blues. We say in the "musical impact" section that before the war, the distinction between blues and jazz was quite vague. Would you like us to say here explicitly a sentence like "straddling the blues and jazz genres"? What are you really missing here? The number of disks sold by Bessie Smith? I have not written this paragraph. If I would criticize this I would strike the citations because I think in this case less is more. But as I read you I believe you think the opposite and would like this paragraph to be expanded. Am I right? Vb 10:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I thought a while about your comments. I have tried to include the nuance you seem to be missing in the paragraph. Vb 12:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• The "Musical style" section seems overly specific in describing "the blues" - The impression (at least, to a non-musician) is that the blues has a strict base definition, the "basic twelve-bar lyric framework of a blues composition. There is no nuance, recognizing:

• Most blues researchers claim that the very early blues were patterned after English ballads and often had eight, ten, or sixteen bars. (Tanner 36) The blues now consists of a definite progression of harmonies usually consisting of eight, twelve or sixteen measures, though the twelve bar blues are, by far, the most common. etc, and...
• One of the problems regarding defining what the blues are is the variety of authoritative opinions.

We have already in the article:

• There are few characteristics common to all blues, because the genre takes its shape from the peculiarities of individual performances.
• In addition to the conventional twelve-bar blues, there are many blues in 8-bar form, such as "How Long Blues", "Trouble in Mind", and Big Bill Broonzy's "Key to the Highway". There are also 16-bar blues, as in Ray Charles's instrumental "Sweet 16 Bars".
• At the time, there was no clear musical division between "blues" and "country" except for the race of the performer, and even that was sometimes incorrectly documented by the record companies.[19] Popular misconceptions attempt to place blues into these racial categories: studies have situated the origin of "black" spiritual music inside slaves' exposure to their masters' Hebridean-originated gospels. African-American economist and historian Thomas Sowell also notes that the Southern, black, ex-slave population was acculturated to a considerable degree by and among their Scots-Irish "redneck" neighbors.
• Songs from this early period had many different structures. Examples can be found in Henry Thomas's recordings. However, the twelve-, eight-, or sixteen-bar structure based on tonic, subdominant and dominant chords became the most common.[12]
• Spirituals are often cited as the origin of the blues. Musically, spirituals were a descendent of New England choral traditions, and in particular of Isaac Watts's hymns, mixed with African rhythms and call-and-response forms.
• Most early country bluesmen such as Skip James or Charley Patton were able to play as well both genres, which usually basically only differ in the lyrics.

All those remarks show that we don't neglect the influence of "white" on "black" music and also that we don't consider the blues as purely defined by the twelve-bar scheme. If I understand you well you consider the article does not stress this point enough. There are so many scholars who wrote about the origins of the blues that it seems it is difficult to make a complete overview in this article. Vb 13:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• The History section offers no real explanation for the development of blues; other sources note: ::*Prior to the emergence of the blues, solo music was atypical. Such individualized song had never been the main ingredient of black music. Blues music reflected the new status of African Americans. "there was a direct relationship between the national ideological emphasis upon the individual, the popularity of Booker T. Washington's teachings, and the rise of the blues. Psychologically, socially, and economically, Negroes were being acculturated in a way that would have been impossible during slavery, and it is hardly surprising that their secular music reflected this as much as their religious music did." (Levine, Lawrence W., Black Culture and Black Consciousness.) As a consequence, it was the emphasis on the individual that influenced the blues personalized form of song.

• After some research I have found some sources for a discussion of the social and economical sources of blues. It was not easy because it seems this topic is quite controversial. I have tried not to introduce any POV or original research. Would you mind checking this. Vb 16:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Some other items that are not mentioned here and, if accurate, likely should be:

• in 1895. George W. Johnson's recording of "Laughing Song" was the first blues song to be recorded.

• It seems from a quick look on internet that George W. Johnson was not a blues performer but ragtime peformer. Vb 13:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Before the field cry, with its bending of notes, it had not occurred to musicians to explore the area of the blue tonalities on their instruments. (Tanner 38) The early blues singers would sing these "bent" notes, microtonal shadings, or "blue" notes, and the early instrumentalists attempted to duplicate them. (Kamien 520) There is much detail in the Characteristics section, but no explanation of bending...which seems to be one of the more recognizable characteristics to a general audience...

• As your sources mention it. It seems bent notes are similar to blue notes. Blue notes are of course discussed in the article. If I understand you well, you want us to make this clearer. Am I right? Or do you want us to discuss the bending technique on the guitar. This guitar technique allows the performer to produce blue notes but the description of this is quite technical. Vb 14:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• The market for the recorded blues was almost entirely black during the 1920s and 1930s - The article says "In the 1920s, the blues became a major element of American popular music", which, unqualified, gives the impression that it crossed over at that point...

• I have tried to address this point. As far as I understood from my reading on the topic, Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith were performing mostly in front of whites and Handy was also popular in the white segment of the population. However the other blues styles which began to get recorded in the 1920s were indeed only bought by the blacks. I tried to make this clearer in the text. Please check this. Vb 14:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many more examples, and I only looked at early blues sections.

• The writing quality is uneven - There are numerous enough cases of awkward writing and also of abrupt, (often unsupported) summary statements, to have an impact on overall reading quality. Some examples:

• Minnie's blues was less based on her voice than on her virtuoso guitar style sometimes close to Django Reinhardt's.

• I rephrased this. Vb 16:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• The most representative slide guitarists of the period are Muddy Waters and Elmore James. The most influential guitarists of the Chicago blues style that did not use slide guitars were B. B. King and Freddy King.

• I rephrased this. Vb 16:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• ''Another important style of 1930s and early '40s urban blues was boogie-woogie, , a style characterized by...

• I rephrased this. Vb 16:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Bessie Smith was a very famous early blues singer in an urban style. (phot caption)

• I rephrased this. Vb 16:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• However, what made blues really come across to the young white audiences in the early 1960s was the Paul Butterfield Blues Band and the style of British blues that developed in England

• I rephrased this. Vb 16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• They emerged mostly because the communities could gather easier during mass or worship gatherings, the so-called camp meetings, and because of their—at first glance—politically correct contents

• I rephrased this. Vb 16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• In the early 20th century, the blues was considered disreputable, the first of many styles of African American music to be thus criticized, especially as white audiences began listening to the blues during the 1920s.[38]

• I rephrased this. Vb 16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

All the above mentionned akward sentences have been edited. Could you please check whether it has been correctly done and perhaps provide examples of other akward wordings. Thanks. Vb 16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• The selection of samples is not representative Samples may be considered a bonus to the text; since there are a number present, I'm taking them into account. Given the many styles and variations and periods of blues covered with roughly even weight, the fairly substantial set of samples does not seem representative. Also, the notes should be tied more into what each sample illustrates.

• Now the list of sample is quite representative. Vb 18:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• No significant coverage of blues record labels - There should be some acknowledgement of the important labels, in their own right, and in connection with particular releases and artists. (As for references, labels would seem at least as important as citing written sources...)

• I have included the major labels of the prewar era, the reference to the Chess Records. The reference to Yazoo Records was already present. I think those are the most significant. I don't know whether modern companies should be included like Blind Pig Records, Aligator Records or Delmark Records. Vb 17:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Lots of work has gone this article. It's great that it exists. My comments are simple on FEATURED ARTICLE worthiness. Thanks! (And, if anyone felf my previous version of this objection wasted their time...I was only hoping to avoid article improvement research...like this.). --Tsavage 23:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for this brilliant critique. I think it is very constructive and many of your comments can be put into the article. I shall to try to address your objections asap. Could you maybe cite your sources? It would help us. Thank you. Vb 12:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is perhaps a bit unusual in that it is based in part on the FAC comments above, specifically, the findings of Monicasdude and Jgm. I don't know much about the blues, but I do have some experience in music editorial, meaning, I believe I can separate areas of concern worth looking into, from simple personal opinion. I also know how difficult consensus in an article of this scope can be to find, and how off-the-mark a piece as widereaching as an "overview of the blues" can seem if done wrong. All kinds of lines can be drawn to separate the "essential" from the rest, but a compromise can be found, even amongst "experts" with strong opinions. I am not confident that this knowledgeable review has taken place. Reading that the nomination's promoter apparently hasn't heard of Paul Butterfield makes me seriously question the current editorial oversight. In additon, the peer reviews were insubstantial (a few lines each of comment only), and the Talk page covers only a few specifics. It would be a real shame to have a whole seminal area of modern music misportrayed in any way, and FAR worse than a shoddy song or artist article. Lots of scholarly and detailed work has been done on the blues, and if there are widely accepted references, these should consulted used (and not just listed as references). Doing a concise summary of a huge topic in a way that WORKS is IMO one of the highest achievements possible, it is GREAT for any reader, but it is also extremely difficult. There is no need to make haste with FA status here, the article is out there, fully accessible, waiting for more eyeballs. The discussion here seems to be open and positive, and there's no intention by me to change that, simply to encourage a true review of comprehensiveness. (I also agree, it needs a good copyedit, and I'd like to see a more representative, and better annotated, selection of samples.) Sorry for the cheap speechifying, if any is perceived (not intended!)... Thank you! --Tsavage 18:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Dear Tsavage, I think your object is not actionable. An objection for comprehensiveness is only valid if the reviewer says what is missing. I know now who is Paul Butterfield but I really think we had not missed him. It was written before "...when dozens of bands such as Fleetwood Mac, John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers, The Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, Paul Butterfield Blues Band, and Cream took to covering the classic blues numbers from either the Delta or Chicago blues traditions." without reference to Paul Butterfield. Maybe many think Paul Butterfield was a huge bluesman but it was simply a bluesman from the British blues movement (which BTW, though I like very much Peter Green and John Mayall, I am not a fan of). Many other artists, who in my opinion are more influential or important, are missing such as Buka White, Big Joe Williams, John Jackson, Luther Johnson, Bob Margolin, etc. I have added Paul Butterfield to please Monicasdude but I sincerely think less would be better if we don't want to turn this prose article into a list. The comments by Monicasdude and Jgm are valid and I think they are big enough to judge by themselves whether we have addressed their objections. You speak also about copyedit. As said above I am not able to write brilliant prose like a native speaker would. So I would appreciate if you could give examples of sentences which need copyediting. Thank you. Vb 09:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well Paul Butterfield was American; sorry about that. I corrected this. Vb 13:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• (via edit conflict with vb) I think this objection is inactionable because it is based on the volume of peer review and talk page interactions and the fact that the nominator was not familiar with Paul Butterfield. I also don't think objections based on which specific sources are used should be considered actionable. If this article was not based on scholarly works at all, that would be different, but simply not referencing certain books seems unnecessary. This is only supposed to be an overview of a large and diverse genre; discussion of the opinion of the more famous blues scholars would really be more appropriate for subarticles like origins of the blues and history of the blues. And the references cited are hardly unscholarly anyway, aside from one newspaper article. Tuf-Kat 09:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks for your patient replies. I realized that my comment might not be interpreted as "actionable", however, I do have an objection (as raised) that I feel relates directly to the basic quality of the article. It's a question of rules and how they're applied. For example, the nomination cites "peer reviews", but there is no process for deciding whether a peer review was of value (has the article in any demonstrable way been rigorously examined prior to FAC?), so what is the point of mentioning peer reviews? Or, is it invalid to base an FAC opinion on other voters' opinions, should such comments ideally not be included in this forum? I'm simply trying to contribute a well-considered opinion to each FAC I participate in, while observing the rules (hopefully, the latter supports the former). Anyhow, the operative word here is "actionable", so I will try in all good faith to see if my very real editorial opinion can be made "legal"... (And I am sincerely NOT here just to argue or try and win points or block FAs or take things down to ridiculous levels of detail, only to help promote articles that are of superior quality, by the principles represented in FAC criteria...) --Tsavage 20:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • People always provide links to previous FACs and PRs, because they often contain useful discussion. Sometimes they don't, sometimes they do. An article may not have any prior FACs or PRs, but if it does, it's considered standard to provide a link in the nomination. The quality or quantity of discussion is not really relevant. Peer reviews are not considered a requirement and, if done, need not have been particularly productive. Tuf-Kat 22:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment User:Stifle has just removed the copy-edit tag just as User:Merishi did on 23 Nov. I therefore guess the article doesn't need any major copyedit anymore. Vb 16:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Many change have been done in this article sine it was FAC [22], I think it would be great if the reviewers could once again tell their mind about the improvements. I think they have been substantial. Vb 18:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although I wonder about FAC as wholesale article improvement zone, which puts a lot of pressure on objectors to monitor and update their original comments based on significant, even major, rewrites, the process overall is quite cool (positive, transparent, and whatnot else). That said, this blues article has moved forward quite a bit, with a constructive vibe. I will review it again. Whether or not I support, and whatever the ultimate consensus determination is on this FAC pass, I do think this should be pushed to be "all it can be" (renominated if necessary). If any single article can have a large effect on overall Wikipedia credibility, a REALLY GOOD BLUES OVERVIEW (with audio samples!) definitely packs a ton of karmic sway...! --Tsavage 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The West Wing (television)

