Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] April 2008

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:15, 30 April 2008.

[edit] New York State Route 28

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is ready. It meets most criteria, and it is very possible that this could be a big benefit to NYSR. The article went through a PR, without much results. However, I feel with more editors around, that FAC may prove to give more results than PR did. Thanks! Mitch32contribs 13:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
  • Along the way, it intersects several major routes, including Interstate 88, U.S. Route 20, and the New York State Thruway twice (Interstate 87 in Kingston; Interstate 90 in Herkimer).— People how aren't roadgeeks aren't going to have any idea that the NYT is I 87 and I 90, so you might want to explain that better.
  • Needs Non-breaking spaces throughout.
  • Other than realignments in Kingston, Oneonta, and Oneida County, NY 28 has remained the same to this day.— Huh? If there have been realignments, then it hasn't stayed the same to this day.
    • What that's attempting to convey is that the vast majority of the route (probably ~270 miles) has not been altered since 1930. – TMF 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Although still four lanes wide, the route is no longer a limited-access highway as it has an at-grade intersection with Modica Lane, a local dead-end street, just west of where it passes over the Thruway.—You might want to explain what an at-grade intersection is.
  • I'd like to see the term "NY 28" used less.
    • And your replacement would be? – TMF 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • "The route", "the highway", "it", etc. It just doesn't make the prose exciting or brilliant to have "NY 28" 3 times in the same sentence. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm fine with that as long as NY 28 doesn't become underused and the article doesn't become so inundated with pronouns or generic terms that the sentences they are used in become unclear. – TMF 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Within Shandaken, NY 28 heads north through the hamlets of Mount Tremper (where it meets the southern terminus of NY 212) and Phoenicia (situated at the junction between NY 28 and the southern end of NY 214).—The first set of parenthesis isn't need in my opinion.
  • After exiting Pine Hill, the route continues independently of a waterway for the first time as it passes the Belleayre Ski Center in Highmount on its way out of Catskill Park and into Delaware County.—The waterway bit is confusing.
  • In the first paragraph of the Delaware and Otsego Counties section, I count the term "NY 28" seven times in four sentences.

More later. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • More comments
  • Now back in the town of Oneonta, NY 28 and I-88 continue along the northern bank of the Susquehanna toward the hamlet of Emmons, where the expressway interchanges with County Route 47 at exit 16.—If you have NY 28 and I-88, why is CR 47 spelled out?
  • The overlap between NY 28 and I-88 ends at exit 17 in Milford; however, NY 28 remains in close proximity to the Susquehanna River, which turns northward at the interchange.—This is redundant to the previous sentence which already says NY 28 and I-88 are concurrent, so you could just day "The overlap ends..."
  • Two blocks from the business district of the village, NY 28 intersects NY 80, which occupies Chestnut north of this point—It should probably say "occupies Chestnut Street".
  • At the time, NY 28 began at then-NY 9 in Colliersville and headed north on its current alignment to Cooperstown.—Do you mean "Former–NY 9"?
    • No, it means then-NY 9 as in "it was NY 9 at the time". "Former NY 9" doesn't convey the same information. – TMF 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Maybe so, but it still doesn't read very well. There's got to be another way of wording it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I disagree on both ends. – TMF 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I disagree, as well. It doesn't make the sentence flow well. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
            • It flows fine to me. – TMF 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • See if you can get a copyeditor for the history section. The prose just isn't engaging.

Overall, there is good content, sufficient images, and it is well-sourced, but the writing seems to drag on, and can get slightly boring in some areas. I would ask for someone to copyedit it, or just go through and tweak the wording yourself. Good job so far, though. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • CommentObject The main image and infobox confuse me as follows:
    Are the blues rivers or roads?
Limited-access roadways. – TMF 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As someone who spen half my life in New York State, it seems to me that the NYSThruway is in green. Can this be labelled on the image? (I don't know if this is an unusual request for road map images)
It could, but nothing was labeled due to the scale of the map (most state-wide maps have no labels). – TMF 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is south end I-587 unlinked?
I-587 redirects to NY 28. – TMF 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If labelling the image is unorthodox, can you add a caption something like Red: Rt 28, Green: Thruway Blue: Rivers or St Rds.?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The map task force developed a standard color usage with the intent of making captions unnecessary. If this is an issue, it should be brought up there. – TMF 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems like something the average editor might understand. For the reader, however, it is not the same as road numerals in blue and red for interstates, or green, or black and white. I am not convinced every reader would know what the blue is. I would think many might see them as rivers. In my mind Interstate 355 is what a featured quality main image should look like.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
See varying standards of local detail maps. Kansas has route numbers and legend. I-355 has all route numbers including that for the article. NY-174 has all but the one for the article. Pulaski looks like it needs work comparatively. You can see why I object to NY 28 being an FA and why I may nominate Pulaski for WP:FAR.
Further on Image Objection In addition to Featured articleInterstate 355, see Featured articleNew York State Route 174. Note, Featured articlePulaski Skyway is a three year and three month old FA and I am considering FARing it just to get them to work on the image. Can you give me a contact at the maps team so I don't have to do anything that crazy. I don't know how Featured articleKansas Turnpike got by without a local detail map, but the maps team should get on this too.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I see the Kansas Turnpike has the local detail map in a less conventional location in the article. I just moved it to be like the other two FAs. We still need to do something about the Pulaski Skyway map.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I am going to post at WT:USRD/MTF.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is my post in a template:
You would FAR Pulaski Skyway just because you think the map is substandard? That seems a bit POINTish to me. (FWIW, it was improved up to current FA standards by another editor a couple of months ago, negating the three-year argument.)
I also find the fact that you're opposing this solely on the map disturbing. – TMF 09:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to support this as WPs finest when I am confused looking at it without explanation by the author. If I asked someone who does not know your task force standards to interpret the map who is not from NY, there is a good chance they will see a bunch of rivers and not know where the NYS Thruway is upon inspection. That is what I want resolved before promotion. I think the article is pretty good otherwise. I have written an FA and a couple of GAs in the roads/streets group that need maps so I know this is a tough request given the timeframe of an FAC candidacy. However, you should have gone throught the complete WP:PR before bringing it here and someone there should have pointed out this problem. Coming here before the PR process is complete can lead to this type of issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Tony, the only reason ones like the Pulaski Skyway, I-355, and NY 174 have local detail maps is because they're shorter than the rest and need to be zoomed in farther. NY 28 is 200+ miles, meaning it can be zoomed out to show the whole. And for your problem with colors, its something to bring up at the Maps Task Force page.Mitch32contribs 10:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I take no issue with the scale. My issue is with shielding and legend consistency. For the reader these are where the confusion will be.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Okay, I'm out to sea here. Is a photo of an exit considered a Primary Source or a Secondary source? I'm inclined to think it's reliable, but ... I've never seen this done before. At the very least, the ref probably needs the photographer as the publisher/author.
    • For the statement that it's supporting, I don't see how anything else can be used. – TMF 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, but is a non published picture a reliable source, that's the question. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, if a photo of the exact sign that's being discussed in the article isn't a reliable source, then the RS policy needs to be reworked IMO. – TMF 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
          • The problem is that I'm not sure that a non-published photo doesn't fall under the Primary source and OR guidelines. This phot is from a website that I'm not sure would pass RS. How do we know that this photo is of the spot that it is supposedly representing? It's one thing to use a photo to illustrate an article, but another to use it as a source for information in the article. Please note that I'm NOT saying that the photo isn't of wht it says it is, it's just that trying to verify that is going to be very difficult. The reason that we try to use published sources is so that others can go in and verify the information easily. What makes THIS site reliable? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
            • There are probably four or five BGS for exit 19, and I doubt any of them have I-587 on them. In other words, the exact sign that's snapped isn't important because all of the advance and exit signage for the exit probably say the same thing. But see below since if this one statement is this big of an issue, it should probably just be tossed. – TMF 05:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Perhaps this could be used as the ref there instead? --Holderca1 talk 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Or it could just be removed since it's not vital at all to the article. The only reason it's there to begin with is that it was part of the I-587 article when I merged it into NY 28. (FWIW, I don't believe that Google direction link would work because there's no guarantee what text it gives matches guide signs.)
The Thruway Authority has a PDF list of all the interchanges in the system, but again, there's no guarantee what text that's there matches guide signs. Based on personal experience, the listings for exits 39 through 50 definitely match signs, but exit 38 doesn't as the BGS has CR 57 while the list doesn't mention any routes. So take it for what you will, I suppose. – TMF 05:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up: [1] displays exit 38 as "CR 57 - Liverpool, Syracuse", but I wonder if Google would still show CR 57 if they didn't have a county route data set. – TMF 06:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 14 "Anderson Steve, Colonel Chandler Drive" is lacking publisher information. Also, what makes this site a RS?
    • It probably isn't for FAC purposes, but I didn't foresee anyone taking this to FAC when I used that reference. – TMF 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Has this been worked on? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, contains no history of the route prior to 1924. – TMF 19:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Peer review should be closed prior to FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment The peer review should be completed before bringing the article here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

After three reminders, I've closed the peer review. Per instructions at both WP:PR and WP:FAC, articles shouldn't be listed at both places, and an open peer review stalls GimmeBot when the FAC closes. TonyTheTiger, please don't place comments above the opening blurb; place them chronologically so you don't stall Rick Block's script. I've moved this comment twice. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominator requested withdrawal: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

[edit] Marilena from P7

Self-nominator:

I have also requested for this article to be copyedited. I'm nominating it, as it covers the subject well, from my point of view seems to meet all criteria, and the original article (which I translated) is also a featured. diego_pmc (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This seems to be a very good article but the prose needs a copy-edit by someone with English as their first language. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That is why I listed it for copyediting. Anyway, do you think you can do a few changes, since you're en-5? diego_pmc (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Reviewers' time is not exactly infinite. Expecting a reviewer to copyedit a article is probably a bit beyond the call of duty for a reviewer, or at least it would be for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I just asked, no problem if he can't. diego_pmc (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I have too much else on just now. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Another point, by the way, is that article doesn't comply with WP:RSUE, which explains how to cite non-English sources.--ROGER DAVIES talk 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments I can't evaluate most of the sources, since they are in Romanian. However http://www.jigsawlounge.co.uk/film/index.php, what makes this a reliable source? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is that from? The only ref from jigsaw is this. diego_pmc (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It's the front page of that website. I list the front page rather than the exact page used so that folks can start poking around looking for information on the reliablity of the website. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. I really don't understand how that front page makes it reliable or not. Anyway, I googled it, and Jigsaw is linked on a few other sites. diego_pmc (talk)
  • Oppose per referencing and image concerns:
  • I also worried about that, when I translated, but I forgot about it. Anyway, I've dealt with it, and added another reference. diego_pmc (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • IMDB is being used to support "non-data" information. IMDB utilizes user contributions; what makes it reliable?
  • I've look for another site to contain the info from IMDb (awards of the movie, if someone finds, please tell, or replace in article), but I couldn't find anything. Guess the only thing to speak in favor of the site's reliability is its reputation. diego_pmc (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is used to link to an interview.
  • That doesn't address the question; what establishes the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to give us reasonable assurance the interview is being accurately represented? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Give me an example of what would make it reliable and I'll look at it. I'll also look for another site with this interview/info. diego_pmc (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • http://madalinaghitescu.bizland.ro/ - This is a personal site being used to support the roles for which the actress is purportedly best known. This does not appear to be a non-biased source.
  • The site is being used to reference the roles she had, no how she performed, so in this case it is reliable. diego_pmc (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If that's all the reference is supporting, then "best known to the Bucharestian public..." is WP:OR. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, true. I changed "best" with "became", which should address the WP:OR problem.diego_pmc (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Marilena from P7 - split screen.jpg - Why is a fair use image needed to understand split screen (NFCC#3A), a widely-known and common effect? Additionally, image (as well as others) is not low resolution (NFCC#3B).
  • The res issue can be easily solved, as for importance - it shows the effect to be used for the first time in a Romanian movie.
  • Why is an image necessary? Prose of "[this film is the] first time [split screen was used] in a Romanian movie" seems to conveys the the same information (NFCC#1). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have noting against it being replaced. diego_pmc (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Marilena from P7 filming.jpg - Why is this necessary to understand production? What important or meaningful aspect of production is being illustrated. How does an image of people standing around the director contribute significantly to our understanding (NFCC#8)? If seeing the director is important, a free alternative could be used, as he is still living.
  • The director is dead, this is also mentioned in the present article BTW - an image showing the people standing around the director, does contribute to our understanding of a situation mentioned in the article. The team faced a few, more or less violent incidents, caused by the Roma community in the neighborhood, but also problems in the actual filming.
  • And this image illustrates that how? Why isn't the text from your reply sufficient for this understanding? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, it's pretty obvious how it illustrates the discomfort caused by the Roma. The image does no harm, and only clarifies the situation. diego_pmc (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Marilena from P7 - hand.jpg has inadequate purpose (as do other images) of "Use within the film's article, for illustrating purposes". What are those purposes? Why are they necessary and significant to our understanding of the film and/or its characters? If portrayal of the actors/characters is the purpose, there does not appear to be meaningful make-up or costume that would necessitate a fair use image over a free alternative of still-living actors.
  • It is used to illustrate the characters, and that's why I think an in-movie screenshot is better for that purpose, than pictures of the actors. diego_pmc (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The main subject is the film, and not its actors. diego_pmc (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A poster of the same size can be found here, and in its description it says it's low-res. That was my guiding point. At any rate, it is still too small to be used for illegal purposes, but of course, if really needed it could be resized. diego_pmc (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Assuming they wouldn't appear on other legitimate sites [3] [4] if they were illegal, I guess there's no issue. diego_pmc (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Q: It seems, one of the issues you see in this article is related to the incorrect use of images. I'm willing to address it, but there are a few images I want to keep: the one with the director surrounded by gypsies, and the splitscreen. If you think it's needed, the image with Marilena and Andrei, and the split-screen one, could be replaced with other, from the movie. For the first, I, for example would think this image is more suggestive. And of course, they could be made smaller. diego_pmc (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose Good article, but per Roger Davies the writing just doesn't make sense in some places. Also, there are some reference issues as stated above. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Point out, please, so that I can address them.diego_pmc (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll point out specifics:
  • Originally, the film was intended to be only an exercise, not supposed to be longer than seven minutes.—Awkward wording.
  • Being about teenage love (a subject preferred by the director),[7] the film was received positively by the public; it impressed through its unitary view and the way the story, together with the picture and the sound, combine together into a new and organic way, by using innovative, unusual techniques—Same thing.
  • Marilena and Giani were in fact in her apartment; the girl goes for a minute to the restroom.—First, could be worded better. Second, what girl?
  • The news about Marilena's suicide travel fast around the neighborhood.—Incorrect grammar.
  • The film's idea resulted from a small scale exercise between Nemescu and Liviu Marghidan during their time at university (precisely in 2003).—What university?
  • Initially the film was planned as a short fiction, the project evolving during 2005.—Again, should be worded better.
  • Thus the screenplay was rewritten and filming started with a very reduced budget of only $14,000 (money collected by Nemescu by participating at various film festivals, with older short fiction poeces).—Is that US dollars?

There are plenty more examples, so it would probably take a long copyediting or even a rewrite to get the writing up to FA standards. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

[edit] The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

previous FAC (15:47, 5 April 2008)


Self-nominator: This article has been nominated before, but has failed. There were many reasons why this article has failed, and after a fair amount of work and some time, the article has settled down and is well written. I must say, the article is fairly long for a telefilm, (TV-movie), so please keep this in mind when reviewing. If any problems surface, please leave me a note on my talk page. Have a nice day, Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • You don't need the current ref 4 "The Muppets: Wizard of Oz at Ebay"... since the only thing it is referencing is already referenced to a better source.

-REMOVED

-This review states facts that now are obvious, such as Dorothy being african-american and that it's similar to The Wiz. The distribution facts are also the same.

  • Current ref 14 "Ashanti answers critics and doubters" is a magazine article and should be formatted as such, giving author and publication date.

-DONE

-FIXED - I will directly cite the soundtrack, as it shown on the insert.

  • http://www.parentpreviews.com/movie-reviews/muppets-wizard-of-oz.shtml is a reliable source for it's review, but I'm not so sure it's a good souce for "The film's poster was first shown at the the Tribeca Film Festival, and all of the home video releases of the film to date have used this image. The film first premiered on television on May 20, 2005 on ABC in the US, and on CBC TV in Canada. The film was rated TV-PG for all US television airings." which is what is currently referenced to it.

-FIXED, I have removed these sources and added direct ones from Disney itself.

-PLEASE READ - Well, i think that it's OK for merchandise info, since it gives pictures of the merchandise, not just text. As for the Macy's flower show promotion, I also believe that it's OK. (Same reason, it gives pictures and not just words.)

All links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
struck the resolved issuses, left the others up for others to decide for themselves Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Please check the article for mistakes e.g.:

  • Dororthy learns that she is in Munchkinland..

-FIXED

  • The group assume that completing this task ..

-FIXED

  • Another such change was having Dorothy and her family be African-American,

-FIXED

  • The album was compilated by Ted Kryczko.

-FIXED

  • He travels with Dorothy and he friends to ask for courage from the Wizard of Oz.