Look here for an archive of solved issues (to make the FAC readable). Staxringold 22:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Self-nomination. The West Wing has been on for seven years now, and this article contains a good bit of information about the show, including discussion of critical reactions. Much of the article does not carry a spoiler warning because those sections do not discuss plot elements, unlike other television featured articles. The article went through an extensive month-long peer review, archived here, which discussed and fixed most of the major issues regarding tone, scope, and length. Multiple forks and plentiful, but not overwhelming, use of well-licensed pictures make this article a great choice for featured article status. -Scm83x 08:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Johnleemk | Talk 18:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The lead section could use a slight touch-up, though, I agree. I'm going to try and make a table for the actor/actress award winners right now, to make it sleeker. Staxringold 13:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The only objection I have had upon reading this article was the length of the lead section, and that has now been fixed. Andrew Levine 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, all my objections have been addressed, great work guys.--nixie 06:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• support for this article as a FAC. Thanks for all the work so far! -Rebelguys2 07:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The additions address all of my comments. Well done, everyone. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great show, great accompanying article. Set out far better than any fansites, or even the show's own NBC page. Harro5 21:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Looks good! Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Kudos to Scm83x for the effort and levelheadedness. Article is great and just keeps on improving. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Much of this article is rooted in unverifiable fancruft. The sections on timeline skew, off-year presidential elections, etc. are based in the unverifiable inference that scattered anomalies in characters' dialogue and prop displays were intended to reflect a radically different history of American politics than occurred in the real world. The article shows no evidence that any contributor to it is aware that such variations are among the standard conventions of political fiction (from Alan Drury to Richard Clarke, probably much longer). Also, the show has been extensively reviewed and commented on, both in connection with the original broadcasts and the DVD releases, and virtually none of the commentary/criticism is discussed in the article. There are also other clear NPOV/verifiability problems ("most viewers continue to enjoy The West Wing, arguing that it is still far superior to other shows and unique among drama series in its theme"; "A large, fully connected set of the White House allows the producers to capture an almost reality TV feel"; "The result of this kidnapping was the invasion and bombing of Qumar, a terror-supporting Muslim country, similar to the real-world invasion and bombing of Afghanistan."). This is a pretty bad article, all things considered, and given the amount of useful, well-researched, easy-to-find source material. Much of it is really thinly veneered original research. Monicasdude 23:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Please. The timeline skew (which I myself objected to) is based on very verifiable facts in the show like dialogue and props. If a law exists in both TWW world and reality it presents a point by which the timelines can be connected. In addition, the "Ronald Reagan" hospital wouldn't be named that were he not president, nor would the variety of presidential portraits be hanging in the White House were they not presidents. The off-year elections aren't even questioned, there are numerous signs and dialogue references to the 2002 and 2006 election years. Finally, as for the POV complaints:

• Quote 1: I'll change most to many, but it does still pull in millions of viewers and a primetime spot on NBC.

What's unverifiable (and unsourced) in Quote 1 is the claim that "most" or "many" viewers "argue" that TWW is "far superior" to other shows. Monicasdude 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have changed the quote to read "However, many viewers continue to tune into The West Wing every week, with the show currently averaging eight million viewers a week." and provided a link to the latest Nielsen Ratings for the show. This definitely makes the statement a hard fact. -Scm83x 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Quote 2: It does... This has been commented on both by cast members in commentaries (on how things like the hallway scenes lend a realistic feel to the show) and reviews.

It's an unsourced aesthetic judment presented as fact, and therefore violates NPOV/NOR policies. And "realistic" and "reality TV" aren't exactly synonymous. Monicasdude 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I removed the reference to realistic and changed the wording to "A large, fully connected set of the White House allows the producers to create shots with very few cuts and long continuous master shots of staff members walking through the hallways, which have become a show trademark." -Scm83x 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Quote 3: Again, that's exactly what it was. Did you just pull random quotes to try and present a justification for your objection? The war on terrorism couldn't be written into the already existing season, and they couldn't have 9-11 happen a year later, so they created a fictional nation on which they could declare war (to avoid PC complaints) and a fictional justification (again, to avoid the touchy subject of 9-11). Staxringold 23:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In which episode was war declared against Qumar? In which episode was Qumar invaded? In which episode was the government of Qumar toppled by invading American forces, parallel to Afghanistan? According to the Wikipedia article on Qumar, the country's fictive history is nothing like what you present, in the article or here. Saying that the Qumar plotline was "similar" to the real-world intervention in Afghanistan is, at best, an unsourced opinion -- and an opinion based on events that don't seen to have "actually" happened on the television program. Monicasdude 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Right to begin with, analagous situations do not necessarily mean things progressed identically. The point of that sentence is to point out that terrorism is being discussed in The West Wing as well. War was never declared in the War in Afghanistan either (the US hasn't been in a declared war since WWII), but I think what you are talking about happened in "The Dogs of War" when Walken made similar declarations to Bush's Axis of Evil State of the Union. Again, the invasion/toppling of the Taliban is not the same as that of Qumar. The very purpose of an analogy is to take objects A and B, which are not the same and compare similar aspects. Each bombing and conflict represents the beginning of a more active US position in fighting terrorism, which is the entire point of that quote. The first bombings took place in the aforementioned "Dogs of War".Staxringold 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You've edited the article to correct some of the errors in the discussion of Qumar, which is good, but problems remain there. The claim that Qumar is based on Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan isn't unreasonable, but it is unsourced and therefore has NPOV/NOR (no original research)/verifiability problems. The statement that the Zoe Bartlet kidnapping was the beginning of the show's "war on terrorism" is entirely unsourced and is similarly in violation of Wikipedia policies. I know it's hard, in dealing with material like this, to separate out one's own interpretations, but that's required by Wikipedia policy for all articles, and is particularly important for FAs. Monicasdude 02:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That's simply rediculous and wrong. Not every single sentence on Wikipedia is sourced. Why? Because if it was every^[1] sentence^[2] would^[3] read^[4] like^[5] this^[6]. It is already discussed in the article (and sourced by the producers/writers) that Qumar was a general mixture of Middle Eastern nations so the show could deal with Middle Eastern issues. As for the war on terrorism, it's already been discussed. The show dealt with the president, the real president had declared war on terrorism (specifically Middle Eastern) and the show created a Middle Eastern terrorist storyline for that and following seasons? Gasp, I wonder if they are connected? [1 (not sourced as requires payment to read)] and [2]. Staxringold 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying that "Qumar was a general mixture of Middle Eastern nations" contradicts the statement that "Qumar [is] a terrorist-sponsoring Middle Eastern state based on both Taliban Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia." Nothing you say supports the specific statements in the article I quoted, and several of your comments indicate violations of the NPOV/NOR policies.

Resolution. This line has been eliminated in favor of "Qumar, a terrorist-sponsoring Middle Eastern state, is repeatedly a source of trouble for the Bartlet administration." This removes all references to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. I think this should resolve that issue.

If the "timeline skew" theories and everything associated with them aren't fancruft, and merit encyclopedic treatment, there ought to be some evidence, some verifiable indications, that the show's creators intended to set their storylines in a United States with such a radical difference in its political history. Otherwise, the discussions fail Wikipedia policy requirements, and shouldn't be included in the substance of an article, no less a featured article. Monicasdude 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So long as the Endor Holocaust has an article you have no arguement. Besides that, Wikipedia articles often make inferences that are obviously implied in the material. Since Bartlet was re-elected in '02 and Santos/Vinick is '06, obviously something set the timeline off kilter. So long as we know that, and know real world events/people, we can draw out the theories proposed there. Finally, you're ignoring the core point which is that is a fork article and should have no bearing on this articles FAC. Staxringold 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Endor Holocaust article is not terribly good, but at least it complies with Wikipedia verifiability policy. It presents the material involved as non-canonical, and describes the various fannish theories, rather representing the material as "factual" (to the extent that the term is relevant in describing a fictional construct.) The West Wing article, in contrast, simply grafts the disputable inferences of a groups of fans into the fictional construct. The entire enterprise rests on the unveriable assumption that the dates on which the television program aired in the real world are roughly congruent with the dates on which fictional events occurred in the fictional universe in which the fictional narrative takes place. Unless the article can cite the shows' creators in support of the "timeline skew" hypothesis, or present indisputable evidence that the scattered bits of dialogue and images which support cannot reasonably be viewed as nothing more than the sort of errors and anomalies that are almost unavoidable when producing a regular television series, the material related to it should not be presented as "factual" (within the fictional construct). To do so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. And such material is not limited to the fork article, but is present (often in headings, in large type) in the main article. Monicasdude 02:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No, they are not dependant on that. We have references to real presidents and years for events that happened in TWW that also happened in the real world. US Presidents in TWW serve 4 year terms. Fact. Bartlet was re-elected in 2002. Fact. Bartlet was not elected through a special election. Fact. Thus, Bartlet was initially elected in 1998. Bill Clinton's presidential portrait is seen in the situation room and his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is already law. But wait! Bill Clinton served from 1993-2001. And thus we have our timeline skew theory (which has source material, so you can't kvetch about that) which draws on years mentioned in the show for events that also happened in reality. Using these years you can create a timeline of events, which is exactly what happened. And again, widely discussed fan theories on content are often mentioned, whereas this one has source material and is wholly based on reality and things mentioned in canon. Staxringold 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Bartlet was re-elected in 2002. Fact." Obviously not a "fact", since Jed Bartlet is a fictional character. You cite no verifiable source for the claim that the statement is "true" within the West Wing fictional construct. The difference between this article and the articles you link to is that the other articles present the various non-canonical hypotheses as hypotheses, not "facts," and are not parts of the main articles on the canonical fictions. The Star Wars article, quite sensibly, note that some of the inconsistencies noted "may be simple mistakes that have no explanation other than human error," and that "Almost any of these inconsistencies can be explained as an oversight by Lucas or an intended change in Lucas's idea of how the Star Wars universe works." Monicasdude 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The episode in which the fictional character Bartlet was re-elected was shown in 2002. The next election is being shown on TV in March 2006. So, 2002 and 2006 election dates. It is only logical to assume that 2002-4=1998 would be the year Bartlet was first elected, also backed up by references to the administration having been in office "1 year already" in episodes airing fall of 2000. This would put the election in 1998. I do think that it would make good sense to add a disclaimer that the writers and producers have never claimed that the show follows a one year:one year ratio, so it is possible that the show skipped a year. -Scm83x 06:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, there is no verifiable source for the (rather dubious) claim that the original air dates of episodes in the real world are intended to be congruent with the dates that events "actually" occur in the fictional construct. All of the "evidence" supporting the increasingly wacky "timeline skew" hypotheses is more consistent, for example, with the hypothesis that, within the fictional construct, the show's first episodes "actually" occurred in 2002, and the idea that the relatively small number of anomalies remaining are best explained as imperfections in the fictional construct. It's not real, and it's not encylopedic to lose the distinction between fictional constructs and the real world. Monicasdude 15:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The article isn't saying that the election took place in the show's 2002 or 2006, but that they happened in our 2002 and 2006 (or will happen). I changed the header for the 1998 election to "Bartlet's first presidential election" and removed references to the 1998 election date from the article. -Scm83x 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. In regards to the comment of no criticism being discussed, please see the section labeled "Critical reactions" in the article, which uses multiple periodical and book sources to establish the critical view of the show. The main book used, and referenced multiple times at the end of the article, is "The West Wing: The American Presidency as Televison Drama," which can be seen on Amazon here. It is a collection of essays by communications, political science, English, history, and education professors regarding critical views of all aspects of the show. This book and other magazine sources, all footnoted and cited in the references section, provide the basis for the critical review section of the article. Thanks. -Scm83x 00:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Which pretty much proves my point. There's an extensive body of reviews and commentaries out there, principally devoted to treating the program as a dramatic work. And the article draws virtually all its critical references from a single book, which isn't particularly concerned with treating the show in terms of its art or its craft. The other references are mostly political commentary/criticism, not artistic. It's a huge gap in the article: no reviews or criticism of a TV show as a TV show. Monicasdude 01:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• The book has several essays written by film writing and film studies professors. I will add material from these essays later tonight to correct this issue. -Scm83x 02:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't really address the problem. What privileges this book to be the only source of appropriate commentary on the program? TWW has been reviewed by major newspapers and magazines, and been the subject of hundreds if not thousands of commentaries. Presenting only the commentaries found in a single book (and arguably representing the POV of its editor as to what sort of commentary is appropriate) is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, or FA requirements. Monicasdude 02:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Film criticism section has been added to article which does not include any references to the book. Articles are sourced from the Guardian and Salon. There is an entire paragraph concerning the downfalls of Sorkin's scripts, which I believe rounds out the article more wholly. -Scm83x 06:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Not resolved. Added quotation from one critic, which again deals with politics more than the show's art/craft, and a generalization about the show's scripts. The article needs to present a well-researched description of the show's reception by critics, particularly with regard to the art/craft involved, to meet FA criteria. And by adding this unsourced, NPOV-violating comment as factual -- "This pandemic naiveté, and resulting perpetual optimism, are prevalent in Sorkin's scripts. Following the departure of Sorkin, consequent storylines, covering topics including death and treason, have revealed a more nuanced view of the world, a noticeable shift from Sorkin's scripts" -- the "resolution" edit does more damage to the article than improvement. Monicasdude 15:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Added quotations by other critics now concerning the use of steadicam tracking shots and a screenshot of one. The first quote doesn't talk so much about politics as it does about how unreal the script's presentation of politics and politicos is. This is a quality of the screenwriting, which should make it a criticism of Sorkin's writing. I am sourcing the last quote and changing it slightly to: "However, many fans believe that the show's scripts have changed since Sorkin left the show in 2003." This quote is referenced in the article. -Scm83x 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

A Truly Minor Point - three of the first four sentences start with "The show." That's not great writing. Also, don't FA's generally have more like a three paragraph intro? Kaisershatner 04:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed some of those in the intro. As for the introduction, Scm said he was working off the rule roughly 1 opening paragraph per 15000 words (I believe). Staxringold 04:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea, I was looking at the guidelines for leads. -Scm83x 09:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object While easy to read and packed with information, this article about a TV series is not comprehensive. It reads more like a subarticle, "Plot development and scriptwritng for ...", than a encyclopedic overview of the subject. Some specifics:

• No coverage of the production side - What production-related information there is is located in other areas and difficult to find. I want to know basics, stuff like: Shooting locations? Crew size and shooting style (e.g. is this a deluxe operation, or barebones?)? Shooting schedules (are actors together for long periods? compared to other TV series? etc) Tech details: any innovative use of video, CGI, editing, etc? Basic numbers: size of the crew; shooting ratio (eg raw footage to edited material?). I realize there is potentially endless detail, my critical finding is that there is a "reasonable" amount of basic info that should be here.

Response. None of the other featured articles concerning television shows go into this kind of detail regarding the production quality of the show. Very few people will be concerned with these points of minutia and if they are concerned about it, they should go to IMDB or try to find a book about these details. As of yet, I have not seen any information concerning most of these points, and I do not think there is much reason to include them. -Scm83x 03:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

For one, using existing FAs as isn't valid, as standards are (apparetly, rapidly) improving/getting tougher; many current FAs are a nomination away from FARC by current standards... Second, Very few people will be concerned with these points of minutia and if they are concerned about it, they should go to IMDB is a very presumptuous statement. "People" seem to like production info, if we go by the fact that practically every current feature film and established TV series has a "making of..." feature. DVDs regularly include a wealth of production info. Answering at least the basic production questions only makes common sense for a comprehensive article. Is IMDb a prerequisite for reading an article here? --Tsavage 03:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• No coverage of the commercial/business aspect The show is an entertainment business. Is it produced by an independent production house and sold to the network? What is the per episode production budget (and how does that compare with other comparable shows)? What kind of money are the principal actors making? Who are the main advertisers (and have their been advertisers who haven't participated because of the controversiality?) Again, I realize there is endless detail to be found; I'm simply looking for a "reasonable" amount of info describing this business aspect of the topic.

I will try to include maybe some of this information, but again... a lot of it is minutia. These details are not included in other television featured articles. Also, the article, once below 30kb, has crept back up to 35kb. This is getting very large again. -Scm83x 03:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, referring to existing FAs is invalid, and citing article length as a reason for not including information is a non-starter. What sort of Xanax-based world view portrays a money-making TV series in the cutthroat US TV industry as no more than a bunch of character and plot development exercises and critical awards? --Tsavage 03:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Real-world accuracy It should be made clear exactly how accurate the overall portrayal of the White House is. Is this Tom Clancy-level detailed research, down to the right WH-branded sugar packets? Are the procedures and protocols accurate? Could a future historian study this series to gain an accurate picture of the functioning White House? Given both the nature of the series, and the current empahsis on real-world connections of the article, making this explicit and plain is necessary.

To be a great article, the topic must be covered in full. The points above represent what are to me are obvious and serious holes in the coverage. --Tsavage 23:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Response to "Real-world accuracy". As far as this point goes, I think the show's accuracy is made clear in the "Critical Reactions" section, detailed in subsections from "Legitimacy" to "The Left Wing," and to some extent "Film criticism." The first subsection, "Legitimacy," immediately states that "former White House staffers agree that the show "captures the feel [of the West Wing], shorn of a thousand undramatic details." In addition, subsequent sections include, "acclaim for the veracity of the series." Regardless, Sorkin, the show's creator, believes that "[his] obligation isn't to the truth." I think this is enough for us to get a good feel of "how accurate the overall portrayal of the White House is."
  • "Is this Tom Clancy-level research?" Obviously, the show's creator never meant for that to be a priority - "[his] obligation isn't to the truth."
  • "WH-branded sugar packets? Procedures and protocols accurate?" We know the show has some validity, though "not completely accurate in its portrayal of the actual West Wing." As a side note, there are mentions of WH-branded boxes of M&Ms in the show; however, that was obviously an interesting thing the writers threw in - they never planned for everything to be completely accurate, as it already states in the article. If "many former West Wing denizens applauded the show's depiction of the real West Wing," then the procedures and protocols depicted in the show must have some validity.
  • "Could a future historian study this series? (nature of the series, and the current empahsis [sic])" The show accurately depicts a functioning White House. Obviously, however, it's a fictitious Democratic government dealing with current events under a real-life Republican White House. As far as historical accuracy, there is none, but it brings a "useful insight to the views of the left," as seen in the subsection, "The Left Wing." -Rebelguys2 00:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply (and for the [sic])! You make my point. Your comments could (should) be summarized in as little as a paragraph, appropriately placed within the aritcle outline (like, in a "Factual accuracy" section, or somesuch). With citations as required, it provides an interesting and necessary aspect of full show coverage that is currently not present. --Tsavage 00:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I do not believe that Rebelguys2 makes your point. He rather, proves that all of the information is there but the reader has to assimilate it for himself, much like a normal encyclopedia. We can't spoon feed assumptions to people, they have to decide on their own the answers to the questions you raised based on what facts we impart to them in the article. -Scm83x 03:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Is that really your well-considered response? Am I just pissing in the wind with my comments, about lack of production info, lack of business info, lack of info on the level of real-world accuracy of the show? Are these things that "most people" couldn't care less about? Are these not significant aspects of a TV show? Am I simply possessed of a subnormal intellect, that failed to assimilate and synthesize the answers to these questions from the article, where other, "normal" people would easily have? --Tsavage 03:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Response to Production Side and Commercial and Business Aspect. I'm somewhat in agreement with Tsavage here, and recommend a new section called "Production and distribution," or something of the like, with perhaps two subsections concerning your two original bullet point. It's not a spoiler, so it'd probably best flow if we stuck it between "Plot" and "Show's evolution." I think both of these topics can be condensed into one section; I think it's important to mention some of it, but, admittedly, a lot of it is just overly detailed. I wouldn't plan on talking about the 1.33:1 aspect ratio in the 1999-2000 compared with the 1.78:1 aspect ratio they used later, and other specifics you mentioned above. I know you weren't really expecting that, but I'd just like to emphasize that this kind of detail for the "Production and distribution" section is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary. -Rebelguys2 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Followup to Production and distribution. After looking over the newly researched information, this is really not going to be a substantial section. Do we need to know how much each actor makes? No, that's too detailed. We'll make a small note of salary ranges in the "Cast" section. Do we need a list of the dozens of filming locations? No, that's completely unnecessary. We'll make a note of where the primary set is, in the lead, perhaps. Special effects? We already noted that the show is dialogue-centric, and some camera use such as the moving hallway shots, and don't need to mention various companies that provided maybe an explosion/gunshot or two each season. Much of the information is already there, and this article primarily needs minor additions to existing sections. The "Behind the Scenes" documentaries you find in the DVDs of old shows are there for the fans of the show - i.e., those who will actually buy the DVD - because they know the show well enough to want to know all the details. It's there to satiate the appetite of an often nearly obsessive fanbase. Wikipedia is not here for that purpose; rather, while your topics are valid, they only require a passing mention. I fail to see the need for too many numbers and figures. -129.116.44.25 06:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, that was me, Rebelguys2. I somehow got logged out. Regardless, my resolution to this is to add small details into the lead, the cast section, and a few other sections...there's simply no need for an entire section to regurgitate fact after fact about mundane production details. -Rebelguys2 06:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have made most of these changes. -Scm83x 07:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Response to Real-World Accuracy. I think that "Legitimacy" covers what you wanted in "Factual accuracy," Tsavage. The "Critical reactions" section introduces us to three, distinct subsections, "Legitimacy," which describes the accuracy of the general depiction of life in the White House, "Social impact," which outlines how the show can be used as a teaching tool because of its accuracy but admitting it's melodramatic parts, and "The Left Wing," showing how the show is fictionally under a Democratic administration but can still give us an outlook on current events from a different point of view. This is clear enough. Regardless, both Wikipedia style and good writing wants us to give concrete examples like this - not have overarching, somewhat pointless summaries for every section. See here. These subsections are clear-cut and immediately following a brief introduction into the "Critical reactions" section which, in a large part, details the show's accuracy. It's not that we don't want to spoon-feed the content to people - it's that we already are, and resumming these three sections would be completely redundant. -Rebelguys2 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xanadu House