-FIXED

  • The film's poster was first shown at the the Tribeca Film Festival

-REMOVED

  • In the US, the DVD and VHS release of the film was in a fullscreen 1.33:1 aspect ration

-FIXED

It's an improvement on the last version presented, but please ask someone new to the article to read it. GrahamColmTalk 12:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is very well put together and I hope I can support it, but there are a few things that just aren't adding up.
    • There is an additional reference at "Marr, Merissa. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition; 5/19/2005, Vol. 245 Issue 98, pB1-B2" but I don't have access to the article. If anyone reads this with access please let us know.

-ACCESSIBLE - Just needs to be gone to manually. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 01:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Removed what?
    • "With a budget of $18,000,000,[2]" - This figure is not in that footnote 2.

-REMOVED

Did that $18m figure come from another source? maclean 01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the source was deemed unreliable. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 01:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "During this time, ABC made several changes to the film that differ from the original novel. ... Another such change was Dorothy and her family's move from being caucasian to African-American, similar to The Wiz.[12]" - this implies that it was a conscious choice by ABC to cast someone who was specifically an African-American, rather than Ashanti who just happens to also be an African-American. The footnote makes the connection to The Wiz but does not back up the casting choice due to this other factor.

-REMOVED

    • "Jason Segel and Nick Stoller originally signed on to direct and write the film, but the positions went to Kirk Thatcher and Tom Martin.[15]" - the ref says that Segel & Stoller will write/direct the next Muppets movie (in 2008/09), not this one (2004).

-MOVED - To "future" section.

I don't think the "Future" section is necessay. This bit about Segel & Stoller seems peripheral to the subject of this article. maclean 01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Will remove.
    • "...Kermit the Frog had to have his face redone to give the character a more cloth-like feel.[8]" - this ref only mentions Kermit's "skin-care regimen" in what appears to be jest.

-REMOVED

    • "During pre-production, Ashanti went under many interviews" - the reference interview seems to have been done as the movie was released and I didn't see any mention of pre-production activity in the ref.

-FIXED

    • In footnote 17 "(2005) Album notes for The Best of the Muppets featuring The Muppets' Wizard of Oz [Insert]. Walt Disney Records." - If this is a reference to the album itself, I don't think the external link to the store is useful. I didn't see any of the footnoted info there.

-FIXED

    • "...soundtrack was released on 17 May 2005[18]" - the ref says: "Audio CD (May 17, 2005): Original Release Date: May 20, 2005" what is the difference between the two dates?

-FIXED

Oh, I think the TV premiere was May 20 and the soundtrack release was May 17. This isn't a problem with the article, just my interpretation of the source. maclean 01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "placing at #3 for that night.[36]" - this footnote does not mention the #3 placing.--maclean 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

-FIXED

Did that #3 figure come from another source? 01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)maclean
  • Comment, many of the references are missing the author fields. The word "stated" is used a lot (nine times by my count - mostly in the Reception section). It would be beneficial to be less repetitive. I'm not sure about the tense of the Reception section. I think that the reviews and the film should be described in the present tense but I checked on a few other FAs and they seem to differ (sometimes differ within the same article) - so I left them as is, in the past tense. --maclean 04:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

-FIXED - I reworded most of the reception. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Several points are brought up in the intro but are not addressed in the body. According to WP:LEAD the intro should just be summarizing the article, and not contain unsupported material. Specifically, the following items are not brought up
"special Friday night edition of ABC's The Wonderful World of Disney"

-REMOVED

"Thatcher, a Henson veteran who helmed the Muppets' last television special, It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie, which aired on NBC on 21 November 2002"

-REMOVED

"in association with Fox Television Studios,[7] Touchstone Television[7] and the Muppets Holding Company."

-ADDED TO PRODUCTION SECTION - I have kept this statement but have also included it in the production section. --maclean 05:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. My concerns have been addressed. There are still a few cite templates being completed but I approve of the article. --maclean 07:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes on The Muppets' Wizard of Oz:

"Lead Paragraphs"

  • "Starring Ashanti and The Muppets, the film was based on L. Frank Baum's novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, and it was written by The Simpsons writer Tom Martin." Consider two short sentences, punctuate Simpsons' writer.

-DONE

  • The rest of the paragraph in the lead paragraph reads like a plot summary. Perhaps leave it as a plot statement.

-DONE

  • The second and third paragraphs also appear to cover production and release information best handled in sections devoted to those topics.

-WILL KEEP, as the intro should cover what the article is about.

"Plot"

  • Overlinking is noted, e.g. "uncle" and "aunt" are not essential wikilinks.

-REMOVED

  • Minor wordsmithing required, "as the film ends, Dorothy..." Check use of phrase placement.
  • Plot seems overly detailed and long, perhaps consider a tighter summary and less of a "scene-by-scene" synopsis.

"Production"

  • First sentence/first paragraph is ripe for splitting.

-SPLIT

  • Ashanti wikilink in the second paragraph and later paragraph, goes to wrong link not the singer.

-FIXED

  • Ashanti quote? Is it necessary?

-KIND OF, adds depth to the production section.

  • Revise "but the part was given to Ashanti" – to a more active voice, "Ashanti won the part."

-FIXED

  • Revise "Ashanti went under many interviews for the film" to "Ashanti gave numerous interviews for the film " (many is an imprecise word, numerous is not much better).

-FIXED

  • Ashanti quote not much elucidation, sounds hokey.

-FIXED

"Music"

  • Consider changing all declarative sentences to an active voice, e.g. "The original songs from the film were written by Michael Giacchino" to "Michael Giacchino wrote the original songs for the film", and so on.

-FIXED

"Cast and characters"

  • Title usually written as "Cast."

-FIXED

  • Most of the character information a repeat of the plot information. Consider drastic cut-back.

-DOING

"Distribution"

  • Waaay too much information on secondary issues such as rating systems.

-WILL KEEP, just to include more info on the subject.

  • Revise "they sold plush dolls" – who is the "they?"

-FIXED

"Reception"

  • Revise "attracted 7.6 million viewers" as an imprecise way of "7.6 million viewers saw..."

-FIXED

  • Authoritative critical reviews are needed, some of the user reviews of sites such as Mutant Reviews are very suspect, (not well written, not well researched, etc.)

-FIXING

"References"

  • Consider significant textual sources as part of a bibliography and consilidate cites from the same source.

-FIXING

FWiW, just a cursory look, Bzuk (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

All the fixes were done be me: Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 01:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think the prose needs a thorough copyedit. I've left examples of some of the issues below, but the entire article needs work.

  • Many of the sentence beginnings are repetitive. Lots of sentences that begin with "Dorothy" or "The film".
  • Watch for unnecessary repetition. For example: "he grants the group all of their wishes. Dorothy's wish is finally granted by the wizard"

-FIXING

  • Any information about why the release date changed a day?

-ADDED - It's funny, I had this a while ago. But, it was removed because its source was deemed unreliable.

  • Some clauses don't seem to match well. For example, "Michael Giacchino wrote the original songs for the film, an Academy Award-nominated composer known for his work on a previous Muppet production: Little Muppet Monsters." - the clause about "Academy Award-nominated composer described Michael Giacchino, not "original songs for the film". This type of sentence needs to be reworded (and there are numerous examples of this throughout the article)

-FIXED - You know, I had to change this to satisfy Bzuk, but I guess it turned out to be wrong. (No offense)

  • Lots of colloquial language which is really not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, Examples: "Those five songs turned out to be", "hits the air"

-WILL CHANGE

  • I don't really understand what this is trying to say "Before any statements were released, ABC teamed with Fox Television Studios, Touchstone Television and the Muppets Holding Company to produce The Muppets' Wizard of Oz."

-FIXED

  • Some of the paragraphs do not flow well. For example, the paragraph that begins "Filming took place throughout September 2004" has the following organization, which makes little sense
    • Filming took place on this diate

-REPLACED

    • BEFORE filming, ABC said this

-REMOVED

    • "During this time" -- what time? Filming or pre-filming?

-FIXED

    • People auditioned (again, before filming, but is this before or after the announcement that the film was based on the book?)

-FIXED - I have also rearranged the section for better flow. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The flow is not any better than before. Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
How? The production section is fine. I have combined a few short sentences for better flow; I don't know how it can't be better.
    • Ashanti got the part

-FIXED

    • Quentin Tarantinto in the movie

-FIXED

    • Ashanti talks about filming

-FIXED

  • Other paragraphs seem like a collection of individual facts; they need to be reworked into a more cohesive paragraph.
  • At one point the article says the soundtrack was released four days before the television premiere (May 20 - 4 = May 16); at another point it says the soundtrack was released May 17.

-FIXED - sorry.

  • When a sentence begins with a number, the number should be spelled out

-NOT FIXING - All years, dates, and percentages should be written with numbers.

  • "At the film's Rotten Tomatoes listing, out of seven reviews, 29% were positive.[" - why not just say that of 7 reviews, only 2 were positive rather than use a percentage for a small number?

-CAN'T FIX - All other FA film articles are written like this.

  • A lot of the reviews listed are from places I've never heard of. Are these really reliable sources to use?

-YES, it's only for reviewing, not production statements. For more info, check the previous FAC.

  • I wouldn't consider toughpigs.com to be a reliable source.

-It's only pictures. Karanacs (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

[edit] Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)

previous FAC (18:03, 4 April 2008)


Self nomination. This article failed FAC two weeks ago due to prose, which by the end of the FAC, was admittedly not as bad as it was at the start. Most of the objections had been dealt with and I think time was half as responsible for the article failing. Sceptre (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: Sceptre, you have two noms in two days, and three noms up at once. Per WP:FAC instructions: "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry about that. It's not really my intention to flood FAC, though :/ Sceptre (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it staying or going? I need to know whether to look at the sources or not. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If Sceptre is able to keep up with both, I'll leave that up to the community. (Translation, I'm tired of the time it takes me to withdraw noms, and Sceptre is not a novice nominator.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've got all three FACs on watchlist. Sceptre (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The lede is a bit long and includes interesting factoids best left for the body of the article. (For example: "One scene required that a street in Cardiff's city centre be sealed for an entire evening due to security concerns.") A solid rewrite following WP:LEDE is needed there. The plot synopsis is bit long and detailed and should be rewritten into a less blow-by-blow, more concise version. Overall, the writing still needs a fair bit of tightening and polishing. The article is generally solid, but there are prose issues that need to be addressed to reach FA quality. If this is addressed, I will gladly support the article for promotion. Vassyana (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason why the plot's relatively longer than most; it's a 72 minute episode (so the previous 650-word version adhered to the film MOS's "10 words per minute" guidelines). I've cut it down to 380 words, which is less than most 45-minute episodes. Sceptre (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Had a go at the lead too. Anything else? I'll have a look at the prose later tonight. Sceptre (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's ... overgenerous (to be insanely kind). However, this isn't the place to make a point of my disagreement here. Regardless, I think the new synopsis is a great improvement! (I should note though, there is no MOS guideline for films, just a WikiProject guide. Could you point me to the 10 words per minute standard? WP:FilmPlot just recommends between 400 and 700.) The lede is also much improved. Outside of generally cleaning up some clumsy and/or poorly phrased language, I don't have any other objections. Vassyana (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so it's changed? Well, WP:EPISODE stole the "ten words per minute" suggestion from the WPFILM MOS, and both allow for overruns if the plot gets very tangled (see Doomsday (Doctor Who), which was a tangling of four or five plot threads). And yes, Graham, I do. Sceptre (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer! (Our fiction guidelines need some organization. :-P) If you're interested, I posted at EPISODE about this point. Vassyana (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Edit Conflict, (don't you just hate them?) GrahamColmTalk 22:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Support — we need to work on the prose. It's a little lazy in parts. I've made a couple of edits and I will make some more suggestions later. GrahamColmTalk 22:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the LOCE's request list, but it might take a while there. Did some wording changes too. Sceptre (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've merged the lead paragraphs. Per WP:LEAD, a rule of thumb would be to have 3 to 4 paragraphs of lead if you had 30k or more. This article has less than 15k of readable prose, which means it should really only have 1 - 2 paragraphs. Two sentence paragraphs are generally not that strong. I've also corrected the title in the lead, as the quotation marks should not be bolded. I bolded and italicized the show's name as well, as that should have been done. I think two weeks may have been a little too soon to come back to the FAC given the numerous "minor" things I just found, it makes me wonder what larger problems the page could have.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not really sure if disambiguators should be bolded. Sceptre (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now This was fun article to read. I've seen all of the new Doctor Who, so this was enjoyable. I think the article needs a bit of rewriting and reorganization, though, before FA promotion.

  • The episode continues from the end of the concurrent episodes "Last of the Time Lords" and "Time Crash", when the TARDIS collided with the Titanic to the Doctor's surprise - I think there should be season numbers here.
  • Almost all of the citations in the "Continuity" section is linked to other episodes. This makes me think it is WP:OR. It may seem obvious, but can we really compare episodes and say "this is the same"? The other objection I have is that the comparisons are trivial. I don't see the importance of them and since we can't elaborate on them in any way - risking even more OR - I would delete most of this section and rewrite it as a "References" or "Allusions" section.
  • Davies also emphasised society becoming aware of aliens and the tradition of London's consecutive Christmas attacks in the script, describing the latter in Doctor Who's "making-of" series Doctor Who Confidential as "becoming a bit of an in-joke" - Something like this could be used as a source for a "References" section, but it would have to be worded better.
  • The episode includes several references to outside the show's fictional universe. The episode is dedicated to Doctor Who's founding producer Verity Lambert, who died on 22 November 2007. The malfunctioning Host stuttering over the name "Max" is a reference to 1980s virtual presenter Max Headroom.[9] Davies cited The Poseidon Adventure as an influence for the episode's general plot, and the portrayal of Kansas in the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz as an analogue for Sto.[11] - These kinds of references could be included in a single "References" section. Having them split up was awkward.
  • Can anything about the themes of the episode be pulled from the reviews? It would be nice to have a "Themes" section.
  • The first few sentences of the "Minogue" section need to describe who Minogue is - I didn't know. Since she is a prominent star in the episode, it is worth describing her in a phrase or two.
  • The "Filming" section reads like a list. Pick what is important to know and include only that. Not everything is important!
  • I'm not sure why we care very much about the "Internal reaction" of the cast and crew. Many times artists like what they produce. ;)
  • Bannakaffalatta's death was placed in the "top 20 tearjerkers" category - This sentence doesn't make sense to readers who haven't seen the episode. The character wasn't introduced in the plot synopsis. He is important as both he and Max are cyborgs (the cyborg issue was left out of the plot synopsis - the motivation, one might say, of some of the characters).
  • The "Criticism and review" section is too listy - it is just one quote after another. The prose is choppy. Something must be done to make it flow better. Removing some quotes, perhaps? Copy editing?

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not really a fan of "themes" or "outside references" sections as they tend to propogate OR fast, especially on these kinds of articles. The continuity section really fits in the same vein, and were the show not 45 years old this year, I'd rather cut it. It's a struggle to get to the point where the only stuff in the article is stuff that's deliberately meant to be a continuity link rather than a throwaway line.
    However, you do have some points that were brought about, mostly about the plot - originally, the plot was around 600 words long (as it's 60% longer than most of the new series episodes). I'm thinking - this FAC will end soon and I don't feel confident I can get it up to a non-objectionable state in time... perhaps it'd be best to withdraw the article and resubmit it in a couple of months time once I've ironed the kinks out. Sceptre (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:14, 29 April 2008.

[edit] Strapping Young Lad

Self-nominator I've been working on the article for a couple of months now, it has been peer reviewed, I hope it's ready to become featured. Gocsa (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Yeah it is "ready to become featured"! This is a fantastic article! I left a pretty nice review on it peer review and all concerns were addressed. Phenomenal article. Nice to a another metal band on here. Burningclean [speak] 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Yeah, I'm trying to use it as a ref to back up the fact that the album became a fan favorite despite it's poor sales and reviews at the time of its release. Maybe the other ref (the interview) is enough, and this one can be deleted.
  • Interview.
  • Interview.
  • Interviews, concert reviews and a report about a signing event.
  • Interview.
  • Interview.
  • Interview.
  • Interview.
  • Interview and a concert review.
  • Interview and a concert review.
  • Interview.
  • Current ref 54 is lacking a title
  • I don't know the title, it was probably Interview with Devin Townsend or something like that, but I personally don't have the magazine or the article, I only know it was in that particular issue.
  • Interview. Yeah, but can't they interview bands in their spare time? Strapping Young Lad is not that high profile band as eg. Metallica, so fanzines can easily get in contact with Devin Townsend or other band members. Heck, Century Media is only an independent label.
  • Interview.
  • Interview.
  • Interview.
  • Interview.
  • I use this ref to back up the fact that Towsend is "one of the most recognizable musicians in the metal community". The Gauntlet is a metal site, maybe only a fanzine (I didn't check), but it is a prominent site in the metal community.
  • Live review. There are no SYL concert reviews on mainstream sites. I don't think a Rolling Stone editor ever went to a Strapping Young Lad gig. :D
  • Maybe this can be deleted, although then I'll have no other ref to back up the fact that "Far Beyond Metal" became a live staple as well as a fan favorite. But they played this song at a high number of concerts (maybe almost every concert) from 1997 to 2006. And a fan sings it on their concert DVD.
I'm sure some of these are reliable, I'm just not very familiar with metal websites yet. The links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well these sites are mostly fanzines (some of them are only webzines, some of them are published in printed form as well) and pretty much all the stuff from these sites are interviews. For reviews, I've only used reliable sites (I've deleted the Music Emissions ref, where it was used as a review). You have to understand that this is heavy metal (extreme metal!), not rocket science, or not even pop music, so there are no books on the subject, not even Rolling Stone or any other mainstream magazine articles and/or reviews. I've practically written this biography from interviews with band members (mostly with the frontman, Devin Townsend), and tried to find as many notable album reviews as possible. Gocsa (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
So yeah, there are sites hosted on geocities and sites like that, but as they're interviews, the important stuff (used as reference) is what the interviewed band members say.. Gocsa (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion: I think you should individually address each of the websites listed by Ealdgyth, so that it becomes clear what makes your use of those sources permissible on Wikipedia. (like on the PR you told me some were only used for Concert reports etc.) indopug (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Contributed at the peer review. Although the sources might be suspect, its pretty clear that the band is very underground; neither Rolling Stone reviews them nor do academicians assess SYL's influence on modern youth culture (you know, like they do with the Beatles and Nirvana). Besides, most of what is reffed to "suspect" sites are only either interviews or the rather mundane concert/tour/release information, nothing controversial. Prose is okay, did a bit of copy-editing myself. Maybe a word-nerd or two will pick up any remaining details. indopug (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Resolved issues from Skeletor2112 (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Well done, the prose looks much better. \m/ Skeletor2112 (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments.