FAC 1 | FAC 2 | FAC 3

4th self-nomination. I really do believe it is ready this time! Having been through FAC three times before, lots of issues have been addressed by various great and experienced users on Wikipedia. It has sufficient images, with sufficient copyright status, and lots of References and external links. It has been copy-edited a few times, and gives a good read. It has also been through peer review once. — Wackymacs 18:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A good article that introduced me to a topic that was totally new to me. It seems that the previous issues have been pretty much resolved. The only thing that worries me is the contradictory copyright templates on Image:Xanadu-bedroom.jpg - you should fix that. rspeer 07:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. The image Image:Xanadu-bedroom.jpg was scanned from a copyrighted book, and is as fair use with a rationale. I dont think there is anything wrong with that. What tag would you suggest instead? — Wackymacs 07:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, got the wrong one. I meant Image:Xanadukitchen.jpg, which has two copyright templates that say different things on it. rspeer 01:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I removed one of the copyright templates from it. — Wackymacs 08:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak support -- Interesting article on a difficult topic. I covered several issues by communicating with the Wackymacs, and I'm willing to support the article. I'm slightly uncomfortable with the relatively sparse number of footnotes, and the smallish number of sources; I'd feel more comfortable if some of the External Links were made into References and cited in the article. But I'm happy with where things are. -- Creidieki 23:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A good article that enlightens us on a seldom-heard of topic, this deserves to be featured. As homes are increasingly computer-driven, this time capsule of late 70s "home of tomorrow" ambitions becomes more and more relevant. NickDupree 5 December 2005

• Support. Good stuff, though is there a way to prevent four sentences in a row in the Xanadu in Print section from starting with "The book" ? Rampart 15:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support, I've improved the wording in this section slightly. — Wackymacs 15:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting article on one aspect of the history of alternate housing, enough images.--Dakota ^{t e} 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.

This article was promoted on 7 December 2005 (UTC) by Raul654

This article was split off recently from Joseph Smith, Jr., and has undergone peer review here. I have contributed the most to this particular article, but there are many editors of articles on the Latter Day Saint movement who would like to see an article about Smith in honor of his 200th birthday, which is approaching on December 23. The article is on a rather controversial subject, but it is highly cited (mostly to primary and secondary sources accessible on the internet), covers numerous points of view, and everything is verifiable. COGDEN 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Why the strange "FOR TESTING ONLY" phrases with every reference? Harro5 05:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Not sure why you are getting this. There was a template problem on previous versions of the article, but this should have been fixed. Maybe your page cache needs to be updated. Is anybody else getting this? COGDEN 05:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have caches disabled, and I do not have any such problem. -- Creidieki 05:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Seems to have corrected itself. Anyway, I don't know enough about the subject to comment on content, but the other stuff in the article looks good. I'll be interested to see how this FAC goes. Harro5 09:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object -- This article does a very good job of establishing context for unfamiliar readers for the subject (second paragraph) and for the larger context of the subject (third paragraph). I've seen few articles do this well, and I commend you. The citations are uniformly excellent, and the article does a very good job of maintaining NPOV and of presenting disputed historical accounts. Overall, this is one of the tightest and most professional articles I've seen on Wikipedia, and I look forward to being able to give it my strong support.

The article was already very well proofread, and I was unable to improve much on this front. I know very little about Christianity, particularly the Latter Day Saints, and so I was unable to accurately judge the article's comprehensiveness or neutrality. This is the first biographical article I've reviewed at any length, and I'd be happy to discuss any of my structural suggestions if they seem offbase. I had many suggestions which I would like to see addressed, but they are all minor:

• The Golden Plates are mentioned in the first paragraph without explanation; they're likely to be confusing to unfamiliar readers. I think that a few words or a phrase could give the necessary level of explanation (perhaps something like "containing revelations from God"; I'm not personally familiar with the subject.
  • Addressed. COGDEN 19:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• In the childhood section, why was the Smith family warned out of town? Had they recently moved there, or was there another reason that they were viewed as "outsiders"? Did they commit any specific indiscretions, or was there simply too much competition for food? If the exact reasons are not historically recorded, this should be mentioned explicitly.
  • Addressed. COGDEN 19:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Is there an appropriate link for warning out of town somewhere on Wikipedia? It's fine if there isn't, but it seems like a good thing to link.
  • Good idea. I created a stub article on the subject. COGDEN 19:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• If there's an appropriate internal link for the general religious atmosphere in the early 19th-Century United States, it would go well in the first paragraph of the "Religious and folk-religious background of Joseph's family" section.
  • I referenced Second Great Awakening, which is probably the best article on the subject. COGDEN 19:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• If you don't already know what a theophany is, the "First Vision" section is a little bit hard to understand. There's an entire paragraph of historical background, during which I was wondering, "So was this an actual physical vision of God, or just a realization, or what?". I think that some description might want to go before the historical background.
  • I tried to address this. COGDEN 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Similarly, if you don't already know what the Second Great Awakening period was, the first sentence of "Joseph's early religious experiences" is a little bit confusing. The reader has to infer what the Awakening is from the second part of the sentence. I'd generally suggest a sentence of the form "Joseph was raised during the Second Great Awakening, a period when ....".
  • Addressed. COGDEN 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• I think that Urim and Thummim should be explained in the article, at least briefly. They're mentioned several times, but you have to check that article to really understand what they are.
  • Hopefully I addressed this. COGDEN 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• The first two paragraphs of section 2 ("Early experiences...") are currently formatted as if they were an introduction (i.e., they don't lie beneath a heading). In content, however, they are simply the first two paragraphs of the history. This is actually true of section 1 as well. I think that actual introduction paragraphs should be written for these sections, giving an outline of the content. (I'm willing to discuss this, I don't have much specific experience with biographies).
  • I tried to address this. COGDEN 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Frankly, I don't think that the current separation of the article into sections 1, 2, and 3 is very good. "Joseph Smith's First Vision" is part of the Childhood section, which makes *some* sense (since the visions happened while he was 15-18), but really it's pretty thematically unconnected with the earlier portions. Would you consider breaking the article into (1.1 and 1.2), (1.3 and 2.1), (2.2), (3)? Each of those new sections could have an intro paragraph, and you could probably split 2.2 into subsections (it's rather long at the moment).
  • I agree, and I tried to address this in a manner similar to that you suggested. Hopefully the article has a better structure now. COGDEN 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• The first sentence of the "First Vision" section makes it sound like the action is happening in 1832, rather than in 1820/23. It's important to mention the publication, but the vision should take priority.
  • Addressed. COGDEN 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• The endnote says that the article is continued in Joseph Smith, Jr. rather than at Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. (1827 to 1831). Is this intentional? I've often seen templates used to graphically represent these types of sequential articles.
  • I've fixed this. I also added the template. COGDEN 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck! -- Creidieki 19:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I created a template that might help address the last comment {{Joseph Smith, Jr.}} it could be added to all of the relavent articles to help navigation between them. I won't add it myself but if you think it's useful it is there. --Martyman-(talk) 23:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support -- One of the best articles I've seen on Wikipedia, and shows a nuanced understanding of how to cite biographical information. All of my objections were minor, and have been addressed. -- Creidieki 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is a prime example of seperating informaiton out of a long, detailed article for readers who want additional informaiton. Comments above are good and should be addressed, but the article has my support. -Visorstuff 20:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - As Visorstuff pointed out, this is a good model for splitting up long articles. Masterful work on the part of COGDEN. Quite good, quite good, yes. Cookiecaper 02:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - COGDEN did a great job on this article -and the final tweaks that have been suggested only go to show how well he incorporated many disparate views and the long term edits and debates that went on in Joseph Smith, Jr. before this article was created from a section of that article. Trödel|talk 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support enthusiastically - The perception of the general public about the LDS Movement and its founder is often spotty or incorrect. This would be a great opportunity to do some educatin'. Good job by COGDEN and other contributors.. Deadsalmon 00:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: a strong effort towards a NPOV article on a very controversial subject. Throughout the articles development, COGDEN and other editors sought and listened to opinions and ideas from others. The material is consistently referenced and provides a strong overview of the person and his time. WBardwin 00:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Now that all of Creidieki's points have been addressed. --Martyman-(talk) 02:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Excellent Article Abeo Paliurus 16:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, as above. I helped work on the peer review. However, I would be interested in finding the {{oldpeerreview}} site. Where is it? Has it been deleted? Trevdna 17:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The old peer review site is here. COGDEN 00:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support Wow! Tom Haws 19:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• I support, of course. However, there is one suggestion I would strongly urge on COGDEN, who has done a marvelous job both on this article and others: you should create a template so that all major articles on related to the LDS church may be easily found. Hydriotaphia 22:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I'll think about what kind of template might work. COGDEN 00:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, as per (all of the) above. But as a non-Mormon (I'm personally an atheist (not that it matters), and likely one of the few non-Mormons voting on this FAC), I did initially find the heavy reliance on religious literature and autobiography in the inline Harvard citations as (IMHO) rather unsettling. Yet at second glance, it is perfectly acceptable. But given that the article gives plenty of disclaimers (usage of word "purported" in describing the plates), the article seems to present a perfectly dispassioned and encyclopedic tone. This, as Creidieki states (way above) indeed should serve as a model of accuracy, thoroughness, and verifiability. Cheers. ← SARAVASK — 20:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like to add—as somebody who has given his support to the article—that I am emphatically not a member of the Church of LDS. I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you, Saravask, but I would not be so quick to assume that most of the people who support this article are Mormons. Hydriotaphia 06:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article doesn't sufficiently explain why his early life is important and significant enough to warrant a separate article. Reading the article, I feel like I'm reading part of a larger article rather than a standalone article. In addition, some of the writing is extremely convoluted and confusing (for example the section 'Moving to Harmony, Pennsylvania'), and I think 50kb is far too long for an article on Smith's entire life, let alone just his early life. Worldtraveller 17:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I addressed this in the introduction, which now explains why this particular era of his life is significant. on the issue of size, 50 kb is not really that bad, especially considering that much of this bulk is from the extensive footnotes and bibliography. If you have some specific comments concerningn the Moving to Harmony section, I'd be glad to address them. COGDEN 01:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand why his early life is important enough to need a separate article. You say in your nomination that it was 'recently split off' - why the split?

50kb is too long for almost any article, and even more so when this only deals with an arbitrarily selected portion of one person's life. The way the article ends makes it clear it's intended to be read as part of a series and not as a standalone article, so that in fact you have a 95Kb article arbitrarily split into three separate parts.