  • "After a four year hiatus between 1999 and 2002," - some would say that's three years. Better to just remove the "four year"
  • "The offer was eventually withdrawn because, as the owner of Roadrunner thought " - remove the "because" and comma
  • "Although its unusual musical ideas" - wlink the genres here
  • "work as record producer" - needs an "a"
  • "on the Billboard Top Heatseekers chart" - italics for Billboard

Yeah, prose seems generally good...FAC has helped, no doubt! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Fat Man comments: I'm delighted to see an article on one of my favorite bands up for FA status! The article looks great, and I'll post some comments shortly.

  • First thing that jumps out at me: I think using the term wall of sound in the lead is highly problematic. That term very specifically alludes to techniques employed by Phil Spector in the 1960s. Strapping Young Lad's sound--though densely layered--is not related to that of Spector's recordings. If a critic described their sound using that term, please say so.
I don't think the use of the term is that exclusive, I've read tons of reviews and interviews in metal magazines referring to his production as "wall of sound". And hey, other bands have used a wall of sound since Spector, maybe the wiki article for wall of sound should have a section about other uses of the term or other bands using a similar production method - it has an 'Other songs using technique' section, so maybe this should be worked on. Or you can suggest a way to rephrase it so that it says that Townsend's production is similar to Phil Spector's. Gocsa (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and it is mentioned (and referenced) in the article that he was referred to as the "Phil Spector of metal" by a critic. Gocsa (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, I'll check out that source, but as is stands the way you've used the term (especially with the wikilink) causes confusion--to a reader, it comes across as if the author of the article doesn't know what "wall of sound" means.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That source looks good. I'll do some thinking on whether there's another way we can word this. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Why are we using British spelling (e.g., "characterised") in article about a Canadian band?
Cool I see you fixed it. The only other British spelling I found was "Basterdised" but that should remain because it's from a direct quote.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned about the use of the past tense throughout the article when the account of their "dissolution" doesn't sound all that definitive to me: "Although Hoglan initially denied the definitive break-up of the band, saying they would go on tour in March 2007,[53] he later stated Strapping Young Lad is on "extended hiatus", and might never reunite again.[54]"
"Might never reunite again" is not an official breakup. By contrast, the lead section of the System of a Down article (why are so many of the Fat Man's favorite bands in a nebulous state of permanent hiatus?) uses the present tense. For precedent's sake, do we have examples of featured articles about bands with ambiguous breakup status, or TV shows that have sort-of-but-not-really gone off the air? If so, are those articles written in the present or past tense?
Yeah, but as a fan of the band you should know that SYL is over for good. Hoglan made these comments at the end of 2006. But Townsend has the final word on the band's future as he is the founder/frontman, Hoglan was just babbling, it's nothing so important, it was a glimpse of hope at the time, but 1,5 year has passed since then and SYL shows no activity, Townsend is busy with his solo thing and producer work. Also, he officially broke up the band at the press conference in May 2007. Yes, they "might" reunite again, as they did after so many years with the SYL album in 2003, but this is very unlikely. If any news comes up about a new album, we'll change the article to present tense, but as I said this is very unlikely. They're not even touring as they did between 1999 and 2002, each member has his other things goin' on so... Gocsa (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, forget what I know and what you know for a moment (I should point out that, when I say they are "one of my favorite bands," that only means I play their songs on my iPod while I'm at the gym and that I try to catch their shows when whey they come to NYC; it doesn't mean I know anything about their goings-on). We're talking about the article... the article should unequivocally state that the band has been dissolved, and there should be a source that speaks to this. I don't think the dissolution section currently states this effectively. Without much clearer language, the use of the past tense comes across as presumptuous.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, then Townsend's announcement is what? He has confirmed it, period. Just read the reference. Gocsa (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Compare the language in the lead section (emphasis added):
"Townsend disbanded Strapping Young Lad in May 2007, announcing his decision to retreat from public view while continuing to record solo albums."
With the more equivocal language in the body of the article:
"In May 2007, during a press conference held to promote his new solo album, Ziltoid the Omniscient, Townsend announced his plans to retreat from public view, including giving interviews and touring, to concentrate on his family, and producing solo albums, as well as other people's music.[55]"
"Plans" to "retreat from public view" are not the same as dissolution of a rock band. Once again, I'm not talking about the content of the reference itself; I'm only saying that to a reader of the Wikipedia article, this could be made more clear.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I still don't entirely understand your problem. You can add a sentence after this, if you wish, saying: This meant the dissolution of Strapping Young Lad, as well as The Devin Townsend Band, or something.. He announced those plans (to solely concentrate on his solo work) and fulfilled them. He fulfilled them, didn't he? If you agree and have no problem with the reference, but want to expand this part in the article, feel free to do it. Saying that it is an indefinite hiatus, or that a new album may be recorded sometime in the future is merely speculation, cause Townsend surely never said that he is taking an "indefinite hiatus", or anything about putting the band to rest only "for a while". As I said before, unless he makes some kind of comment about the possibility of a reunion, the best thing we can do is to use the past tense and say it's a breakup. Gocsa (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There's also this interview http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/article/?id=46602 in which he says SYL is over, we can also somehow incorporate this into the wiki article. Gocsa (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I added some more info after this part to make it more clear, check it out, and help me, thanks:) Gocsa (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I like it! I think that's much better.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • All in all, this is very impressive work, for which you are to be commended. I don't know if it's good enough to be promoted--I'll leave that to the experts. If anything, the two greatest obstacles are potentially unreliable sources and copyediting (with which I can assist, to some degree). I'll also let you know if I come up with a better way to word the "wall of sound" claim, and I hope you can more clearly indicate and cite that the band is now defunct. Very good stuff! --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This probably isn't the best place to bring this up, but I'm not 100% happy with the song selection in the audio clips. I would love to have a clip of "Oh My Fucking God," which in my mind is the quintessential showcase of the band's ferocious speed, chaotic sound and wacky sense of humor--perhaps it belongs in the "Musical Style" section. I see from your user talk page that you once uploaded a clip but some admin deleted it. I also love "Skeksis" from Alien which uses melodic themes from the The Dark Crystal score and features absurdly complex arrangements and drumming. Of course this isn't a real critique of the article, just an assertion of my personal tastes. Anyway, good luck!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but "Love?" is much more popular, you don't have to be a SYL fan to know it, there are many people who only know this one song from the band, because it had a music video and it was in heavy rotation on MTV2. But "Oh My Fucking God", I have to think about that one:) You think it should replace "Far Beyond Metal"? It's also a pretty important song, as it was played at like every concert from 1997, and was recorded with a guest vocalist, etc.... Gocsa (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The questions on reliable sources (above) need to be resolved, per WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually Sandy, that's a matter of opinion. Whenever a heavy metal articles hits FAC, these questions always come up. It's about time FAC reviewers realise that sources are limited when it comes to metal articles - this isn't the Beatles, or the Rolling Stones. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say the sources would automatically be rejected, but that the questions need to be resolved (as in, answered). What makes them reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but Ealdgyth never replied, although I left her a message a week ago or so, and now she's on vacation. As for the reliability, I answered every question, they're all interviews and/or concert reviews, I don't know what else to say, as LuciferMorgan said they're all the sources available anywhere. Gocsa (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't answer because I'm totally unsure. I understand that some subjects just don't HAVE convential sources, but I'm not going to make a hard and fast ruling on them because i'm not sure. I left them unresolved with the answers so that folks can judge for themselves in the supports/opposes. As I recall, the interviews didn't look horrible, and I think most of them at least used the full interviewers name, etc. In the end, it boils down to, I don't know. Nothing screams "Bad source" but they aren't exactly fitting into the obviously RS category either. Sorry to be indecisive, but it's really a subject area I'm not familiar with and the fact that most of them are interviews makes them swing enough toward the middle between RS and Non-RS that I can't make a decision. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Notes: I easily spotted MoS issues. Please consider asking User:Epbr123 to do a check, as he quickly spots and corrects MoS problems. A bigger concern is that I also easily spotted basic grammatical errors; a fresh review of the prose is in order. For example, the punctuation here is such that I can't decipher what the sentence is trying to say:
  • Townsend was the main songwriter of the band; the first two albums were completely his work, while following Strapping Young Lad, all four members "tossed in riffs, lyrical ideas, and song titles", but he remained the largest contributor.
and here
  • For the first time, the album was a product of collaborative writing; the band wrote "about half" of the material on the 2001 Foot In Mouth Tour, and the rest at home, starting January 2002.

By the time an article has accumulated four Supports, I have to assume someone has checked the prose and these kinds of issues have been worked out; I shouldn't be finding them myself. Perhaps The Fat Man (a capable writer) can be enticed to copyedit the entire article. The WP:LEAD is meager; it should be a compelling stand-alone summary of the entire article, drawing the reader in. Raul uses the lead to write the TFA blurbs; it would be hard to come up with a full blurb from this lead, and it doesn't seem to cover the entire article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What else do you think should be included in the lead? Gocsa (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I requested a copyedit for the article, but I don't know what to do with the lead, I found it good enough.. Gocsa (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I am more celebrated for my laziness than for my writing, so I doubt I can be "enticed to copyedit the entire article." However, I should probably have time to do some copyediting on Sunday. Sandy, how much time do the FAC gods typically allow before a decision is rendered?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Since my favorite bot is on a break, Sunday is good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Different users see different things... I am not so good at spotting MoS issues, but I can point out choppy sentences. I am assuming that the four who supported didn't see any more problems. I can only list what I see, and when that is taken care of, I support... how else is it supposed to go? Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Tonight, I've done quite a bit of copyediting on the main body of the article, but haven't touched the lead, which still needs work. Let me know if you think my copyedits were worthwhile.
  • Also I've added {{fact}} tags for the following statements:
    • I could find no reference that, after being rejected by Roadrunner and Relatively Records, Towsend was signed to a 5-album deal with Century Records. You used this as a source, but that article doesn't say anything about it.
    • You also wrote how Townsend's discontinuing his medication during the recording of Alien influenced his lyrics, but the source you cited says no such thing. More importantly, do we have a good source that Townsend suffers from bipolar disorder? This condition is alluded to several times.
      • What?? It's the first question on the page "You went off your medication to record Alien – how did that affect you and the recording process?" then he explains how in the answer. Ok, we can change the sentence in the article, statint it affected the recording process, or the record itself, but it was definitely an influence on this particular record. Gocsa (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
        • That source does say he's manic depressive. It's allegedly an interview on a website whose main page we can't access and that is not reliable. How do we know that interview ever happened? You haven't established the reliability of the sources. Bipolar disorder is still mentioned elsewhere in the article, sourced to a dead link (Gramlich, Chris (February 2003). The Reluctant Return of Strapping Young Lad. Exclaim!. Retrieved on January 31, 2008.) We need a high-quality reliable source to back up the bipolar statement. Please read WP:BLP. I appreciate the work The Fat Man did to bring this article closer to standard after four supports; if you can correct the sourcing, perhaps you can ask one of the four supporters to help finish up the lead. Nowhere does WP:V say we take the word of a no-name website that an interview is presented correctly or even happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Fat Man; don't try to pretend laziness with me again, 'cuz it won't work :-)) The bipolar concern is a serious WP:BLP issue, and that must be sourced to a very high quality source (not some no-name website). The one I clicked on returned a dead link. We need a high-quality reliable published source for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There's something wrong with this sentence. I don't know if it's missing commas, hyphens, or what, but I can't decipher its meaning:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
  • In the first sentence of the lead, I would Wikilink Canadian.
  • All paragraphs need to end in a reference, expecially the one with {{cn}}.
  • Need Non-breaking spaces throughout.
  • On November 2, 2004, Strapping Young Lad released a [DVD]] entitled For Those Aboot to Rock: Live at the Commodore, which documented the band's January 16, 2004 performance at the Commodore Ballroom in Vancouver. Broken Wikilink.

I'm sure I could find lots more little nit-picky stuff, but those are the things that pop out at me the most. There are some areas where the writing cold be slightly better, but I guess it would suffice. Also, there are several unsourced statements, and I can't see an FAC being promoted with entire un-referenced paragraphs. Good work overall, though. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I see two dead links. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, 1a and 1c. There are some prose issues that I've called out below, but my main concern is the plethora of unreliable sources. It appears that this has mostly been "web researched" which is prevalent in pop culture articles but unfortunately produces few reliable sources. There are many reliable print sources about popular music, including metal, that have reputations for fact-checking and a serious editorial process. You need to use them for this to meet criterion 1c.
    • "The band started as a one-man studio project with Townsend playing most of the instruments on the 1995 debut album..." It's not really a one-man project if he played "most" of the instruments, is it?
  • Actually, one-man studio project implies that there was only one official member in the band, Devin Townsend. THe few instruments he didn't play were by session musicians who are never creditted as being a part of the band. indopug (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Use of passive voice unnecessarily obscures the subject of sentences: "... permanent lineup was recruited ..."
    • "The band gained critical success from their 1997 album City, as well as a growing underground fan base." Badly worded; sounds as if you are partially attributing their critical success to their fan base.
    • Stylistic but ungrammatical comma usage throughout.
    • Your very first citation goes to a source I can't even find.. what is Loudmouth? I found a self-published feminist zine called LOUDMouth; surely it's not that?
    • History section... much more passive voice, even when the subject is identified. It's just poor prose.
    • The first para of the History section has a "citation needed" tag? No, not even for GA let alone FA.
    • I cannot reconcile these interviews published to personal web space and used as teriary sources here. You need to look up the real source for the interview if you're going to use it to source facts.
    • You have many subjective statements, such as that City was well-received by critics, sourced to Blabbermouth.net which is of unknown reliability. Are they reprinting reviews from other places, like the Bergman review? Is Bergman a Blabbermouth user? What is the editorial and fact-checking process?
      • Just wanted to say that Blabbermouth is defenetely a reliable source - they are probably one of the top Metal review/news sites out there. I bet every one of the 21 metal FA's uses Blabbermouth as a source. Bergman is a reviewer there, users don't write reviews. Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
        • No offense, but we can't afford to take your word for it. We need some evidence, such as a reliable secondary source (like a printed metal magazine) referring to Blabbermouth as reliable. Pervasiveness does not equal reliability. --Laser brain (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I understand you can't take my word for it, thats not what I meant... It's just well known int he metal community as the source. I don't subscribe anymore, but Metal Maniacs magazine reprints news from Blabbermouth, they have(or had last I saw) a section devoted to Blabbermouth news. I can maybe find an old issue and scan it? Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Other subjective statements, such as "The album soon gained a cult following, and a loyal fan base for the band." are sourced to the band's official biography on the record company's web site. This amounts to peacockery and statements like this always need to be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. Any official web page should only be used for basic facts.
    • WP:BLP violation. Your statement about his being bipolar is sourced to a link that does appear to be reliable per policy. It's an IP address and it doesn't even work.
Myriad issues need to be addressed before we can really move to examining the prose in-depth. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Laser Brain about the unreliable sources, and about other things as well. I can't believe I didn't notice these things before. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll take care of the reference issues, and try to expand the lead, while The Fat Man (and others maybe) will probably help me some more with the copyediting (I also requested one from the League of Copyeditors). I suggest we should close this one now, and within a week or two I'll restart the nomination. Gocsa (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll archive with the next batch, Gocsa, and I'm sure you'll be successful next time through, after addressing these issues outside of the time limits of FAC. Hope to see you back soon !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't look at every paragraph during my scattershot round of copyediting, but this time I shall focus on Laser's excellent points, at least to the extent that they can be addressed by copyediting alone (I can't really help on the sourcing issue). I expect to take care of this within a few days (though additional help is more than welcome; the article could always benefit from the hand of a truly competent writer).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