I picked out the Moving to Harmony section because the prose there is almost impenetrable, and it seems to me the second paragraph could be replaced by something such as 'Harris had known the Smith family for several years and believed in Jospeh Smith's claims to be a seer. After visiting Smith in person to hear about the plates, he agreed to sponsor their translation'. All the extra detail is extraneous. Much of the article suffers from this kind of writing, in my opinion. Worldtraveller 23:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Worldtraveller's objection is not actionable because it would require deletion of the article. He should remember that his stance of radical deletionism is a very lonely one. Everyking 00:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A request to trim an article to a reasonable size is, of course, perfectly actionable. I do hope you're voting based on the article contents - your comments don't refer to the article at all but only to me and my comments. Worldtraveller 00:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm voting based on the article itself. And if a substantial amount of content is removed (without being moved elsewhere), then I'll change my vote to oppose. Everyking 01:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Contrary to the above objection, I think does a pretty good job of complying with Wikipedia:Summary style, and that COgden is to be especially commended as having done so at pretty short notice, following my original concerns that the unsplit article was over-long (as I indeed felt it was at the time). The current arrangement splits up his biography as logically as is reasonably possible (obviously any person's life is a continuum, so one could always claim such are "arbitrary"), and this article is <6000 words, excluding the commendably extensive references and endnotes. Obviously this is more detail than every reader will require, but that's exactly what the parent article and summary style structure is for. Unless anything remaining is out-and-out non-notable, which it doesn't appear to me to be, I don't see much of argument for outright exclusion of anything here, and I don't think further splitting would be beneficial at this point. Alai 06:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Is there a particular reason this has not been moved on yet? The lone objection (in a veritable throng of support) is not something that anything can be done about (see top of the FAC page), and they have not stated anything specific that can be done. It's not as though this needs to be kept here forever so that the entire Wikipedia communtiy can register support.
• Or maybe I'm just being impatient... Trevdna 03:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There certainly is something that can be done about my objection - I gave a specific example of how the writing can be made far more concise. And the question of why his early life is important enough to warrant its own article, distinct from an article on his whole life, has not been answered either by the article or here. I see more and more examples on FAC of people declaring objections inactionable rather than acting on them - if your interest is in improving the article, rather than simply getting the badge of FA applied to it, then please try and address objections, even if there is only one person objecting. This is not a vote, and it often happens that one person perceives faults that have been overlooked by others. Worldtraveller 02:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess the vote is a done deal now, but as one who is trying to improve the article, I'm still interested in your input. On the issue of why Smith's early life should have an entire article, I tried to address this in the introduction. Basically, Smith's entire life has been deeply scrutinized by dozens of biographers. His early life, particularly, is a crucial era because within it lies the foundation for much of the Latter Day Saint movement. Regarding the final section, I plan to take a look at it and see if I can improve it stylistically. COGDEN 02:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I just noticed it has been promoted anyway, although my objection was, I feel, still unresolved. In any case I will be happy to continue to offer my thoughts if you'd find them helpful. I still do have a problem with the article itself, existing separately from an article on his whole life. I can see that his early life is important, but is it not more useful to the reader to be able to judge that in the context of his whole life?
      • The thing is, often an article will say ´see main article, xxx', but that should only happen if xxx is a topic in its own right. In this case, it seems to me your xxxs are parts of a whole, rather than topics in their own right. I think this is an issue that has yet to be discussed fully - there is a small thread on the FAC talk page but nothing conclusive.
      • But putting that to the side for a moment and considering the article, I do think it's quite a lot too long and I think the prose can be tightened considerably, along the lines of what I suggested above. Conciseness, I strongly believe, is a great virtue, and most of the FAs I have written come in well below 32Kb (I think a couple are 10kb or thereabouts). The less words you can use to say what needs to be said, the better, and I think this article could say exactly what it says at the moment with far fewer words. Worldtraveller 02:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that Cogden has attempted to address your concern i.e. justifying the need for an article on early life. Do you have specific objections i.e. do you need more information regarding JS Theophany and it's impact on the Latter Day Saint movement or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members specifically. Trödel|talk 14:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marilyn Manson (band)

• Self-nom. I've put a lot of work into this article, with the help of several other editors and a peer review. In my opinion it's a comprehensive article on the history and impact of a popular and controversial band, and I think it's ready to go through the Featured Article process. --keepsleeping say what 01:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral Objection -- article's content is almost entirely in the "History" section. The History is important, but an encyclopedic article should separate different aspects of the subject for reference. The current article reads more like a biography than an encyclopedia article. If I wanted to know about what Marilyn Manson's music is like, or about the controversies which have surrounded them, or another specific topic, I would have to read through the entire article searching for relevant passages. I'm sure that all of the information you'd need is currently in the article, and it looks very well-researched. But the article should have separate sections for, at a minimum, something like "Music" and "Controversy / Media Reaction". -- Creidieki 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added two new sections to the article: "Music and influences" and "Controversy and media reaction". They incorporate some information that was in the "History" section, making "History" less of a behemoth :) Are your objections satisfied? --keepsleeping say what 21:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that these new additions are very well-structured, and the article looks a lot better. I'm afraid I don't know very much about this topic, and I'm reluctant to give a support vote without looking through the article more thoroughly; I can take another look at it later if you have trouble gathering the necessary number of support votes, but I don't expect you will. -- Creidieki 23:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'd appreciate it if you did do that. I believe that a very important part of being a Featured Article is being easily understood and informative to a reader who isn't already familiar with the topic, so your vote of support would do a great deal to show that this article is (or isn't, as the case may be). --keepsleeping say what 01:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • All right, I'll try. It'll probably be a day or two, I'm in the middle of gradschool apps at the moment. -- Creidieki 01:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Weak object -- This article covers the history very well, but I don't think it goes into nearly enough detail about the music. I'd be particularly interested to see some or all of: the lyrics and poetic structure, the themes addressed by the songs, the musical and chord structures of the songs, more detail about the instruments typically used in the band, how Marilyn Manson affected later bands. Some of these topics can be inferred from other sections of the article (the personnel section lists instruments, the controversy section talks about the lyrics some), but I think they should be explicitly discussed in the Music section.

My other comments aren't things that I feel strongly enough to object over, but that I wanted to mention: I had some trouble following this article while I was reading it. The paragraphs are very long, the sentences are long and complicated, and the language is sometimes grandiloquent or overly complicated. Stylistically, it often seemed more like an article in a music publication than a general-purpose encyclopedia article. Perhaps my difficulty in focus was just my ADHD acting up, so I don't want to object over that concern. I also would like to see things that were wikilinked in the introduction relinked in later sections, particularly the names of band members and other bands. And I think that statements about influences ("Manson had the desire to form a rock band...", "Late influences have come from the glam rock...") should ideally be footnoted, because of their analytic/semifactual nature.

• I've beefed up "Musical style and influences" to include some discussion of songwriting, instrumentation, and lyrical content. I added those wikilinks and footnotes as well. Does the article address everything you'd like to see? --keepsleeping say what 07:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- That's exactly the kind of information I was hoping for, and I'm happy to be able to support this article. The "Musical style and influences" section is a bit long with the addition, and it might be profitable to try to split it in two somehow. But I'm now happy with the article's content, and much happier with its structure. Good job. -- Creidieki 06:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object. The article should be restructured into events rather than dates – someone should be able to find the details about Columbine (which incidentally should be mentioned in the lead) without having to know the year or search for it. Secondly, the references are not full enough - there are many opinions reported from various people that are not cited in any way. Finally, there are some parts of the lead (mention of their influences) that are not present in the main article. There are many positives about the article, but these three negatives stand out for me. violet/riga (t) 09:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • In addition to the two new sections, I have restructured the "History" section into periods of time, described in the section heads, rather than just as dates. The elements you mention, like influences, are included in the new "Music and influences" paragraphs. I have tried to source every quote, either in an endnote or as a generalized reference. --keepsleeping say what 21:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You've done some excellent work there! The references section does not fully match up with the main text (a pain, I know). One other point is that dates should really be fully wiki'd; 29 November 2005 instead of 19 November 2005 (in order that all the date options work). I'm moving much more towards a support with this, so congratulations with all your efforts. violet/riga (t) 23:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Dates are fixed; that was easy enough (and I didn't even know they were supposed to be formatted that way). I went through all the attributions again and tried to make sure everything had a source — if anything is still unreferenced, please point it out and I'll source it. --keepsleeping say what 00:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • If you can match the references fully then I will support it - the numbers inline should match up with numbered bullets in the references section. Good work for sorting out problems people have raised. violet/riga (t) 08:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Weak object. Image:SmellsLikeChildren.jpg and Image:MarilynManson2002.jpg do not have fair use rationale, and the latter does not have information on its source and/or copyright holder. Otherwise, though, it's a wonderful article, and I look forward to giving it my full support. Extraordinary Machine 21:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Done, done and done! --keepsleeping say what 22:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow, that was quick! :) I now vote support. Extraordinary Machine 23:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I feel it's missing something that many of the more mature articles I've seen have (some kind of logical flow or style issue) but this presents the information very well, POV is well positioned, and it is comprehensive without being overdetailed. In time I think this article could grow into a few more (there really is so much more information about the band and it's controversies) but as for the core Marilyn Manson (the band) article the information here is quite sufficient. The article will benifit with some time and future 'other editor input' (OEI?) but you've put a lot of work into it (since I last saw it) and it's looking pretty good now.  freshgavin TALK   00:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing that came to mind: I think the way you enter (begin) each section could use a little smoothing out. The way it stands right now, the first 3 sections sound like they were written as answers to a questionnaire, e.g.

1. What is MM's musical style? (The music of Marilyn Manson is usually described as...)
2. Who was MM influenced by? (Initially, after being introduced to...)
3. Who writes for MM? (All of the band's lyrics are written by...)

Of course you want to answer those questions in each section, without straying too far from the point, but in order to keep the beginning of each section from clashing with the end of the previous, I think you should use some sort of contextual dampener to improve the flow.

Quick example (excuse the POV!): At the time of the band's conception, Marilyn Manson was considered a unique sensation and was quickly picking up fans all across the US. From the early days Manson's work was subject to the influences of those around him, and ...

This will conform the text to a more essay-style as opposed to questionnaire, which I feel works better with this article. It could also be argued that the essay-style doesn't fit in a 'pedia article, so in that case it would be better not to include any reference to the section title at all in the first sentence, e.g.

Classified as alternative metal, or industrial metal, Marilyn Manson makes heavy use of electronic music instruments and unconventional recording techniques attempting to merge styles with the more typical heavily distorted power chords and kick heavy drum tracks of earlier 1980s heavy metal.