[edit] The Future of Air Transport white paper

previous FAC #1

previous FAC #2

Self-Nom Third time around. The article has just been promoted to GA. A request for copyedit was made in February, no takers as yet. Previous FACs have identified issues with titling/scope, as did the GAN. I'm not sure that reviewers will find this issue fully resolved even now, with the article on it's third different title, but it's the article I wanted to write. FactotEm (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'm totally confused by this article. Is it about the white paper or is it about the industry as a whole? I presume the former, but it's entirely unclear. Half of the article seems to be just about the industry generally, and that content should be moved to Air transport in the United Kingdom and done in summary style only in the nominated article. Even when the article is talking about what the white paper says, it seems that there the content is misplaced, and the white paper should be used as a source for a different article. Why, for instance, is there a huge section about the economic impact of air transport in the UK that uses this as the primary (but not exclusive) source? Really what this article seems to be is an unbalanced assessment of the aviation industry, relying far too heavily on one source. I think this article needs to be rewritten with a new goal in mind: summarize the background that lead to the writing of the white paper, what the white paper says (in summary form, just as in any article about a non-fiction work), and the reaction to the white paper, etc. Detailed factual accounts found in the white paper about a different topic should go in the article for that different topic. Mangostar (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I suspect the title is once again setting an expectation that jars with the content. To answer your questions, the article is intended to be about the key issues concerning the air transport industry in the UK at the start of the 21st century, a title I rejected early on as way too cumbersome. In order to be comprehensive I felt it needed to cover aspects of usage, policy, and environmental impact. Govt policy relating to air transport contradicts environmental policy. The govt's justification for this is its perception of a significant economic benefit generated by growth in air transport, hence the lengthy section on economics. But then, if I have to explain this, there is obviously something wrong. I have always struggled with the title; if anyone can suggest an alternative that adequately encapsulates the content, I'm all ears. Or are the issues more fundamental than that? --FactotEm (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
How about Aviation industry outlook in the United Kingdom? Mangostar (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It would have to be "Air transport" rather than "Aviation" because the latter includes private flying which is not in this article's scope, but would that address your concerns about this article? --FactotEm (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't really understand the distinction, but either is fine to me. However, that would not resolve my concerns because even then the article is a mish-mash of topics that don't fit under the new heading either. For instance, the economics part (except for the brief forecast, perhaps) properly would be in the Air transport in the United Kingdom, not in Air transport industry outlook in the United Kingdom, because it is describing past/present effects. Likewise, the "Framework" section should be a summary-style section briefly describing content that is in the Air transport in the United Kingdom article. I still fail to see why this article collects the topics it does to be all in one page. Actually, why could this not just be merged to the main airt transport article? Mangostar (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
So I gave a go at a preliminary merge at User:Mangostar/Air transport in the United Kingdom. I think this is a much more sensible approach to a structure of the article. I didn't put in the airport placement strategy because I wasn't exactly sure where to put it, but I really think that the The Future of Air Transport white paper as it stands really is trying to do too much and too little simultaneously. If you want to do a comprehensive overview of the impacts of the industry, that should go in the main article, with summary-style sections if necessary. If you want to do a comprehensive overview of government policy, same. If you want to talk about the specific proposals in this one document, also fine, but then move everything else to a different article. (It seems that maybe you have just picked several topics that interest you and have put them in a separate article so as to avoid having to write troublesome sections on the perhaps boring history of the industry? Just speculating...) I think this needs a major rethinking before it is ready for FA. Mangostar (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
A little unfair. I picked one topic that interested me; the inherent conflict between growth in air transport and its environmental impact, a much debated subject in the UK. In covering this subject I sought to be as comprehensive as possible about the causes of the conflict and the arguments presented in the opposing viewpoints, and this has informed the selection of topics in the article. I can see why you suggest splitting this article's topics into separate articles, but I do not agree that by consolidating them into one article it becomes a mish-mash of topics. They are all very relevant to the subject, even if I have failed to title that subject well. It can be difficult to get good FA reviews of long involved articles and I do appreciate you taking the time to help. However, I don't think that I can do anything that would change your opinion without fundamentally altering an article that I would find valuable as a reference as is, so I'm going to have to accept your oppose. Thanks again. --FactotEm (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment all links worked fine for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose unless, Image:UK Airline Top 10 2006.jpg needs sources to prove its verifiability and (of lesser importance) could use to be SVG or PNG. Actually, this applies to a lot of the graphs--they need to be sourced just like the text is. Shouldn't be too hard to remedy. gren グレン 18:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sources are actually included in the images themelves, but I see your point - I'll add the info to the image pages as well. If you know of any resource that converts these to SVG I'd be grateful. I can't do it myself and I have seen the improvement in quality in an image used elsewhere. --FactotEm (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Source information added to the image pages now. --FactotEm (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mangostar. The GA reviewer also mentioned issues with focus, but said the issues are OK in a GA, but I think the issues are not OK in a FA. --Kaypoh (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Mangostar. The content in this article should be merged into Air transport in the United Kingdom, where it is more applicable. There could be daughter articles for the white paper (if it actually discussed the white paper in more detail and not the industry as a whole) or for Environmental impact of air transport in the United Kingdom. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

[edit] Baby Boy (song)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because its been a GA for a while and was peer reviewed for weeks. "Baby Boy" is a song by Beyoncé Knowles and Dangerously in Love's best-charting single. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: The rationale for Image:Beyoncebaby.jpg does not state a purpose (required per WP:NFCC#10C and WP:RAT). Why is this image necessary to understand the video; isn't prose alone sufficient (NFCC#3A)? What significant contribution does this image make to our understanding (NFCC#8)? As this is merely a close up of Knowles (no meaningful cinematography or other video elements are really shown), why couldn't a free image be obtained that would convey substantively identical information (NFCC#1)? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • As discussed in the prose, that Arabic sequences is somewhat the highlight of the video as the song itself has Middle-eastern influences. That picture, I believe, shows an Arabic routine. --Efe (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Please double check my comments; that doesn't address the questions I've raised. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I fixed it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Efe (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

All other links checked out. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That looks like a forum? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the archive page. --Efe (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please close and archive the peer review; the instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR specify articles shouldn't be simultaneously listed at both places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I closed the PR already before I passed this here. --Efe (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I took the briefest of looks at this. Precisely because it was a brief look, I'm concerned at the way the article ends: rather in media res, with a puzzling final line. "The original record was interpolated with an Arabic instrumental, showcasing Knowles vigorously dancing in the sand." What does this mean? Is it part of the description of the video? If so, the verb should be in the present tense, as with the rest of the description. Actually, the whole description is a little bizarre: what's meant by "on the beach side," for instance?
I got your point. This must be in present tense. --Efe (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The description of the video is now better. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And then just a quick look further up... The writing could definitely be improved. Take for instance "2003's nineteenth best-selling single." I presume that this is not trying to tell us that the single was chronlogically the nineteenth best-seller of 2003? Another hyphen might help, though re-wording the sentence would be better still. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Reworded. Is that clearer now? --Efe (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
'Twill do. It is tough. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: What does "Knowles executing an Arabic routine" routine mean? Arabic indicates the "Arabic language". The image label could be seen as culturally insensitive, or just plain ignorant. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed image caption. --Efe (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I took a longer look at the article just now, and started some copy-editing, but really there are a lot of problems. Some examples:
    • It should be "Knowles's" not "Knowles'" throughout. Beyoncé is (in so many ways) singular.
    • Why the predominance of passive voice? For instance, the lead's third paragraph is solely in the passive.
    • The "Background and writing" section is incoherent...
    • Why "first" collaborated? There's no balancing "second" or "later."
    • What's the relationswhip between that paragraph's second and third sentences? Together, they're horribly confusing in terms of chronology.
    • Introduce Sean Paul.
    • "Knowles was acquainted with Sean Paul's music because she had listened to a lot of his records." Ugh. Delete.
    • "tracking"?!
    • "during the late stages of recording her debut solo album Dangerously in Love." Repetition.
  • And I stopped there, because there were enough problems in a bare ten lines or so of text...
  • The above doesn't even take into account things I fixed, such as the ungrammatical "it would be 'perfect' if someone adds vocals in it" or "They talked to Sean Paul on phone."
  • The article needs a lot more work. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

[edit] The Trial of a Time Lord

I'm nominating this article for featured article because my rewrite of the article has significantly changed the article's quality. I think as far as a season article goes, it's along the same lines of quality as Lost (season 2), but the production and reception section has prompted opinions that it should be instead be an FA rather than a FL. And yes, I do know the lack of diversity of sources: this is a 22-year-old topic for when Doctor Who was rather unpopular, thus a lack of reviews and production interviews; instead, the article relies on two reliable sources which have themselves extracted from reliable sources. Sceptre (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Something is wrong with the formatting of the ultimate references: you have two "Television Companion"s (presumably the second one is actually the dis-continuity guide). There is a rogue "Terrence Dicks" in the second reference. I think that the publishers are wrong (Telos may have done reprints, but I don't think that they were the original publishers). The references that are presumably to Doctor Who Magazine don't actually name the magazine. Bluap (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed them; the errors came around when I had to templatise the references. Sceptre (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments All links checked out, sources look okay to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I am neither supporting nor opposing this nomination. However, I must express strong doubt regarding the lack of sources. Doctor Who as a program is one of the most written about shows in modern times. (It is comparable to the Star Trek universe in North America.) It is a hotly debated and widely discussed serial. It is the last major appearance of the ever-popular Sixth Doctor. The infamous Valeyard and Master both play central roles. Taken together, this indicates to me that it is extremely unlikely there is any dearth of sources for this serial. Vassyana (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Comment. Withdrawn after research. Vassyana (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The Sixth Doctor wasn't exactly popular. Still, I doubt more sources are really needed: The production section is adequately summarise without going too much in-depth, and it doesn't lack detail either. I'd rather not put more sources than necessary in the article. I was actually more concerned about the lack of sources for reception, to be honest; I can't find any contemporary reviews for that particular article (and, IIRC, Ep. 4 was one of the lowest ratings Doctor Who has ever had). Sceptre (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment—Quite good, but could do with a comb-through to polish the writing. Here are a few things I picked up just at the top. (not the whole story, of course)

  • MOS breach—why the bolded item end of first line?
  • "the titles given in this article are common titles used in novelisations and production"—spot the two redundant words.
  • "put on hiatus"—Is this idiomatic?
  • " BBC controller Michael Grade wished for the series to contain less violent content"—reference? If that para is all covered by ref 2 (at bottom), perhaps another 2 earlier as well? TONY (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    Doctor Who (season 23) redirects there. And yes, the whole paragraph is supported by ref #2. Sceptre (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Two comments — On the whole, the article is well-written but:

  • What does this mean? Howe and Walker's opinion of the serials when treated segments was more positive.
  • ..who withdrew his completion of the former's final serial. Isn't "former" an adjective?

--GrahamColmTalk 18:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Howe and Walker..." was a glitch in writing, the term "former" is used to denote Holmes. Sceptre (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to review this (this is just placeholder so I don't forget...) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, anyhow, a rather peculiar setup, to be sure, but looks pretty good. I have some minor grammar points:
    • "The serial is the last appearance of Colin Baker in the lead role of the Sixth Doctor and Nicola Bryant in the role of Perpugilliam "Peri" Brown, the Doctor's companion; their last appearances are The Ultimate Foe and Mindwarp respectively" could you explain what 'The Ultimate Foe' and 'Mindwarp' are? This sentence seems a little awkward.
    • "On its original broadcast, public reaction was mixed; it was viewed by fewer people but was appreciated more by the audience." Also a bit unclear; do you mean to say it was critically received but had lower rankings? Could you reword it then? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      The second sentence is supposed to mean "Not many people watched the episode, but those who did liked it better than the last season". (I think episode four was a record low for Doctor Who at that point). Sceptre (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

[edit] Richard Dawkins

previous FAC (19:48, 21 March 2008)