This might just be my complex; I've always cringed when the title of an article or section is repeated in the first sentence (or simply reworded). I think if you add a handful of intro-ramps (think of them as literary drumrolls) to the beginning of each major subject change, you will add about 100 words to the article, but make it about 15% smoother to read and more pleasing to my supple brain.  freshgavin TALK   00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - This is good! Both the article, and the FAC comments and response. The article seems thorough, reads easily, is well-illustrated. The well-documented and annotated samples are great, they enhance but don't at all carry the text... My comments are based on reading the current version. There seems to have been quite significant article improvement. The FAC comments regarding organization and additional material were well-responded to, and it would seem made a huge difference. freshgavin's concerns about style and cohesiveness were alse solid, the comment acknowledged the necessary balance between judging FA quality now, and recognizing that Wikipedia is not static: good things can be made better. Not an easy call at times, but required to keep on bootstrapping. Good FAC comments help the process along. So, I'm very comfortable supporting this fully, for all of the above reasons. (Relevant expertise: I have a fair degree of experience in general areas of "pop music", and a reasonable knowledge of Maryilyn Manson and the various technical and cultural references in the article.) --Tsavage 16:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ido

Self-nomination to a certain extent; I've been taking care of and improving this article for the past few months, it has gone through a peer review as well and hasn't had any edit wars since I started working on it. Ido is one of the "big three" International Auxiliary Languages (the two others are Esperanto and Interlingua) but known by almost no-one outside the IAL movement. In addition to that its 98-year history, its role in the history of Esperanto and the neverending debate between reform and stability, as well as its presence on Wikipedia make this an article that should be featured. Mithridates 19:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support Minor Objection. The article has some issues with image copyrights. The Seal neads a source and justification of the public domain claim. The fair use claim on "The little prince" is a bit questionable. The extract from Anne Frank's diary is claimed to be released under GFDL. I assume the copyright for this would reside with the journal or the original author. Otherwise from a quick read through the article it looks fine. --Martyman-(talk) 21:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

True. When I first uploaded the Anne Frank image in September I thought GFDL and CC to be the same thing, but it's actually CC 2.0 so I changed it to that and added a link to Adavane! where it comes from and an example issue where the license can be seen on the last page. The seal was realized by the sysop Hill on the Italian Wikipedia and has already been a FA over there and I added a note on the English page that it was realized by him/her. As for the Little Prince, it's one of the less-needed images on the page so I just hid it with <!-- --> Should that suffice? Mithridates 00:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hiding the little prince with comments may encourage another user to re-add it at a letter date though which would not be optimal. Otherwise it sounds good to me. I have removed my objection to the images, but don't feel I can add my support until I have had enough time to properly read through it. --Martyman-(talk) 01:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the image, hidden text and all. Mithridates 01:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have changed by vote to support. I read through the article and wikilinked a couple of terms I felt could benefit from explanation. I do feel that the external links section could be improved by cutting down the number of links substantially. --Martyman-(talk) 02:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

All right. I cut out a link and reorganized the others where two lines could be written as one. Mithridates 06:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support Objection -- The article does not sufficiently establish context. Someone who doesn't know what an International Auxiliary Language is can't understand this article without stopping to read that one. A lot of that information is in the article somewhere, but the introduction should be rewritten to explain the topic in a more logical order. Remember, your reader has never heard of Esperanto and doesn't understand why anyone would (or could) "construct" a language. -- Creidieki 04:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• To continue the above, the "History" section starts completely out of the blue. Why is someone trying to select an international language? Had there been a movement towards international languages before that? I might imagine the History section starting with brief comments about the difficulty of language learning, and the beginning of scholarship in International Auxiliary Languages, then talking about the development of Esperanto, then about the split. I don't know very much about this area, so there may be other logical orders of presentation, but I think that this is another area where there needs to be much more context. -- Creidieki 04:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. I added a bit to the introduction as well as the history section. Actually I'm glad you pointed that out because I found a way to mention Lingua Ignota, the first ever (known) constructed language from the 12th century and it does help with the flow quite a bit. Mithridates 06:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The history section is wonderful. The new introduction paragraph for the article was very long; I separated it into two paragraphs, but it might need some additional tweaking. The article contains some very long sentences that might use a thorough copyediting, but I'm willing to support it as-is. Good luck. -- Creidieki 23:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've put the new chart in, and it looks nice. Thanks. Mithridates 15:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object Minor objection, I have some problems with this article:
  • I'm missing a treatment of the syllable under Phonology. What is the form of the 'canonical' syllable; is it open or closed? This is, I think, where you can see that its words come from a mixture of languages — it looks like you find both open and closed syllables. Which complex onsets are allowed? (I see sk in skolo and dr in drinkar).
  • Grammar — grammar currently only treats morphology, the pronominal paradigm and the vocabulary, but not syntax. It should at least give the reader some information about how sentences are put together (including the basic constituent order -SOV/SVO/VSO etc.-). How are questions formed? How are sentences negated? Does verb inflection agree with person/number/gender (as in many of the 'donor' languages)?
  • Esperanto's inventor himself recommended against using ci on the grounds that different cultures have conflicting traditions regarding the use of the familiar and formal forms of "you", and that a universal language should avoid the problem by simply using the formal form in all situations. — this statement needs to be sourced.
  • — mark ✎ 08:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've referenced the part about Zamenhof's opinion on ci, and there is more explanation on syntax, forming questions, and verb conjugation. I've also added a chart on phonology (consonants). I don't suppose there another term I could use for complex onsets? There's no page on wikipedia with that name and I wouldn't want to confuse the reader. Mithridates 10:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Great additions, nice chart, thanks for acting so fast. I have striked most of my objections. I don't feel very strongly about the addition of a statement on complex onsets per se; I just was looking for a general paragraph on possible and common syllable forms.

One other thing: is there a strong reason for the comparison with Esperanto to be the first section of the article (and a quite long one at that)? I'd save that for later, and start with Ido itself. — mark ✎ 19:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That was actually the subject of a bit of discussion, whether to describe it compared to Esperanto or whether to introduce it by itself first. Personally I have no problem introducing it first by comparing it with Esperanto, much as how Võro is best explained first as being related to Estonian, and as long as the content does not dip into Esperanto-bashing I think it can be a good way to introduce the language. However, that's a good point (other readers might think along the same lines you did) so I added a few sentences before the comparison with Esperanto on why Ido is often first explained in this way. Mithridates 13:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Building off of Creidieki's point above, I object to this article—but on one ground only. The History section, in my opinion, needs to come first, in order to give background to Ido, the movement toward international auxiliary languages, and so forth. If this changes, I will enthusiastically and without reservation support this article. A job very well done indeed. Hydriotaphia 22:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well then, consider it first as I've moved it up. ^-^ Once again you all are right, as it does look better this way to be honest. Mithridates 01:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Wonderfully done. I support. Though I would also counsel you to put the Ido template at the top of the article instead of at the bottom. Hydriotaphia 01:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Support I guess this is a "classic" encyclopedia article (as in, "what the hell is Ido? Well, I know now..."). I glanced at the original version, but am basing this on reading the current one of a few minutes ago. It reads well, long but easy to navigate with logical subheadings. The copy here and there could use some tightening, but nothing I'd call critical (I did a very minor copyedit just now). The examples and audio sample were great. Criticism: The one question that the thoroughness brought to the front of my mind (something I'd always wondered about Esperanto) is how the vocabulary is expanded. (Until now, I didn't really get the Esperanto/constructed language concept, I half thought it was some sort of fixed vocabulary thing). I believe I answered myself through the Wikipedia entry for Esperanto. It is a brief explanation somewhat like this, Esperanto words are derived by stringing together prefixes, roots, and suffixes. This is very regular, so that people can create new words as they speak and be understood. and The core vocabulary of Esperanto was defined by Lingvo internacia, published by Zamenhof in 1887. It comprised 900 roots, which could be expanded into the tens of thousands of words with prefixes, suffixes, and compounding. In 1894, Zamenhof published the first Esperanto dictionary, that I find missing for this article to be sufficiently self-contained. Although essentially covered in the Grammar section, I'm still not entirely clear on how expansion of the language and adoption of new words is handled... --Tsavage 18:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC) PS - Sorry about the damage caused by my recent copyedit (I gotta watch cut'n'paste from my text editor). Thanks Garzo/Gareth Hughes for the repair, and for politely pointing it out on my Talk page! --Tsavage 18:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. The goal of making this into a FA was exactly that - turning "what the hell is Ido?" into "Well, I know now...". I didn't want to go into too much detail but I wrote two new paragraphs on the prefixes + suffixes, plus adoption of new words with a reference as well to a list of newly adopted words. Russian is missing from the ref page because the page was created in 1997 but it still gives a good idea how the system works. Mithridates 19:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I amended my vote to full support. That was a great couple of paras (you could maybe move 'em up right below the subhead, before the lists, for possibly improved flow...just a mild suggestion). I feel that much more...educated. --Tsavage 19:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Wonderful article, a credit to Wikipedia - would be great to see on the front page --81.99.181.231 14:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, has POV problems. The opening paragraph reads like an advertisement for Ido, and the only criticisms come from Esperantists. There should be a discussion, or at least a link to the discussion, of criticism of constructed languages in general. --Angr (t·c) 13:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voting system

Self-nom. This article is the culmination of the efforts of many voting theorists and voting system enthusiasts. I think that this article has become a great example of NPOV in a field that sorely needs one, because almost all of the other published literature and web sites on voting systems are biased in favor of one voting method or another. The article has been through a peer review, and now I think it's ready to be a featured article candidate. rspeer 01:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support I was expecting to see an article couched in jargon and theoretical babble that I wouldn't understand. Instead, I'm very pleasantly described. It's well-written and conveys its subject to a lay reader, such as myself, brilliantly. One criticism is that it's slightly disjointed in that the history of voting systems bit at the end is kind of a subtopic. Maybe some reference to the history in the introduction would be useful, so that this section doesn't come as a surprise. Excellent work overall, jguk 11:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well written article, showing how much thought has gone into seemingly simple things. Very complete when including its many branches into complementary articles. −Woodstone 14:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• See below. Minor object. First let me say that the article seems nicely comprehensive and is written at a very appropriate overview level, and that it is very well-written at a sentence-by-sentence level. Nice images, too. My objection is that it is choppy— specifically, there are a lot of really short paragraphs and a lot of really short sections. (Outline or "Powerpoint presentation" style, some might call it.) Specifically, I'd:
  • Eliminate the subsections in "Aspects of voting systems" and use prose to introduce the sub-topics
  • Eliminate most of the subsections in "History".
  • Combine paragraphs in "History".

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with combining sections. For an article this long, I figured that frequent headings are important for keeping track of where you are. Without dividing the history into five eras, for example, I don't see how to keep it from being one huge, undifferentiated section. Likewise, I think the headings in the "Aspects of voting systems" section serve a useful purpose -- if you want to get on to the meat of the article, you can skim them and see that the major aspects are the ballot, voting power, and constituencies right from the headings. But if this really isn't the right style for a featured article, I suppose I can go through and merge sections. rspeer 03:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that the best writing is organized — at the page level, if you know what I mean — by the writing itself, not by the table of contents. Especially in the history section, I think you'll find that it improves when it flows as one coherent narrative rather than a grab-bag of sections. (I hated it when someone gave me this same advice in my first FAC, but I can promise I harp on this point nowadays not out of spiteful revenge, but because I became a believer.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support Very good effort. — Wackymacs 08:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support now. I see you've "smushed together" the history section. This article gets my support now, even with the short "Aspects of voting systems" sections. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Update: Support still stands with (5 instead of ealier 6) subsections reintroduced back into history. I'd have gone with fewer, but it's hardly a deal breaker! I like the way it reads now with the combined paragraphs a lot better, too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - a pretty comprehensive and easy-to-read overview. A few comments. (i) The table in the middle setting out whether systems meet various voting system criteria is quite wide and may not display well on smaller (x600) screen sizes. Making the font smaller, or abbreviating the headings, or both, may help. (ii) In the History section, there is no discussion of voting systems in Ancient Rome (election to Roman assemblies, election of officeholders, etc). (iii) There is no mention of unanimous voting systems - such as blackballing - for elections to membership of Gentlemen's clubs and similar bodies. (iv) Pace Bunchofgrapes, but I think the "smushed" history section still looks a bit choppy as a single section. I wonder if adding a few subheadings back (say, ancient world, development of voting theory in the 18th century, implementations in the 19th and 20th century innovations, and issues in modern times) would help? (v) It may be worth mentioning that different voting systems can be used in the same country at the same time - for example, five different voting systems are currently used in the UK for different purposes: "first past the post" (for general elections and most local elections, with mostly multi-member constituencies in local elections), closed party lists (for the European Parliament), single transferable vote (for the Northern Ireland Assembly and local elections in Northern Ireland), the additional member system (for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and London Assembly) and the supplementary vote system (for directly elected mayors, such as the Mayor of London) - see Elections in the United Kingdom. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Two or three subheadings in history would be great for that length. (It was six before.) Pre/post 20th century? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The table has been tested for lower screen resolutions. Try resizing your window and note how the headings wrap. I'll try to work in (ii) and (iii), and the dreaded (iv), later. I don't think (v) is necessary, and it would bloat the article. rspeer 17:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Re (i): with my standard screen setup using the classic skin, I have to scroll right to see the last column or two. Re (iv): looking at the edit history, I see I was asking for for pretty much what was there before your changes to deal with Bunchofgrapes's comment! Re (v): I was surprised to see discussion of recent developments in the US, Canada and New Zealand, but nothing about the spread of proportional representation in the UK. - -- ALoan (Talk) 19:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support - I found this to a very effective reference article: useful, comprehensive, and well-written. (This is my first "support" on FAC; formulating a support seems much harder than an objection, because you inevitably end up endorsing quite a number of things at once. For me, at least, it is way easier to be confident in "knowing what you don't know" when you have specific objections, Over-limiting one's support also seems problematic ("this part is OK, I don't know about the rest", as does overgeneralizing ("I thought it was great!". Participating in this whole "consensus, not a...vote" thing is tricky, and requires lots of work. IMHO.) My support here is based on absolutely no formal knowledge of voting systems, and no significant critical experience in the various presentation styles for academic/reference material:
  • Clean expository writing - The writing may be (well, is) spare, and this reinforced by the many short paragraphs, however, the job is clear from the start, and the style handles it well. Many things are explained, but the overall context of "voting systems" is maintained. "More words" or a more conversational treatment could possibly work as well, but that is so far distant from this approach, and this works, so I find the style to suit the subject matter very well indeed.
  • Effective use of subheadings - The sections are logical, and not overdone. I feel confident in returning to this article and being able to easily access specifics about voting systems, and the TOC establishes this.
  • Establishes sense of authority, feeling of confidence -- trust - In part due to the above, after reading the first few paragraphs, I was basically "confident" in the material, and this was maintained through to the end. On any number of levels, I automatically question what I read to a greater or lesser degree; here, I soon felt that everything was likely well-handled and consistent, and could concentrate on the actual information at face value.
  • Abstraction to a consisent level of detail - This overview involves many classes and subsets and variations and the like, and an uneven treatment could easily have created confusion. The choices of what to explain in more or less detail was well-handled. When an "other options" list was presented, it seemed natural, There was never a sense of, "oh, why wasn't that explained more?" A case in point, I really like this bit, where the distinction between Condorcet method and Condorcet completion method could have been offloaded to the Condorect voting article and not been missed by me; based on my trust in the authors, I feel its inclusion adds to my understanding at this overview level without getting "too detailed" compared to the rest:

These methods are often referred to collectively as the Condorcet method, because the Condorcet criterion ensures that they all give the same result in most elections. The differences occur in situations where no option is undefeated, meaning that there exists a cycle of options that defeat each other. Considering the Condorcet method to be the abstract method that does not resolve these cycles, specific versions of Condorcet are called Condorcet completion methods.

General comment: It is actually readable! It could be seen as "too point-form", but I read it for FAC, not out of current interest in the topic, and it did carry me right through by building an informative picture. I also checked the article history, scanning versions in 50 edit hops, not looking for anything in particular, and it was cool to see how the article had evolved over a period of four years with many contributors doing stints over time -- this added some confidence in the article's accuracy. I'd return to this page if I wanted to know something specific, say, about "proportinal representation", FIRST, before hitting the search engines, for the context it provides.

Criticism: The lead could be crunched into one paragraph. Especially given the spare styling and amount of info to come, reading it in one go I think is much more effective in setting the tone and providing an overview. Also, the "smushing" of the History section subheads is I think a mistake (I first read it before the smushing and instantly noticed the difference). For one, it changes the rhythm that preceded it. Second, it makes the section a bit misleading, in that it is a history beginning with democracy, and I'm not sure if that is exactly the same as the history of "voting systems". (Using the subhead to clear this up may not be the best solution, but it worked for me.) I am also somewhat concerned by a comment in a previous support about the omission of stuff like blackballing; I would hope (trust) that "all" of the reasonably relevant info is here. This illustrates (my) difficulty with support, but in balance, I will trust that this final FAC process will appropriately catch such things (heh-heh). An "Other voting systems" as a mop-up section for anything that may be of lesser overall importance, if warranted, would perhaps satisfy anything in this area.

Phew. Given the relatively little time I spent on it, and whatever background expertise or lack thereof I bring to the relevant considerations, those are my findings in support. Perhaps a little wordy... Oh well. :-) --Tsavage 17:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow - you could just say "support" ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I could. (I guess "Cool" on the front page is still fresh in my mind.) --Tsavage 20:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback! I'll work on some of your suggestions. And I nominate this for FFACC: Featured Featured Article Candidates Comments. :) rspeer 05:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Support - however I agree that at least some of the subheadings need to go back into the history section. Scott Ritchie 22:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Very well written and informative overall, but I have a couple of issues:

• The comparison table lists Range Voting as ambiguous under 'Clone Independence', but Range voting itself says that it fulfills this criteria. I'm unclear as to which it is. Also, the 'ambiguous' listings in the chart could use a link to somewhere explaining the amibuity.

  • The "Ambiguous" listing was a compromise. There's a whole complicated issue here that I don't know where to discuss - it might involve splitting Independence of Clones off from strategic nomination into its own article.

    The problem is whether to assume that every ballot is a lossy view of the actual preferences of the voter, and those preferences should be taken into account for criteria, or whether all that matters is the votes on the ballot. If you pick either option and stick to it as a hard rule, you run into flagrant violations of common sense.

    Criteria based on ranked preferences don't make much sense on an Approval ballot, and you get really stupid hypothetical situations like "what if candidates A and B are exactly the same, but a voter approves one and disapproves of the other because they approved of C even more and had already decided to only approve their top 2 candidates?". The same objection applies to rated ballots if you see them as a superset of Approval ballots.

    If you go by the votes only, though, you get Plurality passing just about everything in vacuous ways, simply because so little information is provided by a plurality ballot. And the best method ever, in that view, would be one where everyone submitted blank ballots and the winner was chosen at random.

    I'm sure there's a third way in between, a common sense way to apply such criteria, but even if someone here figured out what it is, it couldn't go in an article because it would be original research. Phew, that was a lot. So, in summary, this is a relevant issue that should probably appear on Wikipedia, but it will involve fleshing out other articles. rspeer 01:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    • I didn't realize the extent of this issue. It should probably be addressed at some point, but shouldn't affect this FAC. The Catfish 03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• The lead should mention the history of voting systems so the section doesn't come as a surprise
  • Sure - I'll think about how to work that in. rspeer 01:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How's this? 03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• The history section could use a bit more expansion under ===Early Democracy===
  • Probably true, but not too much more - this part of the history mostly belongs in history of democracy when it doesn't deal with different voting systems. rspeer 01:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• I think that the history should come first, as that makes better sense and seems to be the standard procedure IIRC
  • I disagree. It would involve terms that weren't yet defined, and make it really hard to get to the meat of the article. rspeer 01:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I see your point, disregard that suggestion The Catfish 03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• ==Majority Rule== seems to fit better as the first subsection under ==Aspects of Voting Systems==
  • After some consideration, I disagree here too. Majority rule is a motivation for these systems, not a parameter of the system that you tweak like the other aspects are. rspeer 01:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. Perhaps the section should be rearranged as ==Motivations for Voting Systems== or somesuch The Catfish 03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Overall, these concerns are relatively minor and I look forward to seeing this make FA The Catfish 00:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Support My issues have all been addressed. The Catfish 03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game theory

I present you with "Game theory". The article was substantially rewritten shortly after the Nobel prize and another user suggested it be nominated here. Its largely complete and contains an extensive list of online and offline references. We've tried to make it accessible without dumbing down the content. I'm really happy with how it turned out. --best, kevin _└^KZOLLMAN/_TALK^┐ 16:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Impressive, although I feel the history section could be developed a bit. Phils 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment, I agree. I have expanded this section some. I don't want to venture to say what the important developments in the 80s, 90s, and 00s are because the jury is still out (I think) about what was really revolutionary durring that time. If others have an idea, please add it! --best, kevin _└^KZOLLMAN/_TALK^┐ 23:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Some of the images could be made a little larger. For example, the "three stage Centipede Game" is a large, detailed image, but unreadable at the given size. Turnstep 22:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment! I enlarged the incomplete information image and the centipede game image, is that better or shall I enlarge them further? --best, kevin _└^KZOLLMAN/_TALK^┐ 22:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks much better but I stll think the centipede one is just on the verge of being readable. Maybe a slight bit larger? On my browser, the lettering inside the image appears grey, but black on the full-size image. Not sure if that is a limitation of the image scaling, but it contributes to the problem. One other small thing: watch the overlinking of lone years, which is discouraged according to the Manual of Style. Turnstep 14:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I have increased the centipede game to 300px, and delinked the years (but not the decades) in the History Section. I think the decades (esp. 1950s) ought to be linked since the growth in game theory was a result of the political situation at the time. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - nicely readable. I trust our neighbourhood mathematicians have reviewed and approve of the factual content. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I know this much about esoteric math theory: nothing. But I do like the article; it explains the subject very nicely. A few minor nitpicks - there are too many repeated links (I see Prisoner's dilemma linked to 8 times, Nash equilibrium 6 times, etc). A picture in the opening paragraph (if a suitable one could be identified) would be useful, too. Was going to complain about the punctuation, but just fixed that myself. Proto t c 11:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment; that's really great to hear. I was wondering about the readability. With respect to the linking, I like to link something when it occurs in each new section. The reason for this: is someone might not care about the classification of games, but might read the "uses in economics section". It would be a shame for them to have to scroll all the way up to the beginning of the article to determine what something is (esp. since so many of the links are just "for example, the blah blah blah"). Since the Prisoner's dilemma and Nash equilibrium occur everywhere in game theory, they end up occurring everywhere in this article :) I noticed you removed one instance of [[Nash equilibria]] that was a little overzealous linking on my part. Are there any others that you think are too close together? With respect to the picture, I agree. I'll go looking to see if I can find something appropriate. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support - This is really good! I was actually at first going to object on the basis that, while explaining the topic very well, the whole thing left me with that slightly unsettling "well-informed, but still...vague" feeling. And I do think an "Example" section, describing in a good deal of understandable detail the specific application of game theory to designing something concrete, like a lottery or video game, or the mentioned MAD calculations, or some big economic policy, would really bring it to life, as it were. But, on a second read, the "Uses of game theory" section satisfied me sufficiently. (Since this is classified as "mathematics", I checked the math FAs for context. In a general encyclopedia with high aspirations as to accessibility to all, this is a horror, Trigonometric function, and this was great, Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace. Establishing broad real-world context is crucial. IMHO.) --Tsavage 22:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support I concurr Tsavage! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Waterboys

Self-nom This article was created February 16 2004 as a stub (and still uses some of the original wording), was expanded significantly by User:O'Dubhghaill, whose work created a fine article, and forms the basis of the article as it is now. After a couple of months of work from me, I listed it at Peer Review for a few weeks, until User:TUF-KAT suggested a few minutes ago that it was ready for here. I believe the article to be article to meet the FA criteria, including the challenging one of being comprehensive without getting into trivia. I look forward to feedback. Jkelly 06:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The section about the members is mainly a list when it has enough content to be in prose. Johnleemk | Talk 06:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It was originally in small paragraphs. User:FuriousFreddy formatted it as a bullet list during the Peer Review. I have a slight aesthetic preference for it, but it should certainly be changed if consensus is that it is an inappropriate use of list formatting. Jkelly 06:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, with a few quibbles: Tuf-Kat 08:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The band members have been largely from the British Isles, and the group has been based out of London and Dublin. Is it just me or is that an odd tense for that sentence? Is it a British thing?
2. I think the band members can make ordinary-sized paragraphs and would look better that way.
3. I don't think "An anonymous writer on the Academy of American Poets' website" sounds like a very good source for an encyclopedia article.
4. There's no mention of chart performance that I can see. If they've never charted, that should be mentioned. I'm not one to focus on chart rankings, but they should be included.