Self-nominator I am nominating this article for the FA status because I believe this article meets all the FA criteria. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment
  • "Born in Nairobi, Kenya, Dawkins moved to England with his parents at the age of eight, and completed his education at the University of Oxford." - <Sniff> I wish was so smart that I could have graduated when I was eight years old.
  • Is that last paragraph of the lead necessary? Seems like a tacky add-on, and the stuff isn't there anywhere else in the article.
  • Club the Education sub-section to either the one above it or below it.
  • I find it weird that the lead introduces his theories based on the pop-sci books he had written them in. Aren't those books peripheral to his work as a scientist and researcher. Its odd that you go discuss the career and work of a scientist on the basis of the pop-sci books he had written.
More later, indopug (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's very odd to introduce his work through his books; he is first-and-foremost a populariser and public intellectual as opposed to a field-researcher, and his been since his first publication's massive success. For example, the gene-centered view of evolution to which the article alludes was not his own original idea (in fact, it was George C. Williams's), and yet it is what he is best known for scientifically, as his popular-science book The Selfish Gene caused the idea to be accepted almost universally. AC+79 3888 (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Dawkins is much more significant and influential as a popularizer than as a researcher. Where he has had innovations, they have primarily been innovative ways of looking at phenomena, rather than new biology discoveries. It is entirely relevant to focus on Dawkins' most well-known contributions even if a majority of those are "pop-sci", since popular culture is very much within the scope of a general-knoweldge encyclopedia like Wikipedia. -Silence (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok, thanks for clarifying. indopug (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 14, "The Atheism Tapes" is lacking publisher information. I see you give the WikiSource information on it, but the information given on them doesn't tell me how Wikisource got them?
I guess the real concern now is that is Wikisource a RS? we don't use Wikipedia as a source...
Reply Changed to a reliable source (The Guardian). See article. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You've mixed using the [[:Template:Citation]] with the templates that start with Cite such as [[:Template:Cite journal]] or [[:Template:Cite news]]. They shouldn't be mixed per [[WP:CITE#Citation templates]].
still doing so.
Reply I'm working on this one now. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply Could we maybe have someone decide once and for all whether or not this link should be included? I have no problem removing it, but I simply don't feel that it should be removed; unless the consensus says otherwise. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
did you remove this?
Reply Changed to a reliable source (RichardDawkins.net video). See article.
did you remove this?
Reply Yes, that citation has been removed. The text was altered to exclude the claim which was being sourced. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
All links checked out as good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
"http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php is a blog, what makes it notable enough to use?" Well, it is considered notable enough to merit its own article, according to which, it was listed by the journal Nature as one of the best in scientific circles. It is award-winning, and highly popular. Also, yes, Free Inquiry is the CSH's magazine. Ambiguity with "official site" resolved. AC+79 3888 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Having its own article reflects notability, not WP:V; specifically, we need to know how PZ Myers meets WP:SELFPUB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The text simply states that "in the paperback edition of The God Delusion, he [Dawkins] refers to the American biologist PZ Myers, who has satirized this line of argument as 'The Courtier's Reply' ". By clicking the link provided, one can view the article written by Myers in which he satirizes this exact line of argument. Myers is not being used as a source regarding the claims of critics of Dawkins' book, he is merely being singled out as a person who has satirized those arguments; accurately or otherwise, and has done so on a notable medium, namely the Pharyngula blog. Something which was picked up on by Dawkins himself, who specifically mentions it in his introduction to the paperback edition.--AC+79 3888 (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving this one out for others to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Beliefnet is owned and operated by Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of News Corporation. I think it is safe to say that it is a reliable source.--AC+79 3888 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, please take a look at the remaining items on the list when you get a chance, I think that they have been addressed. Thanks, AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 17:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Support I feel that the article is very nicely laid out, well sourced, and objectively written. I can find little or no faults which are of any significance. It has come along remarkably since its last nomination; at which point it was certainly not ready to be approved. AC+79 3888 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • ObjectComment
  1. "playing a significant role in the foundation of memetics as a scientific field of study" - Is memetics a scientific field of study?
  2. "In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy" - We shouldn't expect all our readers to be familiar with the watchmaker analogy (or the teleological argument in general), and ones who aren't familiar with it won't understand its significance to the previous sentence about Dawkins' "views on religion". It's a minor issue, but one easily remedied if Paley's analogy was noted as an argument for the existence of God. This seems to me to be more useful in the lead than the bit "described evolutionary processes as being analogous to a blind watchmaker", which a vast majority of readers will either not understand (those who aren't familiar with the watchmaker analogy) or will already know about anyway (those familiar with The Blind Watchmaker).
  3. "several best-selling popular books" - As opposed to a best-selling unpopular book? Like what, Mein Kampf? Is this meant to say "popular science books"?
  4. "and supporter of the Brights movement." - Is this crucial enough for the lead section? It doesn't seem to add much information necessary to understand Dawkins himself (to the extent that it's significant at all, it only reiterates the rest of the sentence: that Dawkins is a freethinker, skeptic, etc.), and there are surely more influential and well-known organizations that Dawkins supports.
  5. "creationism and intelligent design" - This phrasing is used twice in the lead section. Is it the opinion of the Richard Dawkins article, or of Wikipedia generally, that intelligent design is not (a subtype of) creationism?
  6. "the English-language version had sold more than 1.5 million copies and had been translated into 31 languages" - The English-language version had been translated into 31 languages? Assuming there are 32 total languages The God Delusion has been written in, what other version could have been translated? It's just a very strange way to put it: at the very least, what about "31 other languages" for clarity?
  7. I agree with an above comment that the "Darwin's rottweiler" paragraph seems strangely tacked-on and out-of-place in the lead section; it doesn't really add any vital information. If it's meant to convey the notion that Dawkins is often seen as a particularly vociferous or fierce advocate of evolutionary theory, then it does so too coyly and with too much of a historical bent.
  8. "Richard Dawkins was born on March 26, 1941, in Nairobi, Kenya, and named Clinton Richard Dawkins." - So was it Richard Dawkins who was born, or was it Clinton Richard Dawkins? Very strange sequencing here. The more conventional approach would be "Richard Dawkins, born Clinton Richard Dawkins..." or the like.
  9. "When he better understood evolution, at age 16," - What made him better understand it? Did he misunderstand it earlier in his life? This section is too general in general.
  10. "his religious position again changed because he felt that evolution could account for the complexity of life in purely material terms, and thus a designer was not necessary." - "and thus a designer was not necessary" makes it sound like Wikipedia is affirming the lack of necessity for such an entity. ", rendering a supernatural designer unnecessary" or the like would avoid this trap.
  11. "there was a lot of unrest and demonstration" - "a lot of" is colloquial. "significant" or "substantial" or the like is more professional, though being more concrete and specific is, as always, preferable.
  12. "Dawkins got heavily involved in all of that." - Is this line a joke? The intense vagueness and casualness make it seem like satire.
  13. "As an ethologist, interested in animal behaviour and its relation to natural selection, he advocates the idea that the gene is the principal unit of selection in evolution" - Does this mean that all ethologists subscribe to the gene-centered view of evolution?
  14. "This has spawned the field of memetics" - Again, is memetics truly a full-fledged "field", or merely a method?
  15. "Dawkins used the term" - Which term, meme or memetics?
  16. "resulting in new memes, which may themselves prove more (or less) efficient replicators than their predecessors" - If new memes can be either more efficient or less efficient replicators than their predecessors, then why is the "more" aspect given more prominence (by relegating "less" to a parenthetical note)—indeed, for that matter, why bring up replicative efficiency at all if that's the case?
  17. "In 2003, he signed Humanism and Its Aspirations published by the American Humanist Association." - Confusing grammar. Is a comma missing?
  18. "According to Dawkins, faith, being belief that is not based on evidence, is one of the world's great evils and is thus analogous to the smallpox virus, though more difficult to eradicate." - Awkward and not particularly enlightening or useful. Doesn't explain why something being "belief that is not based on evidence" is therefore "one of the world's great evils", why being one of the world's great evils makes something specifically analogous to smallpox (as opposed to, say, malaria, war, or starvation), and the "though more difficult to eradicate" seems tacked-on and snarky. (And snarkiness should only be tolerated in quotes.) Surely there are better ways to summarize the substance of Dawkins' article.
  19. "Dawkins argues that being an atheist is nothing to be apologetic about" - A pun? One should avoid alternate uses of the term "apologetic" in theological discussions. This wording is also rather awkward (a poor attempt at formalizing the colloquial "nothing to be sorry about"). A better word here than "apologetic" is "ashamed" (following "nothing one should be", not "nothing to be"), though a complete rewrite of this sentence may be warranted instead.
  20. "standing tall to face the far horizon," - Unacceptably poetic language for a non-quoted encyclopedia passage.
  21. "for atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind." - Unacceptable overgeneralization and bias for a non-quoted encyclopedia passage. Atheism, as atheists themselves often define it, never indicates either "a healthy indepence of mind" or "a healthy mind" (the implication being that the religious mind is not only delusional, but diseased?)
  22. "establishing positive public connotations with" - connotations "for"?
  23. "Dawkins notes that feminists have succeeded in making us feel embarrassed" - "Us"? Which "us"? The article's editors? All known sentient beings? A majority of 21st-century upper-middle-class English-speakers? Academia?
  24. "when we routinely employ "he" instead of "she"" - "We"? Which "we"?
  25. The way the discussion of "religious children" follows, rather than precedes, the argumentation and context Dawkins uses to support his view, makes Wikipedia seem like it is advocating that view rather than merely providing information on it. This is also suggested by the way the view seems like a tacked-on non-sequitur in context: one might assume, before reading the last couple of sentences, that they would be about "the fight against certain stereotypes", rather than about group identification and labeling.
  26. "The Root of All Evil?, (a title in which Dawkins had no say and with which he has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction)" - Comma goes after the parentheses. Also, Dawkins had no say whatsoever, or he was just overruled? Also, it should be obvious to any neutral reader that this parenthetical digression seems exceedingly tacked-on and argumentative; it comes across as a polemical attempt to preempt a possible criticism, rather than as a neutral encyclopedic report on the facts. How significant is the title and the story surrounding that title to the Richard Dawkins article? And even if it is important to know that he disliked the title, couldn't we find a better way to explain that than with unprofessional and hasty-looking parentheses?
  27. The sentence about McGrath and Harries' segments seems out-of-sequence and awkward in its current context. Are McGrath and Harries meant to be examples of "religious moderates"? And why is this sentence not in the same paragraph as the one actually discussing McGrath?
  28. The way most of this section is presented suggests significant bias. For example, note the use of the pejorative/dismissive verb "claims" for McGrath's comment and for critics of Dawkins generally, whereas Dawkins' comments are characterized by humbly well-informed verbs like "notes", "suggests", or "avers". When Wikipedia uses wording like "Dawkins also criticised McGrath for providing no argument to support his own beliefs", it is essentially agreeing with the substance of Dawkins' criticism (in that case, that McGrath had no argument for his beliefs); whereas the bias is more subtle in other ways, such as in that Dawkins' critics are usually heavily paraphrased, whereas Dawkins' rebuttals and arguments are frequently quoted in part or full.
  29. "Another Christian philosopher, Keith Ward, explores similar themes in his 2006 book Is Religion Dangerous?, arguing against the view of Dawkins and others that religion is socially dangerous. Criticism of The God Delusion has also come" - Is Is Religious Dangerous? a criticism of The God Delusion, or just of certain ideas which happen to have appeared in The God Delusion?
  30. "and have asserted that global conflict would continue without religion" - Has Dawkins said otherwise?
  31. "Dawkins' defenders, however, claim that the critics misunderstand his real point" - All of his defenders claim that all of his critics misunderstand his "real" point?
  32. "David Nicholls (writer)," - Set "writer" off in commas if anything, not parentheses.
  33. "Dawkins does not contend that religion is the source of all that is wrong in the world" - Again, do any of Dawkins' high-profile critics (much less all of his critics) actually accuse Dawkins of blaming religion for "all that is wrong in the world"? One can believe that Dawkins is overstating the dangers of religion, for example, without believing that Dawkins attributes "all that is wrong in the world" to religion. We shouldn't let words be put either in Dawkins' mouth or in the mouths of his critics without extreme care, lest that be the only word said on the subject to our readers.
  34. "Rather, that it is an "unnecessary part of what is wrong"." - Not a sentence.
  35. "Dawkins himself has said that his objection to religion is not solely that it causes wars and violence, but also that it gives people an excuse to hold beliefs that are not based upon evidence." - Why is this phrased as a rebuttal to a criticism? Who claimed that Dawkins doesn't object to religion's use of faith to justify evidence-lacking beliefs?
  36. "According to Dawkins, however, natural selection--an unconscious, automatic, blind, yet essentially non-random process--has no purpose in mind and, if it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is that of the blind watchmaker." - Malformed emdashes. Strange way of providing Dawkins' response. The crux of Dawkins' argument isn't "natural selection is blind", it's "natural selection is a sufficient 'watchmaker'"; a wording like "According to Dawkins, however, natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and nonrandom complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, nonintelligent, "blind" watchmaker." is clearer.
  37. "Dawkins suggested that the deep space, the billions of years of life's evolution, and the microscopic workings of biology and heredity contain more beauty and wonder than myths and pseudoscience." - Those things contain more beauty and wonder than they contain myths and pseudoscience, or those things contain more beauty and wonder than myths and pseudoscience do? (Also, the use of "myths and pseudoscience" here, outside of specific context or quotations, is suggestive of polemic. Encyclopedias should avoid the pejorative use of "myth" to avoid confusion with the neutral use of "myth" in history and sociology.)
-Silence (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. Yes, it is. See The peer-reviewed scientific journal dedicated to the field.
  2. I'm sorry, but isn't this why there is an internal link to the watchmaker analogy page provided, so that people can look it up? If the article was to explain everything, it would be ridiculously long. For example, in the Creationism section, there is a reference to "the use of the word theory" in describing evolution; which serves as a wikilink to the page Evolution as theory and fact. If you're going to pick on the watchmaker analogy, why not this?
  3. You are right. Removed the word "popular".
  4. Well, none that I'm aware of anyway, and I am opposed to removing the reference. Fair enough.
  5. Intelligent design has a separate Wikipedia entry to that on Creationism. It may well be a sub-branch, but clearly Wikipedia regards them as sufficiently distinct.
  6. Added "other".
  7. You don't agree with an above comment, actually, because the text to which they were referring has since been removed. Nonetheless, I would disagree, I think that what's there is relevant to an understanding of Dawkins' overall public persona.
  8. Agreed, sentence edited.
  9. Dawkins himself is the one who singles out 16; however, I have edited to text.
  10. Agree, edited.
  11. Agree, edited.
  12. Agree, edited.
  13. No, I don't see any ambiguity there. He is looking at the situation from the perspective of an ethologist.
  14. Again, yes it is. See above.
  15. Fixed ambiguity.
  16. Why bring up replicative efficiency? Because it is absolutely fundamental to an understanding of memetic "evolution", as in genetic evolution. I have edited the text to remove the parenthesis to which you objected.
  17. There certainly was, yes.
  18. Agree, edited.
  19. Agree, edited.
  20. Said text was a quote. Quotation marks inserted.
  21. Said text was a quote. Quotation marks inserted and surrounding text edited.
  22. No, connotations with. As the Wikipedia article it denotes assocation with sth. I'm not quite sure why you would think "for" a suitable term here.
  23. Agree, edited.
  24. Agree, edited.
  25. I'm sorry, could you specify which segment you are referring to? I cannot seem to find it.
  26. Quite right, duly edited.
  27. However, the text on McGrath is in that paragraph specifically because he partook a rather lengthy interview with Dawkins for that particular documentary.
  28. I changed "Alister McGrath claims" to "Alister McGrath maintains", which I think is a more balanced way of putting it. I don't think it's a wholly accurate point, though; the texts states that "Margaret Somerville suggested that Dawkins overstates the case against religion...", and later "Dawkins' defenders, however, claim that..."
  29. It was not a specific rebuttal of TGD, and so I have removed the word "also".
  30. Changed to "Dawkins 'overstates the case against religion', particularly its role in human conflict..."
  31. Changed to "Many of Dawkins' defenders, however, claim that critics generally..."
  32. Changed to "David Nicholls, writer and president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia,..."
  33. Changed to "reiterated Dawkins' sentiments that religion is an "unnecessary" aspect of global problems", with sole quotation of the word "unnecessary", and no mention of "only part".
  34. Covered above.
  35. Changed wording to "Dawkins has stated that his opposition to religion is twofold, claiming it to be both a source of conflict and a justification for belief without evidence", and moved said sentence up the paragraph in order to align it with the rest of his criticisms.
  36. Issue resolved using your suggestion.
  37. "myths" and "pseudoscience" are quotations; added quotation marks. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Yet our memetics article itself never once describes memetics as a "field" (except in one of the references), much less as a "scientific field of study". I worry that, even if it is technically correct to describe memetics as a "field", using such lofty language for an undeniably fringe (and controversial) approach to sociology, aside from the issue of whether it would mislead readers into thinking that memetics has dozens of peer-reviewed publications rather than just one largely-defunct Internet-based one, comes across as advocacy, as an attempt to legitimize something by defining it as a "scientific field of study", rather than using more specific and meaningful descriptions like "a model of cultural information transfer" (what our memetics article uses).
2. Wikipedia articles are meant to be self-sufficient and self-contained, at least do a degree: wikilinks serve the function of allowing interested readers to get further information on related topics; they do not serve the function of being necessary for readers to explore in order to even understand what this article is, in broad strokes, talking about. Depending on wikilinks to provide such basic information on the subject matter at hand raises lots of potential problems, including complications with making print versions of the article. It would be fine if the watchmaker analogy were only being mentioned briefly, but the length of time spent on that subject in the lead section merits at least a brief acknowledgment of what the analogy is: an argument for the existence of God (of the teleological variety). This is of more value to uninformed readers (our primary audience) than an explanation of what exactly is meant by "The Blind Watchmaker" that presupposes an understanding of the watchmaker analogy. We must always be very careful not to write for an "in-crowd" of people well-acquainted with the primary arguments for and against God, just as we must be careful not to write solely for evolutionary biologists.
5. "Intelligent design has a separate Wikipedia entry to that on Creationism" - I didn't say that they weren't distinct, only that it is misleading to phrase them as separate entities "creationism and intelligent design" when one is a subtype of the other ("creationism, including intelligent design"). We have separate articles for science and evolutionary biology; does that make it right to use constructions like "Richard Dawkins has made many contributions to science and to evolutionary biology"? In both cases, the implication is that ID is not creationism, or in my example that evolutionary biology is not science.
7. Then perhaps the sentence should be expanded, if anything, to include quotation(s) more specifically attesting to what that persona is. That, at least, would make the intended value of the paragraph explicit rather than implicit; encyclopedias should avoid implying whatever they can state outright. If it's sufficiently important and necessary to understand Dawkins' public persona that the lead needs an entire paragraph on it, then we should take the time to explicitly identify how that persona is perceived, rather than falling back on using cute nicknames and metaphors. If, on the other hand, his persona isn't crucial enough that we need to actually explain it to readers that early on the article, then the "Darwin's rottweiler" sentence should equally be moved. The halfway point we're in now just seems peculiar.
13. I realized that was the intended meaning, but there is clear ambiguity: "As an ethologist" can either mean "In his role as an ethologist" or "Because he was an ethologist"; if anything, I'd suggest that the latter meaning is more likely to be people's initial interpretations. This is very easy to fix. In fact, I don't even see a logical connection between the fact that he's an ethologist and his gene-centered view advocacy; these could just as easily be two separate sentences.
15. OK, but were those parentheses inaccurate? I brought up the issue mainly because I was concerned about whether we're misrepresenting memetics: are new memes necessarily more "reproductively" successful than their predecessors? Do memeticians disagree on this issue? Is our assertion here backed up by a source?
22. The line is "Bright as a way of establishing positive public connotations with those who possess a naturalistic worldview." Using "with" here is ambiguous, because it could be read as meaning that people who possess a naturalistic worldview will start associating positive connotations with the public, or any of a number of other meanings. "With" has a variety of uses, whereas "for" is relatively clear and specific: these connotations are being established for those who possess a naturalistic worldview, both in the sense that it benefits them and in the sense that they answer the question of "For whom does the word Bright establish a positive connotation in the mind of the public?" If you want to use "with", change the sentence around a bit, e.g., by changing "establishing" to "associating".
24.? I'm likewise not sure which segment you're referring to, your numbering system seems to have developed an inconsistency after #14.
25.? Right, I've seen the interview several times. But is the article intending to put forth McGrath as an example of a religious moderate Dawkins interviewed?
I'll try to strikethrough my objections later today, when I have time to reread through the article more. Thanks for the responsiveness! -Silence (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Resolved, I think. It now reads "introduced the concept of a meme".
2. I have added detail explaining concisely the blind watchmaker analogy.
5. The ID movement claim not to be creationists on the grounds that they do not specify the Genesis story of creation; rather, they claim that life if sufficiently complex to merit some form of "intelligence", whatever that may be, playing a role in its origins. They claim that they have come to this conclusion via the scientific method, as opposed to Biblical literature. Now it is my opinion, and clearly yours, that they are in fact creationists merely attempting to gain some respectability. However, can Wikipedia really make a judgement on the matter?
7. It's been incorporated into the preceding paragraph.
13. Changed to "In his role as an ethologist..."
15. It is absolutely inherent in the very concept of memetics that, as with genes, those memes (hence the name) arising which are more successful replicators will become plentiful. That - if you like - is what memetics is! See Memetics.
22. Point taken, changed to "associating" as suggested.
25. Sorry about that, I mean point 25 (not 24), about "religious children".
26. I understand where you're coming from, but where do you suggest moving said sentence to, or do you think it should be removed altogether? AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have removed "playing a significant role in the foundation of memetics as a scientific field of study." It is sufficient to mention that Dawkins introduced the term meme. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I have to admit that I liked what I saw when I first glanced through it. His first book was very controversial, and I wonder if we have dug into that enough here? Also, there were a lot of rumors about how he obtained his chaired position. Were those explored fully?--Filll (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, rumours? AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • University of Oxford is hopelessly overlinked in the article.
  • "not attended to Dawkins, thinking it unnecessary to "break a butterfly upon a wheel" -- something's wrong. the first quote doesn't end, and quotes within quotes are in 'single quotes'.
  • "Dawkins coined the term meme..." para has no ref.
  • "He was a featured speaker at the November 2006 Beyond Belief conference." So?
  • In his 1991 essay Viruses of the Mind -- essays in quotes not italics.
  • and religion is incompatible with science-- add a "that" before religion
  • "[89][90][14][91][92][93]" and "[94][95][96]"-- yuck, why do you need so many? For the first statement. place a ref after every comma, and for the second, that's hardly controversial--after all, it is him speaking about his own work--so why 3 refs? More later, indopug (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the University of Oxford is hopelessly overlinked in the article. In every section there is one wikilink to the University of Oxford. That's fine.
  • Once in the lead, once in the body and once in the infobox; apart from these, no need.
  • Dawkins did coined the term meme. See the section "Meme". You will find references in that section.
  • That's the very paragraph I'm talking about; and its paragraph is completely unreferenced. Wikipedia FAs try to have on cite per paragraph at the least. That paragraph has too few wikilinks too.
  • Dawkins was a featured speaker at the November 2006 Beyond Belief conference. That's a fact. What's the problem?
  • Well, I don't know what Beyond Belief is, so I don't understand what that sentence has to do with anything else in that paragraph. Its rather abrupt and disjoint with the rest of the section.
  • essays in quotes not italics? What do you mean by that?
"Viruses of the Mind" not Viruses of the Mind.
  • Added "that".
  • The three refs provides information. I don't think there is a problem. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So many refs in a row hampers readability; and what you are referencing (the "probably the culmination" sentence) is not likely to be challenged because it is Dawkins talking about his own work; just one ref, the source of the quotation is enough. As to your response, how does adding cites increase information? Citations are meant to verify stuff in the article, not to point to handy links where the subject is discussed in more detail/depth. indopug (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I can answer one of your questions. He means that, according to the conventions of bibliographic citation, the title of an essay is placed between quotation marks and not italicized; see WP:CITE. Also, there in no need to link Oxford once per section. Finell (Talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Finell! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
"Viruses of the Mind" now in inverted commas. Removed unnecessary references for the "probably the culmination" comment. Removed the sentence about Beyond Belief; he has spoken at countless such events and I agree with Indopug that there's nothing special about that particular one. Removed the excess wikilinks to University of Oxford; it is now just linked three times as suggested. Added two citations to the opening paragraph of memetics. That everything? AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 22:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
...also resolved the issue with "break a butterfly upon a wheel" quote. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 22:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Well, I think this article should be promoted to the FA status. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope those who raised issues can respond because I think that all or almost all of them have now been addressed, and if there is anything left, I would like to know. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 17:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: primarily due to two sections—Education and academic career and Publications—I believe have been overlooked in favour of building up stuff on his body of work, theories and beliefs.
Education and academic career
This section is really short, and quite superficial in its content. For example,

Dawkins has delivered a number of inaugural and other notable lectures, including the Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture (1989), first Erasmus Darwin Memorial Lecture (1990), Michael Faraday Lecture (1991), T.H. Huxley Memorial Lecture (1992), Irvine Memorial Lecture (1997), Sheldon Doyle Lecture (1999), Tinbergen Lecture (2004), and Tanner Lectures (2003).

Honestly, I don't think anybody would read a big list of names like this, and would just the skip the paragraph. All the useful information in that para can be condensed to "Dawkins has delivered a number of inaugural and other notable lectures" and add a note that names all the lectures.
The section simply contains too little information overall. Here is a man with a forty year academic career, and all Wikipedia can offer is a few disjointed sentences. Below "Since 1970, he has been a fellow of New College, Oxford.", the section becomes a bunch of short stubby paragraphs that go, "he was judge on this, an editor on that and was on this panel." This would be a good place to describe chronologically the work he's done as a researcher (although he's not famous for that). Also, include what kind of work did he do in his various capacities and at Oxford. I reckon all his work (except his theories and beliefs in his books which are detailed later). Also, try to club ideas to form bigger paragraphs, they are much nicer than short stubby paragraphs.
Reply All his work except his theories? You point to the Education and Academic Career section being short, when in fact the section on Evolutionary Biology is essentially a continuation of this (Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist after all!). Any significant scientific contribution (primarily those of the gene-centred view of evolution and of the "extended" phenotype) are treated in detail here. Indpug, you already accepted that Dawkins has been a populariser first-and-foremost. He has not made any revolutionary scientific discoveries. What is it precisely that you expect to be added? Or are you merely assuming that he has done other notable work at Oxford? If not, please explain. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Publications This section is a mess, plain and simple; it is very ugly and difficult to read. A table for his books seems a little unnecessary, esp. the ISBN for the audio versions, release years of second and thrid editions etc; just list the books out. External should only be in the external links sections and "See also: Papers and commentary by Richard Dawkins (no longer maintained) and Dawkins' Huffington Post articles." feels like something I would find on a Geocities fansite. Please list the documentaries in a single column, it looks awful the way it is now. Essays should be in "quotes", like I said previously. "Debates on evolutionary theory between Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould." reads oddly. "See also: List of books by and about Richard Dawkins and Richard Dawkins Bibliography at the Richard Dawkins University of Oxford website." should be in the External links section (which BTW could be cleaned up a little bit). If needed a separate List of works by Richard Dawkins article could be created.
Reply I've removed the "see also..." sentence. I've fixed the "debates on evolutionary theory..." sentence. Indeed you have pointed out the issue with essay nomeclature, but to which essays are you referring in this instance? I cannot find a single essay title in this section. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Other issues:
  • Need convincing how Image:The Selfish Gene3.jpg satisfies Non-free image use criteria #8, namely how does a picture of the book's cover significantly aid understanding of the Richard Dawkins article? AFAIK, if you are using the cover of a book, the article must discuss the cover too. (Of course this is not true for the article on the book itself, where the book cover pic is needed for identification purposes).
  • Image:Richard Dawkins Foundation Logo.png--ditto. How does its logo significantly increase understanding of the article?
  • The references need to be formatted. Newspaper articles titles should be in quotes. Publishers such as newspapers and books need to be italicised and linked the first instance of their occurrence (Note: don't link, capitalise and italicise the word "Magazine", keep it alongside the magazine name). For instance, "Discover magazine" should be "Discover magazine".
indopug (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just started reading the article ( this version) and will add to my comments, questions and suggestions below as I go along.
1. FRLS should perhaps be added to the first sentence and infobox
2. Should the "Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science" be in italics ? Check if MOS has a view
3. I think, The Blind Watchmaker is more relevant to anti-IDism and The God Delusion to atheism, and the associations in the third and fourth paragraphs of the lede can be switched; and the material reorganized in some other way to reduce the redundancy in the these paragraphs.
4. I agree with some of the above comments, that the "Darwin's rottweiler" is an an unimportant detail, and requires too much of an historical digression to be included in the lede.
5. Similarly reference to the "watchmaker's analogy" may to be unwarranted. It may be better to define the main ideas of the book, without necessarily justifying or explaining the title in the lede. IMO, someone who has not read the book, will not understand the significance of the watchmaker being blind.
5. "He first came to prominence ..." - "first" is redundant.
6. The sentences, "In 1982 ... organisms." and "In his 1986 book ... blind watchmaker.", while grammatically correct are very hard to parse on first reading - and perhaps should be reworded. Have you analysed the article for readability ?
7. Over-wikilinking in the lede: examples, atheism (twice), evolutionary biologist (twice) , evolution (twice); does religion require wikilinking even once in the lede ? Please check for wikilinking throughout the article.
8. Multiple references for the same statement can be combined into a single footnote for improved readability.
9. The sale information for God delusion seems to be and example of recentism; after all the numbers are not dramatically different from, say, the Selfish Gene, which (arguably) is a more notable work.
10. To me the in the infobox looks tacky, but that may be a personal preference.
11. Has he had only 2 doctoral students ?
Reply: This is a non-issue. According to Template:Infobox Scientist, the names of any notable doctoral students should be provided. Not all doctoral students. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 08:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
12. "...the Dawkins name was described in Burke's Landed Gentry as "Dawkins of Over Norton". Would be a good idea to give some idea of the year/century. Also, isn't this just a reflection on Dawkin's father's family, rather than his parents' ?
13. The first paragraph of "Education and academic career" is very list-y. The prose and flow can be improved by some minor rephrasings; example, "... graduating in 1962. From 1962 to 1966, he was a research student at the University of Oxford. He received his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966." can be rewritten as "... graduating in 1962. He was a research student at the University of Oxford for the next four years and received his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966." Also it is not clear from the text that Tinbergen was his thesis adviser (as claimed in the infobox), which is much more important than being a tutor during the undergraduate days or even the research adviser from 1965-67.
14. "From 1967 to 1969, ... involved in such activities." Again the writing and flow can be improved and made less stilted. Example, "From 1967 to 1969, ... University of California, Berkeley. This was a period of great unrest in America due to the ongoing Vietnam war. Sentiments among the students and faculty at Berkeley were largely opposed to the war and Dawkins became heavily involved in the anti-war demonstrations and activities". Try to make the prose more engaging as per criterion 1(a). The whole education section, currently appears to be a paraphrasing of his CV. Even if that is unavoidable, it can be a better paraphrasing.
15. The personal life section talks about Dawkin's marriages (when did he divorce Juliet Emma Dawkins, by the way ?), but inexplicably the last sentence of the section is, "In April 2008, it was announced that Dawkins will appear as a guest star in the fourth series of the revived Doctor Who.[23]" Huh ?
16. "The gene-centred view also provides a basis for understanding altruism. ... future reciprocation." It is not clear how this is related directly to Dawkins the person since as of present the article does not say that Dawkins proposed/advocated/popularized or even supported this view.
17. "Critics of Dawkins' ...in a population. In The Selfish Gene, ... appreciable frequency"." It is not clear how the second sentence answers, or is even related to , the first. The last two sentences of the paragraph seem to be related to this idea, but there are two intermediate sentences, which seem independent. Please check. Also note the repeated wikilinking of gene.
18. The last paragraph of the "Evolutionary biology" section has good content, but the sentences need rearranging to make the presentation cogent.
19. "He hypothesised that people could view many ..." Isn't "He posited ..." more accurate ? The explanation of the concept of meme could use a rewrite to be accessible to a general reader.
20. "... he has largely left the task of expanding upon it ..." Wow! That sounds presumptuous.
21. The lengthy last paragraph on the origins of the term meme seem undue to me for this article. The discussion rightly belongs to meme, and here a single sentence summary may be sufficient.
22. "Dawkins is a prominent critic of creationism, ..." Give a brief inline definition of the term "creationism"
23. Add some descriptors for John Maynard Smith and A. E. Wilder-Smith, just as you describe Edgar Andrews as the president of the Biblical Creation Society.
24. "Although, on the advice of his ..." -> "However, on the advice of his ..."
25. Is the Moyer interview the most eloquent explanation of evidence of evolution in Dawkin's writings/interviews ? I am somewhat sceptical, although I don't have a specific alternative in mind.
26. "and he plans—though the Richard Dawkins Foundation" -> "and he plans—through the Richard Dawkins Foundation
27. Should the second section "Work" be renamed "Work and views" or something else, since "Creationism" is certainly not a "work" of/by Dawkins! Alternatively would it be possible to break apart his scientific research and advocacy works, or have some alternate organizational structure for the article sections/sub-sections ?
More later. Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I recall an article who while positive to Wikipedia chided it for trivia. We are still not free of it. Does "Dawkins has widely been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler",[6][7] by analogy with T. H. Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog"" belong in lead? I think not. Further, the lead needs to be rewritten to for more logical structure (merge the last two paras); the watchmaker discussion seems to detailed (does it really deserve three lines of lead? I think not).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: Yes, that sentence definitely belongs in the lead. It is both colorful and apt, and places Dawkins's role as an outspoken advocate in historical context. The metaphor "Darwin's Rottweiler" accurately describes Dawkins both for those who support and who oppose his views. Further, this sentence does not fit the definition WP:TRIVIA. (NOTE: I neither wrote nor edited that sentence.) Finell (Talk) 06:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It is stressful! If any of you feel that there are some errors in the article, please feel free to edit the article and remove errors. Please help! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That's just the way it is at FAC. There is nothing unusual about comments made in this or the prior candidacy of Richard Dawkins. Finell (Talk) 06:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with people pointing out genuine errors. However, it appears to me that many of them may be either subjective or completely misguided. AC+79 3888 [ talk ] 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Featured Article status for this fine and comprehensive article. I find nothing substantive to find fault with, and see no reason to delay Featured-Article recognition. Refinements and enhancements can always be made in the future, to any Featured Article. Nihil novi (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Mixed feelings. I think it is nearly there, but some points require a little time to be dealt with; so I'm not completely convinced that best thing is to rush to get it featured right here right now. Of course between FA and being featured, there is still time. Let's see, I will collect from this FAC a list of actionable objections that I think seem relevant and post them on the talk page. There we can use {{fixed}}, and even {{wontfix}}. --Merzul (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: criterion three concerns:
    • Image:The Selfish Gene3.jpg: how does this image assist us in understanding the topic (Dawkins himself), the book itself or the concept of meme? Why is it necessary (WP:NFCC#3A) and what is its significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8)? Additionally, the license tag for book covers allows use only in "[an] article discussing the book in question". Prose referencing the book is used to discuss Dawkins and does not appear to reasonably constitute discussion of the book itself.
    • Image:Richard Dawkins Foundation Logo.png: same questions as above: why is it necessary (WP:NFCC#3A)) and what is its significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8) of Dawkins or the foundation? Importance to the author is not necessarily analogous to importance to our understanding. As logo is essentially only text, why could prose not adequately facilitate identification of the foundation (NFCC#1)? Why do we need additional assistance identifying an organization named after the subject of the article?
    • Left-aligned images should not be placed directly under level two (===) headers per WP:MOS#Images. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Elcobbola, Dawkins coined the term meme in the book The Selfish Gene. And, the book is arguably the most important book written by Dawkins. I think the image is necessary. I also think that the image of Richard Dawkins Foundation Logo is inappropriate. I think we have to discuss this. I agree that left-aligned images should not be placed directly under level two (===) headers as per WP:MOS#Images. I have made necessary changes. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The image should stay The book is historically important as Dawkins's fundamental exposition of his conceptualization of evolution by natural selection, and secondarily for coining meme (Dawkins does like to turn a phrase). Also, it is a strong graphic image. Finell (Talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not contest that the book is historically important. I do not contest that it is a strong graphic. The image is perfectly acceptable in the proper article (The Selfish Gene). In order for fair use to be supported in this article, however, it needs to be necessary (NFCC#3A) and contribute significantly to our understanding (NFCC#8). I've posed questions above which remain unanswered. How does seeing this image do anything to assist our knowledge or illustrate that meme was coined therein or that it is his most important work? Prose is sufficient for those tasks (NFCC#1). Additionally, no response to the issue of allowable use defined in the licensing tag has been offered. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Pretty close, I'd say, though I do agree with several of Abecedare's points. I've gone through & done a bit of copyediting here & there—I hope constructively. Unless I missed it, I don't think a single example of a meme is given in the section of that name: surely that can be rectified.

I agree that the honours and talks are too listy. And how impressive is it really to receive an Oxford MA? (I think the current price is about GBP 10.) --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the process Almost all of the discussion has been about details. Many of the specific suggestions should be incorporated in the article, and many have been. On the other hand, some of the well-intended suggestions (a particular degree isn't important, some fact isn't notable in itself, some image isn't necessary) are essentially quibbles, and are not necessarily endorsed by the consensus of editors who have worked on the article or those who comment here. However, is FAC consideration a matter of satisfying a punch list? That is, is achieveing FA status a matter of making all, or most, of the lengthy list of changes suggested here?

I do not see significant disucssion of the article's overall quality: completeness of content, quality of writing, etc. The fundamental question, which is not being addressed directly, is: Is this article one of Wikipedia's very finest? If it is, then it is appropriate to fix what needs fixing before crowning the article as an FA. But it is the fundamental question that should be addressed first, in my opinion. Finell (Talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose As can be seen above, I previously commented in detail on the stylistic and writing aspects of the article, and my general opinion was that the article would perhaps fail 1a, unless those issues were addressed. However, Finell raises a very good point that many reviewers (including myself!) missed the forest for the trees. Basically the article fails 1b (comprehensiveness), given that there are at least seven books written about the subject and his theories, and the article bases exactly two sentences on such authoritative sources ("Oxford theologian Alister McGrath maintains that Dawkins is "ignorant" of Christian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently." and "Another Christian philosopher, Keith Ward, explores similar themes in his 2006 book Is Religion Dangerous?, arguing against the view of Dawkins and others that religion is socially dangerous.".)
It is especially surprsing that the following festschrift is not used even once:
Grafen, Alan; Mark Ridley (eds.) (2006). Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-929116-0. 
I am afraid the article needs substantially more work than can be undertaken during the FAC. I empathize with the main editors of the article who have undoubtedly put in a lot of work, but I cannot in good faith support its candidacy anytime soon. Abecedare (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on comprehensiveness issues. I know nothing about the man beyond what I read in this article, but I am very worried about the sourcing. A lot of the article is sourced to writings by Dawkins (essentially autobiographical), and very little is sourced to the books that have been written about him. An article should use the best sources that are available, and while online sources appear to be plentiful, I don't think they are necessarily the best in this case. Please consult several of the books written about him and incoporate that information into the article (preferably cited to a particular page number). Other, more minor, issues:

  • you should have a citation at the end of each sentence that contains a quotation, even if the next citation several sentences down covers that quotation. This is to keep the quotation properly cited even if someone later comes along and adds information from another source. There are several instances of this throughout the article.
  • Need a citation for "In his scientific works, Dawkins is best known' for his popularisation of the gene-centered view of evolution"
  • Might need a citation for this "Advocates for higher levels of selection such as Richard Lewontin, David Sloan Wilson and Elliot Sober suggest that there are many phenomena (including altruism) that gene-based selection cannot satisfactorily explain."
  • Need citation for this "Despite their academic disagreements, Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship"
  • I think there are way too many External links listed.