• • 1) Did this edit improve it? 2) Done. 3) That was a nudge from User:Mel Etitis to research that source. I had forgotten. The footnote now explains the article's origin. 4) I included a couple of lines about their best chart positions. More detailed chart information is in the album articles. I can expand further if you feel it is still lacking. All good catches, thanks. Jkelly 21:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for being responsive! Tuf-Kat 23:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC) Mild Object: great band, good article. However, I agree that the "An anonymous writer on the Academy of American Poets" quote is not quite what I'd expect. Even worse is "The album helped to increase the growing popularity of Irish music. World Music: The Rough Guide notes that "some cynics claim that Scotsman Mike Scott gave Irish music back to the Irish... his impact can't be underestimated" is an extraordinary statement. I know it's sourced, but the Rough Guide is just plain wrong. We Irish had being doing a fine job reviving our own music since at least the mid 1960s, thank you very much. Now a claim like this on articles on The Bothy Band, Sean O Riada, The Chieftans, Planxty, The Dubliners, The Clancy Brothers, Christy Moore, or countless more might hold water, but not here. If anything, immersion in the very live tradition helped Scott (re)connect with his own Celtic identity; the claim in the article is, as I said already, sourced but wrong. Which makes one nervous about other claims in the article. Certainly, anyone who knows their Irish music will be, at best, amused to read this particular statement. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • See above response to User:TUF-KAT for the "anonymous writer" thing. I'm curious what should be done about your "sourced but wrong" complaint. You'll notice I didn't go over to Irish music and include the quote there, but it is certainly a notable comment about the band. Does it need to be made more clear to the reader that the authors of World Music: the Rough Guide do not themselves source the "cynics" who make the claim they are reporting? I am fairly confident that I can find a quote from Scott that says that the (pre-existing) vibrant Irish music Wickham introduced him to deeply inspired him, and include that as a counter-point to the "impact can't be underestimated" line. Would this work for you? Jkelly 21:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, much better. I've changed my vote now. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Butter

Eighteen ounces of self-nom soaked in rich, creamery butter.¹ If that doesn't induce you to vote support here, perhaps the regular featured article criteria will have to do. Butter goes back in time to when people first started milking goats or sheep — probably — and it will always be delicious. The article had a productive peer review. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delicious indeed! It's a well-written and fascinating article; however, I'd like to see some discussion of industrial and commercial issues—world butter production/consumption, chief exporters, and so forth. Some more footnotes, particularly in the history section, would also be nice, but that's more of a personal preference than a real objection. Kirill Lokshin 03:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Both comments true enough; I'll work on it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've added a "Worldwide" section, which has some production/comsumption/trade stats. I still need to improve the citations in the History section. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Excellent work! Full support from me! Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support – I've also expanded the yak's butter part. Its known as Butter tea and it has a disgusting flavour (personal experience). =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Seems a bit too Western-centric to me. For example, the last paragraph of History focuses only on recent history of butter in the West (and thus discusses the Industrial Revolution). No mention is made of what was going on in India/Tibet/Africa/whatever at the time. Not going to object, just suggesting something in this excellent article that could be improved on. Johnleemk | Talk 05:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support! Object. As noted above by User:Johnleemk, the article is too Western-centric. The article itself is amazing otherwise; once the Western POV is toned down, I will switch my vote. —Hollow Wilerding 22:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh, I thought I'd made good progress in that direction during the peer review; I see I'll have to keep working at it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Removing "Western-centric" is not a FA criteria. If that were so, then no western pop songs could become a FA. --malber 19:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • • Yes, it is tacitly mentioned in 2(b) of WP:WIAFA: "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details;. Butter is a universal subject, whereas Western pop songs are more localised. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It can go to comprehensiveness; if there isn't enough discussion of butter worldwide (perhaps proportional to actual butter use and history worldwide), then it may be a valid objection. I believe little changes here and there since the objection may have helped it some in this regard. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • User:Malber's comment are unacceptable and the attitude of the user needs to be addressed in a serious matter. However, that is a different case not suited for an FAC nomination. Nonetheless, the lead image has improved considerably (I still don't find it to be the best, but I won't be too strict), and the POV has begun to divide. You have done a fantastic job on this article! —Hollow Wilerding 01:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Needs a better lead image. --Carnildo 22:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm one of those cameraless people... what's your opinion of Image:NCI butter.jpg? (If you like me think it's washed-out and lifeless, maybe my asking will get some kind soul to take an actual good picture of some butter.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Well, proto put in Image:NCI butter.jpg, which may be better. What do you think? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, since the image looks washed-out on my laptop, and too dark on my desktop, I expect it'll be all right for most people. --Carnildo 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think it's Western-centric at all. I was going to raise a minor objection over some formatting, and the image, but I've just fixed those myself. Huzzah for Bunchofgrapes and his awesome food article skillz. Proto t c 14:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. "Skillz"? Indeed. I agree that the treatment of butter's history is not necessarily Eurocentric or Western-centric. And even if it were, that would not necessarily translate into "POV" as claimed above — it would probably just reflect the balance of sources as well as the relative usage of butter in different parts of the world. For example, butter and other dairy products are indeed used most heavily in northern climes, especially in Northern Europe and the neo-Europes (Australia, New Zealand, United States, Uruguay, etc.). So there is nothing wrong with disparate coverage of its history and usage in different regions. As a comparison, we wouldn't necessarily want to give exactly equal coverage to the usage of green cardamom pods in, say, South America (where it is hardly used at all) as we do to its usage in Scandanavia (heavy usage) and South India (even heavier usage). Indeed, such a balance would pervert the article's principle of giving due attention. Thus, cheers to Grapes. ← SARAVASK — 18:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very excellent, well-written article. Considering the topic, it was surprisingly fascinating.R'son-W 19:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support very nice. I was wondering why France comes after Germany in terms of consumption since both apparently consume the same. Are the figures in the article rounded up/down? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It was an error - Germany's consumption figure was 578,000 tonnes, not 528,000. Good catch. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Parkay?  ;-) --malber 21:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • But with one caveat: I think the second paragraph of the intro should be broken out into a section. It would help the flow and placement of the TOC. Perhaps "Constituents"? There is probably a better culinary term that I am not aware of. --malber 00:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • One-paragraph sections are always a bad idea. Is it just a flow issue, or do you object to the technical chemistry material in there? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The first paragraph is an excellent introduction and can stand alone as a basic overview description of butter. The second two get more technical. I think they would stand well as a section detailing butter's components. Mind you, no content needs to be changed, it's brilliant. --malber 03:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • The science has been moved into the "Butter making" section. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Butter! TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Introduction doesn't provide a concise summary of the article and establish context. Instead, it goes into a lot of very specific facts that don't seem to "fit" elsewhere in the article. We don't necessarily need the butterfat percentages, detailed chemical information, etymological information, etc. This is related to Malber's comment above.

In a related note, the article doesn't explicitly mention one of the most important facts about butter -- that this is a very *common* food in many parts of the world. Most American houses have butter, and very few have neither butter nor a butter substitute. Butter is considered a *staple food*, and at the moment the reader has to infer this from the sales statistics.

The "History" section currently seems to stop at the year 1900. I'm sure there have been changes in production methods, household use, levels of usage, cultural representations, and/or butter substitutes in the past 100 years.

The "Types of Butter" section is essentially a list -- there's no narrative structure connecting the different types. Each is in its own paragraph(s). This kind of list makes the article more difficult to read, and encourages the reader to skim rather than reading. -- Creidieki 04:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I've addressed some of these issues:

• The lead no longer contains chemistry or butterfat percentages. My feelings are that the etymology works well there, so I left it. See for example FA Black pepper.
  • The lead now mentions that it is a common food in many parts of the world. Butter doesn't seem to fit the definition of a staple food, by the way.

The history issue I've yet to work on. "Types of butter" being essentially a list... well, yes, that's what it essentially is. Maybe some smoothing out can be done, but it's unlikely to get much of a narrative flow. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think that it's almost always possible to place an appropriate narrative structure around a list of related topics. I rewrote the "Types of butter" section on the Talk page; I hope you'll take a look at it, and consider adding it to the article. (I don't know much about butter, and I was afraid I might have misrepresented something, so I didn't want to add it myself.) -- Creidieki 18:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I took a quick glance and it looked pretty good (ok, very good), except for that clunky opening paragraph. Thanks so much! I'll work getting it in soon. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• I've integrated most of your suggestions into the "Types of butter" sections and I have added a para to "History" describing butter's declining popularity through the 20th century. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support -- All of my concerns have been addressed. Very good article. -- Creidieki 02:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article, a lot of work has been put into it. — Wackymacs 09:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support, it is a very good article. However I would suggest, tentatively, moving the biochemistry, which is a bit weak anyway, away from the introduction to its own seperate, later, subsection. But it is a good article. ping 09:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree. There should be some shuffling, to get the chemistry out of the lead. I'm going to do that soon. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Contained all the things I was looking for, plus no problems. Nice job! Sortan 03:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I supposed the lead image could use a bit of contrast... (mostly) white butter on a white background doesn't stand out too well (or it could just be my laptop screen....) Sortan 04:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Great job. Of course, can be better, but good enough to be a FA. deeptrivia (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Slight object. I've cleaned up some of the article and done a bit of a copyedit, but I'm still finding little bits of what read like unsourced editorializing. An example is this:

Greece and Rome showed a disdain for butter, considering it a food for northern barbarians; certainly butter lasted longer before spoiling in the cooler climates of Northern Europe. And the farther north the better: Scandinavia has the longest history in Europe of a butter export trade, dating at least to the 12th century.

There's probably an easy way to make something like this sound like it's in a more encyclopedic tone. I fixed up two of the captions, but there are still some that don't really draw the reader in or provide context, such as the caption for the picture of the Austrian butter factory. As for completeness, I couldn't find any mention of the butter dish, an item so common and so related to butter that it seems a bit silly not to even mention. All in all though, it looks like it can reach FA worthiness fairly soon. Scott Ritchie 08:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice copyedit, thanks. Looking at the rest. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you have another look? I've made signifigant changes to the first half of the history section to improve the tone and referencing. I'd appreciate it if you could point out any other portions of the prose that are as bad as the "Greece and Rome showed a disdain for butter..." one was; at this point, my nose is too close to the glass to be able to reliably catch this stuff. As far as butter dishes go, it's a similar problem I had with butter knives, as brought up in the Peer Review: there aren't good sources. At best I could throw in some very culturally-specific information, that would then get objected to on the grounds that I am not properly treating, say, middle-eastern butter dishes, or that what they call a butter dish in America is a butter-festoon (I'm making that up) in New South Wales. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Give me another 24 hours or so. Scott Ritchie 09:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely written, nicely sourced. Hydriotaphia 07:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very interesting and informative, I was surprised to see India was the world's largest producer (I always thought NZ would be - perhaps we're the largest exporter). Lisiate 23:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed you are. Thanks! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)