Karanacs (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Karanacs, I don't think there are way too many External links listed. These links provide information about Dawkins' views. They are useful. You have raised some important point. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I haven't had a good look through yet, but my first impression is that this article is still in need of some polishing:
  • "Dawkins moved to England with his parents at the age of eight and later completed his education at the University of Oxford." He could hardly have completed his education before the age of eight.
  • "In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the observed complexity of living organisms ...". Awkwardly written. Better to explain what he was arguing against and then name it, as in "In his 1986 book ... he argued against the existence of a supernatural creator ... the watchmaker analogy".
  • "His father, Clinton John Dawkins, was a farmer and former wartime soldier .." What is a former wartime soldier? What wartime?
  • "Its success has been seen by many ..". Who are these many?
  • "Philosopher Mary Midgley, whom Dawkins has debated since the late 1970s ...". Eh?
  • As Karanacs has already said, every quotation needs to be cited immediately.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:57, 28 April 2008.

[edit] Year Zero (album)

previous FAC (00:01, 18 March 2008)

Self-nomination Resubmitting the article after the previous nomination was failed prematurely about a month ago. I've tweaked the article further since then, and have hopefully addressed any and all concerns brought up last time. As always, any suggestions and comments are welcome. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments There's still some cleaning up to do, but this is largely well-written. I hope you can find someone who's fresh to the text to go through it with the advantage of distance and polish it up.

  • "notable for a number of other alternate reality games and viral marketing campaigns"—"for the ?production of a number of ..."? What is a viral marketing campaign? Is there a link for it?
  • Put "ARG" in parentheses after spelling out the first time.
  • "although the latter was only released as a promotional single"—I seem to be the only person to say "place 'only' as late as possible in a clause"'; here, it would improve the wording (after "released").
  • To strengthen your fair-use justification for the music sample, why not explain that the instrumental ending is unusual for the genre (is it?) and/or is a distinctive feature of the style of this group? Do these instrumental codas introduce new musical material (probably not)? What is their function in the overall structure of the song (would a song feel unfinished without one?)? This is all you have now: "Many of the songs on the album feature an extended instrumental ending, perhaps most notably "The Great Destroyer", where the latter half of the three-minute song features an extended instrumental outro." .... TONY (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I took care of all of your comments except for the last one. I'm really not sure how to expound upon the instrumental outros without going into POV/OR territory. Drewcifer (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments All links checked out. Doesn't look like much has changed in sourcing since the previous FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a whole lot has changed since the last FAC. Just a few tweeks here and there. Drewcifer (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The YouTube video looks to be a possible copyright violation, not something original to this "Amska" user who uploaded it. If this is the case, we should not be linking to it; is the original video available somewhere else? BuddingJournalist 23:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Good catch! I've swapped the YouTube video out with the original source of the video. Drewcifer (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I still think some alternative solution should be made for the giant Year Zero related box in the prose. NSR77 TC 00:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
How about a flat horizontal box at the bottom? Much like a regular band template? indopug (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly an option, but I think it's a matter of its functionality, not just aesthetics. It seems to be more akin to templates like Template:Censorship or Template:Sexual orientation, rather then a standard horizontal band-template. The main difference being that there's x number of articles in a series. The template looks fine in every other YZ ARG article (take a look at Campaign timeline of the Year Zero alternate reality game for instance), the only problem with this article being that there's already an album infobox, so this one gets pushed down a bit. But I'd say it still serves the same purpose, and it's not that aesthetically disruptive. Drewcifer (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I still can't see the necessity in keeping the template the way it is. It takes up a large amount of space. NSR77 TC 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't function be the primary concern? {{Infobox Album}} takes up alot of space (more then the YZ template in fact), but its function is so clear and so important we use it in every album article. The main difference being that the album infobox is more informational then organizational: it provides a way to standardize the most important information as efficiently as possible. But the same argument could be raised with other series/organizational-based templates I mentioned above: the space they take up is secondary to the function they provide. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That might be the case, but the Album infobox is truly secular in guiding any reader. Anyone. The Year Zero template is trivial to most, and maybe only meaningful to a hardcore fan. This said, I don't see the true necessity. The majority of all templates are placed at the bottom, to direct readers to further reading, which the template does. NSR77 TC 03:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Page break) Have you put any thought into making the template a box at the bottom of the page? I'm still displeased with its current state. 19:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course I've put thought into it, but I still stand by my previous comments. My attempts to gain further discussion on the topic (that is aside from you and I going back and forth) have been fairly unfruitful. Drewcifer (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Took out the template Ok, ok, I give in. After rearranging the article a bit per some suggestions below, I decided at long last to take the template out, since it was getting in the way with the new order of things. Drewcifer (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments On top of my above comment I have to note another flaw with the article. The lead is enormous. Enormous. It goes into far too explicit detail. A lead should summarize an article, but not become overwhelming and too specific. It should, above all, remain general. NSR77 TC 18:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Streamlined things down a little bit. Still three paragraphs, but I took somewhere around 4-5 sentences out. Hopefully the lead's a little more concise and to the point now. Drewcifer (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I trimmed a bit more to make things more succinct. I've noticed that you use in-line citations in the lead, but only some sentences are backed with them. If you plan on using citations in the lead you must either insert them in the places that are without, or remove them altogether. NSR77 TC 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I took out all of the citations from the lead except for one (which cites a direct quote). Drewcifer (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support (will review soon)
*I don't think the links to the Kerrang! website are useful. One is a redirect to a generic news page, the other is an "Article not found" page.
  • Still working on this one.
Found an archived version of one, and the other citation I just took out. The citations for the following two sentences more than cover the first. Drewcifer (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "produced by Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross," - the singular adjective followed by two names sounds odd
  • In Recording, "...began writing material for while on tour for With Teeth,..." - the first instance of With Teeth is in italics (an album, correct?) and the third instance is not in italics (tour name, correct?). This second instance is ambiguous. Also, it's basically repeating the first sentence of the section.
  • "Digit Online later reported that..." - what is Digit Online? The ref goes to the website "Digital Arts".
  • There seems to be some problems with the punctuation in quotation marks. The WP:MOS suggests putting the periods outside the quotation marks.
  • I think I took care of all the instances of funky quotation punctuation. Are there any in particular I missed?
  • Did you come across any reference to Rush's 2112 (album) as an influence?
  • After a quick google search, I only found one source. Not all that notable, I think.
  • I came across it in "NINE INCH NAILS' REVOLUTION MUST BE CONCEPTUALIZED. By: Wasserman, Todd, Brandweek, 11/26/2007, Vol. 48, Issue 43": "(Numerically and in concept, Year Zero is similar to Canadian prog-rock band Rush's 1976 album 2112, which paints a similarly Orwellian portrait of the future.)" - it doesn't go any further than that and, yes, it is in brackets. I can email you the article. None of the other sources I've seen mention any connection. -maclean 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There's definately an association between the two, but I'm not sure if it's really that notable if two reviewers says "the album is kind of like __." Especially since both sources imply that 2112 was a thematic inspiration, which is purely OR on their part. Drewcifer (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional source Village Voice (Addendum: also [6] for insight into the marketing.)
  • Cool, thanks. I'll see if I can incorporate it somehow.
Wow! That new link made me realize a gross gap in the article's coverage of Year Zero, NIN's disputes with AMG. I just added the section, so please feel free to pick it apart. Also, I'm not sure if I put it in a good place in the article. Opinions? Drewcifer (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, but "He criticized the company's retail pricing of Year Zero in Australia as "ABSURD",[sic] concluding that..." - calling something absurd isn't a criticism, its a label or name-calling. I'm sure there is a well thought-out idea behind it but as here it is just illustrating his emotional response. It would be more accurate to say "He labeled it absurd" or "He called it absurd" or "He condemned it as absurd". Also, "After the release of Year Zero Remixed in November 2007, a remix album featuring remixes of Year Zero..." probably has one too many "remix" and it is just the begining of a very long sentence that could be chopped. maclean 00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Took care of both. Drewcifer (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of Themes ends with two footnotes: 4, 25. I don't see what is referenced to footnote 4. The paragraph is almost entirely a quote from footnote 25.
  • The article is quote-heavy. Some of the quotes are not necessary and we should strive to simply report, rather than repeat.
For instance, "Reznor admitted he's already in talks about a movie version of his upcoming album - a concept piece, with part two scheduled for next year." adds nothing that cannot be synthesized.
"wrote the soundtrack to a movie that doesn't exist." quote is used twice in the article.
I don't see how Reznor described as "Highly conceptual. Quite noisy. Fucking cool."[10] adds to our understanding of the music. That it is conceptual, noisy, and cool is repeated throughout the article.
Took care of the first two quote-issues. The third one, however, I'd like to keep as is. Simply because a) it is the most concise quote from Reznor himself concerning the music of the record, b) shows how he feels about it (which is actually pretty important given that Reznor's publiclly criticized his own albums before), and c) sets up what's to come in the rest of the section. Drewcifer (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

--maclean 21:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • The lead does not mention when the album was released.
  • Why does the article mention where his blog is hosted? That seems very irrelevant.
  • In February 2007 fans found that a new Nine Inch Nails tour t-shirt contained highlighted letters that spelled out the words "I am trying to believe".[12] Fans discovered that this phrase was registered as a website URL," - this makes it sound like someone announced one day that the shirt had the hidden message. Perhaps the first sentence should use "discovered" instead of "found out" and the second sentence should remove the "Fans discovered that this" clause?
  • "soon several related websites were found in the IP range, " - were these IP-based urls or domain name based urls? This phrasing is a little odd.
  • What does "it" refer to in this sentence? "how it "could be about the end of the world"."

Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. Drewcifer (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Straying through at random, I hit:
    • "Critical response to the album was generally favorable, with an average rating of 76% based on 28 reviews on MetaCritic,[58] and rated #21 on Rolling Stone's "Top 50 Albums of 2007"." Before and after [58] do not match grammatically.
    • "Most of Year Zero's musical direction was devised by Reznor solely on his laptop, as opposed to the instrument-heavy With Teeth." Um ... why is a laptop (as a compositional tool) contrasted with an intrument-heavy texture?
  • "perhaps most notably"—This is unencyclopedic: "perhaps" is an interpersonal intrusion. TONY (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Addressed all three notes. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I finally got around to looking at this article. I've finished the first part of my copy-edit, and will do the rest tomorrow. Although this article is nearly there, the main problem I find is that often ideas and facts are repeated many times; this could probaby be avoided if some of the sections were combined (say Promotion and Tour). Also, including a few more reviews in the reception wouldn't hurt. indopug (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your copy edit so far, very nice stuff. I hope you don't mind, but I un-copy edited two paragraphs, since your changes altered the meaning somewhat. However I reworded both to be a bit clearer. Drewcifer (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Before we go any further, I think it might be necessary to sort the organisation of this article which appears a little confused to me. I believe that in an album article, fewer the sections the better (see: Loveless, Be Here Now); here merging sections might be especially beneficial to rid of the repetitions plaguing the article:

  • Touring should be clubbed with Promotion and release. A considerable part of the Tour section is the USB drives , which are already present in Promotion. I think stuff like "Supporting acts included Ladytron, The Dandy Warhols, Alec Empire, and Unkle.[51][52]" is unnecessary and can go.
  • Themes has "Year Zero is a concept album criticizing the United States government's policies as of 2007. and one paragraph later, "Reznor later stated that Year Zero was a concept album, 'the soundtrack to a movie that doesn't exist'". That first paragraph (Reznor talking about what the label thought about the album) seems tangential to the Theme of the album. I don't think he refers the themes at all but to the music.
  • The Artwork section could be merged with Theme, as the artwork is meant to be part of the overall concept. "Reznor displayed displeasure...extra 83¢ per CD." can go to problems with UMG.
  • Move Theme and Music to before Promotion, might be better that way.
  • So, overall, what the template I'm suggesting is
  • Recording
  • Themes (incl. artwork - no need of sub-section)
  • Music (I think "Reznor called Year Zero a "shift in direction"...doesn't sound like anything else out there right now"" can come here)
  • Promotion and release (incl' Touring). I think Related projects can come here, while Dispute gets its own section.
  • Critical reception (any reviews of Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D?)
  • Dispute with UMG

Phew, cheers. indopug (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I took care of a few of your suggestions, but not some others. I merged some sections here and there, but left the Related projects seperate, since those projects are related but not actually part of the Year Zero album. So to put it in with a section describing the release of YZ would be a bit of a stretch, I think. I also left the 83 cents thing in the artwork section, since it applies directly to the thermo-coating thing, which is only described in detail here. I also don't think that reviews of YZ Remixed are relevant, that's better left to the album's page itself. I merged the themes/music/artwork sections, but I think it would be a mistake to not have subsections. I also think that recording and promotion should come first, then everything else. Namely because those two describe the history of the album, while the other ones described the album itself. Does that make sense? Let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The touring and promotion are very interconnected and rewriting about them completely together might be much better; the way it is right now, a lot of things are still unnecessary repeated. Rename it to "Tour, promotion and release" and the first two paragraphs of the current Promotion could seamlessly be mixed with stuff in the current Tour section. indopug (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 14:30, April 25, 2008.


[edit] Michael Jackson

previous FAC (03:17, 24 January 2008)

I am the self nominater, ive made the improvements since the last FA and also had a Peer review. Im sure with a few minor things at your suggestion this article can become FA. My only concern is the finances section. I believe its too long but it was brought over in a merger. I didnt want to disrupt it out of respect for that merger but if you think it needs cutting down i will. Realist2 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I have made all improvements suggested by all involved, just waiting for further advise. It have been copy edited twice and references have been double checked for correct formatting. Dont know what else you want me to do? --Realist2 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - still some info in the article needs to be verified/neutralized. For example, I'm having trouble verifying the claim that Jackson has donated US$300 million to charity. Also, is it necessary to quote Tom McGrath in the lead regarding Jackson making MTV popular? I'll try cleaning up the page in the next few days (or whatever the window for an FAC runs) to read better. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • DONE- The 300 million claim can be seen as the last source of the charity section. This is the source.here.
    • As for the quote, the issue itself is very important to MJ's career, just need a little clarification on what you do/dont want?
      • Here's my main concerns regarding the charity and MTV quote parts. The "$300 million to charity" fact is so far supported only by the Sri Lankan newspaper, whose reliability I feel is a bit questionable. And do quotes really belong in the lead? I think paraphrasing would be better, or adding who exactly said the quote. I do recall there was a [copyvio] Youtube link to support the "300 million" announcement, but those are my concerns that still need to be filled. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Ok removed quote , i agree it was a no-no. I will find a second source for the 300 figure. Two sources together should be reasonable.
          • Im gonna add all the links i find on this 300 figure here.1
            • I did some reading, the source i have only puts it at several hundred million, it doesn't give specifics (not all work he does is public), im not happy leaving it that unspecific but its probably for the best to avoid controversy. If we could use youtube there are plenty of examples where he was awarded for 300 million at the world music awards. Either way, ill stick with several hundred to keep the peace.
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ill be patient im sorry, i like these reviews ;-). I have resolved your issues so it would be nice if you would remove the outright oppose slogan as their is no longer any reasoning for it. Lol ive resolved everybodies issues but no1 wants to remove their oppose tags, DOH!! ;-) Realist2 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the reasonable free and "free enough" images available at the Commons. I see you've already removed one, which is fine, but note that others commenting here may request more images. There's no harm in utilizing the free/free enough images, so it may be advantageous to seek out more. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I only removed it because a solo pic of janet wasnt needed, a picture of them together was ok but we dont have a suitable one. Realist2 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just added another picture from Wikicommons. Should be on save side now. --Realist2 (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Has any decision been made on UnitedWorld Chart's accuracy?
    • - Yes the chart is now accepted, that chart only miss's 7.5% or the market
I'm leaving this one out for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
All other links checked out Ealdgyth - Talk 03:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK did did almost all of it, i just need a few things explained. Realist2 (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a question: you've marked DONE to a lot of the websites; but I still see unreliable websites like mjshouse, snopes, artistopia etc. What exactly has changed? indopug (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hum the user marked it as resolved so he thinks everythings fine. Could you give me ref numbers and ill sort them ASAP. Realist2 (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just took another look, ref 140 is the only one I see that should go. You? Realist2 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the road, and I don't see any snopes or those listed as publishers. I do see that 140 is showing CBS as the publisher but the website is showing something different, which means it is not reliable. IF YOU MARK THINGS DONE, I AGF and don't feel like I should have to individually call up each and every link out of what... 140 or so, and double check that you have taken the reference out. Done does NOT mean you hid the publisher information, done means (to me) that you agreed that the site was not the best and you took it out and replaced it. Do I need to go back through every single link again? Or do all the given publishers match up with what is the actual publisher of the web site? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The question of reliable sources as marked done (below) needs to be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is resolved, there were a few bad ones still remaining but they are long gone, would someone please clarify once and for all that they are 100% good. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hum hang on i never altered nothing, im working my socks off, im not altering anything, it must have been someone else, im sorry. Ive looked through and i can see that 140 is not right, it is a easy mistake to make when you were up all night and morning correcting things. I will get that sorted and i would appreciate it if you can clarify what is / isn't reliable as im just following your orders. Can we all try to assume some good faith here. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK i removed 140 as well as another 2 dubious transcripts. As for someone altering the publisher, i have no idea who did that, it wasnt me though. Realist2 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go, the editor changed the publisher but forgot to change the address. indopug (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
So for all the other sites marked DONE, does it you mean that you've removed those sources or fixed publisher info or you believe them to be reliable? I wonder if you could add an short explanation after every DONE tag so that its clearer for the rest of us. Thanks, indopug (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh ill get that sorted. Once that one that you mentioned above is resolved i believe that all unreliable sources have been removed and all sources are formatted correctly. Realist2 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK thats sorted, i believe whole heartedly that the article is accurately sourced with all citations formatted well, i should has noticed that someone hadn't changed the URL last night but we were all tired and i dont know why the other one was labelled CNN when it clearly wasnt. It must have been sliden in yonks ago. I apologise for not noticing these errors sooner. Realist2 (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I put a vote in to support the decision to make the Jackson article a featured one. It is highly comprehensive and well-sourced, aside from a few errors that don't heavily distract the reader. Still, we can continue fixing the article, such as using Template:Harvard citation no brackets for some of the book citations on the article.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Wow, so to date, the issues of 4 editers have been resolved and it has 1 support. I think we can really do this, ive managed to get two further copy edits done on the article from some very nice editers. It definately passes on grammer, spelling, comprehensive, pictures, reliability, citation format. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 04:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
      • And incase there is any confusion yes i am the nominater, i just recenty changed the format of my signiture, sorry for any confusion. I look forward to further advise and support, yours. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 05:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I also believe its neutral, 1/3 of the lead talks about his controversy and that extends to the main content of the article. I believe that stricks a healthy balance of good and bad. Its hard to add more negatives as those are tabloidy stories and hold little credibility. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 05:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • ", aside from a few errors "!! Andrewlp1991, can you list these errors, please? Any FA should not have known errors in it. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I support this article becoming featured. It meets all of the criteria, even the elusive first one. It's a great article, and is definitely one of Wikipedia's best. I just want to add that I reviewed both the Thriller album and Thriller 25 for GAs, as well as doing a copyedit for this article and Thriller. So, I think I have a bit of knowledge on the subject matter, having done quite a bit of research. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 18:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support There has been a lot of change in this article since I first posted in this FAC. I'm a fan of Michael Jackson's music but not the person so I am hard to please. I would like to see this promoted.--DizFreak talk Contributions 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nominator Support - Ive waited for the right moment, when i originally put it up i knew it didnt quite reach FA standards, but a lot of people have given me advise over the last week, ive done everything i can possibly think of. Now I feel sure i can support my own nomination. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Although on a break, I came back and saw this article, and I believe it meets all the criteria for an FA. The nominating editor seems to have put in a lot of work on this, as well as heeding the complaints of editors. Although Jackson is less popular than he once was, that should not hinder this article's FA nomination in any way.--andreasegde (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Comments all of the above issues that were hidden have been taken care of. I double checked every page that it is listed with the correct site/etc. The following came up, but they are minor. I've left the issue of the charts out for others to decide.

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
that's it Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, so thats cleared up the sources are all good to go. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • To the nominator: please don't—by your own admission—put up a nomination you know is substandard; that is a violation of the instructions.
    • I knew it was close, i was just uncertain about certain areas was all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 21:55, April 21, 2008
  • Oppose—Certainly fails to meet the requirement of a professional standard of writing. Just the lead provides fertile fields for my editing exercises. The whole text needs serious attention, preferably by someone new to it. 11 glitches and two suggestions in just three paragraphs spells lots of work for a long article.
    • In the lead: "Jackson has dominated pop music since the late 1970s"—is this an overstatement? Does it pass the NPOV test? Would some people object? "Since" means "still"; "dominated" is pretty strong.
      • DONE
    • MOS breach: no hyphen after "-ly".
      • DONE
    • Suggestion only: you might save the "on the map" quote, which is informal, until the body of the article; in the lead, a more formal equivalent is more appropriate.
      • We have had lots of discussion on the exact wording on that, its seems a waste to take it out unless its urgent
    • "With" is a poor connector and usually—as here—leads to an ungrammatical clause: "with Jackson maintaining his position as a dominant staple on MTV". Semicolon and stand-alone statement?
      • DONE - and its sourced in the content of article incase you were woundering
    • "He has been cited as the "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time" by Guinness World Records"”—you can remove the quotes and the caps for a smoother read. A year would be good instead of just "has been".
      • DONE
    • "seven more Guinness world records"—ok, they were all after the most successful entertainer one, were they? "Other" is safer in any case.
      • DONE
    • "sold over"—it's a term used in financial houses; better "sold more than".
      • DONE
    • "in the eyes of some of the public"—I think you can dispense with that.
      • DONE
    • "been in decline"—turn it into one word.
      • DONE
    • "both negative media coverage and public attention"—how are they different?
      • Sometimes what the media talk about isnt the same as what the public talk about. In this case they both pay attention.
    • "This resulted in Jackson being tried"—clumsy and, strictly speaking, ungrammatical.
      • DONE
    • "went on hiatus"—Is that a standard expression?
      • DONE- Removed entirely, its a tabloid thing anyway, just because he never recorded music for two years, its nothing new to jackson to stay dormant for years at a time be that doeant mean he's been on hiatus 8 times lol
    • "one million six hundred thousand copies worldwide in nine weeks"—save us: "1.6 million copies worldwide in just nine weeks"?
      • DONE - I sure if you wanted me to add the "just".

TONY (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I have resolved the visible list Tony1 has left and informed him personally, asking him to come back and make further comments when he is available.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You may well have addressed the examples I raised here, but this entirely misses the point. Did you read my entry? "The whole text needs serious attention, preferably by someone new to it. 11 glitches and two suggestions in just three paragraphs spells lots of work for a long article." Please let me know when you've had the whole article thoroughly worked on; it's quite a task. TONY (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Well, written. Deserves nothing less than FA. Indianescence (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Issues addressed. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I finally had a chance to read the article all the way through. I echo Tony's concern that the article needs a thorough copyedit from an uninvolved party. I also think the organization needs to be rethought, and I found several areas where the article seems to contradict itself. Following is a list of suggestions (these are primarily examples; I did not identify every single problem in the article).

  • There is an overlinking of basic words, such as controversial, egninmatic, revolutionary, etc. Please go through the whole article and remove wikilinks from regular words.
    • DONE- Only wiki linked in lead
      • Not done. There are still wikilinks to things like personal life, reputation, humanitarian, film director, etc. Please go through the entire article and remove all of the unnecessary wikilinks, not just the ones I've explicitly mentioned. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I did remove tones of others, clearly it still wasnt enough, will give it a second go.--Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
          • DONE
  • 750 should be numerals and not written out; this is also the case for other large numbers that are written out throughout the article
    • DONE - worst offenders altered
  • There are several instances in the lead where he is referred to as "Michael Jackson" instead of just Jackson. This is warranted in the sentence just after the mentionof the "Jackson Family", but not in other places in the lead.
    • DONE
      • Still at least two instances of this that I saw. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • DONE - Found some, others that remain are from exact quotes, awards or buildings renamed after Jackson. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Mix of written out numbers and numerals in a sentence is usually discouraged (example only: "forty-eight weeks on the top twenty and went 7x platinum")
    • Disagree, numbers can be written as either words or numeric however when talking about certifications its always written in figures.
      • This should be consistent within a sentence. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • DONE
  • The prose needs a thorough copyedit. These are examples of the problems I see:
    • redundant phrasing suc as "he later took a more pivotal role within a year"
      • DONE
    • Repetitive phrasing ("Jackson released...These were released..)
      • DONE
    • Some sentences/phrases have an improper tone (more magazine-y than encyclopedic) such as "hit stardom"
      • DONE
    • overly long sentences (ex: They changed their name to "The Jacksons", featuring youngest brother Randy in Jermaine's place, and continued their successful career, touring internationally and releasing six more albums between 1976 and 1984, with Jermaine eventually re-joining in 1983, making them a sextet)
      • DONE
    • There are misplaced commas throughout the article
      • DONE - article has altered a lot, shouldnt be such an issue
  • The part about Jackson performing "Remember the Time" seems like a bit of trivia that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.
    • Disagree, its one of his most notible performances —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 21:41, April 22, 2008
  • The organization of the article seems off to me. The first part discusses primarily his albums, with a few bits here and there thrown in about his personal life (some of which references information that we haven't gotten from the article yet). Generally, a biography starts first with information about a person's life, then discusses their artistic works. This article is organized the opposite way, which is jarring.
    • Disagree, as his personal life is vastly negative it would pay to much attention to that aspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 21:43, April 22, 2008
      • Following the normal organization of a biography article is not paying too much attention to a negative aspect. Not everything in his personal life is negative either. The current organization is awful. There are tidbits mixed throughout the music sections that have nothing to do with a particular album, and should rightly be in the biography sections. There are references in the music sections to things that are discussed later in the personal sections. Karanacs (talk)
        • Altered the headings to dates, that way it doesnt have to be just about that album. The album name as a heading is stupid anyway. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Mariah Carey is a featured article and her career comes first, i see nothing wrong with the career coming before the personal life. Michael Jacksons personal life is half the article not just a few paragraphs, you would spend 30 minutes reading before you even get to his career, im sorry thats not gonna work at all. It might be better to intergrat some aspects of his personal life into the career sections. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the article should explicitly list the names of all of his siblings together.
    • DONE - all brothers, sisters non important with exception of Janet, who is mentioned further down
      • I have no idea where this information is in the article. It should be in the personal life section. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • DONE
  • There are issues in the article with clauses that are not complete sentences
    • DONE - wow that was a hard long one

Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe ive resolved your concerns, with the exception of a few ideas you suggested that i oppose. Ive made 85 edits to improve it so hopefully you will agree its helped. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I rereviewed the article, and the prose is still not up to FA standards. The punctuation is not good (misplaced commas, lack of apostrophes sometimes). There are numerous instances of mismatched verb tenses or clauses that don't make grammatical sense. I understand that English is not your first language and that the article has been copyedited, but I think more copyeditors will be necessary. Look through the list of articles already promoted to FA and see if there is another pop culture one that you like. Ask the main contributor or copyeditor of that article to help. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok ,ill keep working at your stuff, it is getting better, we are still working on the copy edit. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1a 1b, 1c, and 1d. I concur with Tony and Karanacs, who provided myriad examples of the work required. (1a) The article is "good", but the prose is much too unpolished for FA standard. There is some quite sensational language. (1b) The article is not comprehensive; it lacks useful information about Jackson's musicianship, songwriting style, and other abilities, and relies on pop media quotes about his performances. (1c) There are statements that are eventually and apparently sourced to the Taraborrelli book but much more accurate citations are needed. There are many statements that are sourced to dubious works when I'm sure more reliable works are available. (1d) The article has a pro-Jackson POV and lacks thorough criticism of his work and personal life. Examples:
Completely disagree, article pays a LOT of attention to his private life, too much infact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 05:43, April 23, 2008
    • The lead speaks of "physically-complicated dance techniques" which is actually a pretty wild claim to someone who knows something about dance. I scrolled down to the next time you talk about the moonwalk and you have a paragraph in which you assert that people viewed Jackson as one of the greatest dancers of all time. That statement is not sourced - the next citation is two sentences later. Are we to assume that citation covers the sentences leading up to it? If so, does it cover calling Jackson's dancing "physically complicated"? Where are the sources in which people call his dancing ludicrous, silly, vulgar, etc. as I'm sure there are many? This issue alone demonstrates the neutrality and verifiability issues.
      • Oh please, silly, vulgar... im not going to even comment, absurd and The whole section is sourced by the following source. Do i need to write it out again REALLY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 05:46, April 23, 2008
        • I'm afraid you might have missed my genuine point: There are those who criticize and may not appreciate Jackson's dancing as you do. These sources need to be included for a neutral presentation. --Laser brain (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Im not going to discuss in the article that 1.5% of the population find his dancing silly and vulgar, its pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 05:41, April 23, 2008
            • OK, I discussed the sexual tone/violent tone of some of his performances. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 12:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Your additions will need to be copyedited by a third party. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                • DONE - third party copy edit complete
    • There is some excessive wikilinking going on to unrelated topics and even disambig pages or simple definitions - please check throughout. Examples from the lead are "controversial" and "enigmatic" (which links to a disambig page).
      • DONE
    • MoS breach in the lead: space between period and footnote.
      • DONE
    • Sensationalism in the lead: How was his use of music videos "revolutionary" (and why is that wikilinked)? This and other statements are sourced to All Music Guide, which is not a very reliable source considering all you have to choose from for someone as prominent as Jackson.
      • DONE - revolutionary part
        • I'm not sure what you did you address this, but you left a sentence fragment in the lead. I don't mind your using the term "revolutionary" but it should be explained how it is revolutionary. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Altered it, most of which is sourced in article
    • Ditto the myriad statements sourced to Fox News. That biography doesn't even have an author listed, which means they probably lifted it from somewhere else. Please pick a better, more reliable source. You should be able to source almost anything about Jackson to media that actually has a reputation for fact-checking and journalistic integrity.
      • DONE
    • More MoS: the "See also" under the Influence heading isn't indented.
      • DONE
    • The meat of the article seems to be about his music, and that's fine considering he is a musician by profession and legacy. However, you pretty much gloss over a lot of the bizarre aspects of his life and considerable criticism that has been leveled at him. Take for example the Influence section. It is, like many other sections, a laundry list of awards and sensational terms, but it is lacking balance. There must be sources that say he is a negative influence on the music business or on individual artists?
      • Gloss over, over a third of the article is on his negative public life, how much more do you need?Im not sure how he had a negative effect on industry, never heard that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 05:32, April 23, 2008
        • I'm not ready to accept that no one has criticized Jackson's effect on the music industry. I think that POV must be out there, and it should be represented in the article for balance. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I have heard people say that his music videos/MTV damaged the quality of music, not sure if that would do?--Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't know - is there a reliable source out there for that? If there is nothing, then there's nothing. Nothing you can do about that! --Laser brain (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Time Magazine "noted his notable style"? Prose.
      • DONE
    • The Style and performance heading seems strangely lacking any comprehensive information. You have two sentences and a pop media quote followed by an overly-long account of one performance. Compare some other FA-quality articles on musicians. They include text about musicianship, techniques (not just dance moves), studio use, production, and so on.
      • DONE - created themes and genre section
        • Good start. The section needs thorough copyediting by a third party. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • DONE - copy edit by third party
    • The Physical appearance section lacks any reliable criticism, really. You cover tabloid speculation and Jackson's own statements (which are not reliable). I know I have read actual, published information from experts, some of whom worked on Jackson, about what he has actually done to himself.
      • Why be critical of a personal choice to have surgery, thats not encyclopedic at all. What are we ment to say? All "criticism" is nothing more than POV edits. Its a matter of taste—Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 05:54, April 23, 2008
        • We need to represent the professional and medical opinions about the extensive work he has had done, because it is out there in droves. I don't doubt that you have long struggled with editors who come in simply to attack Jackson; that's not what this is about. This is about being objective and presenting each angle to his story, including those that fairly criticize his actions. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • No one has ever tryed to add that sort of detail, its never come up, i have some stuff in my book, but i get the impression you dont like me using that even though its reliable, there is some stuff though? --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't have any problem with the book. Can you find some of the material I am talking about? I know I have read print interviews with physicians that have worked on Jackson and also physicians who have turned him down for plastic surgery requests. --Laser brain (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The Finances section is also woefully lacking - you need to cover the financial practices that got him in trouble to begin with. He is known in many circles for having purchased part of The Beatles' catalog - where is that info?
      • DONE
        • As with your other additions, a thorough copyedit needed by a third party. The citations will also need to be fixed for formatting. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • DONE - copy edited by third party
Good start, but a long way to go. --Laser brain (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Realist, please sign your posts by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your edits; it is impossible to know who said what here without signatures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know how to sign my name thankyou, although you apparently dont know how to respond to messages on your talk page. Oh and there is a 2 on the end of my name for a reason. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 06:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, pls don't alter reviewer comments; you can add your comments below theirs, and please sign. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Got my name right, good start, still havent replied to my message tho lol. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 07:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Realist2, please be a little more civil. These kinds of comments are unnecessary on an FAC page. SandyGeorgia's talk page explicitly states that she responds to message there rather than on your talk page, and there is a response there to your last question. Karanacs (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nearly 2 days later and only after i had brought it up here, great. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose After being asked to copy edit the article as a set of fresh eyes, I made a number of textual changes and suggested a list of areas that needed to be addressed, which are listed on the talk page. All of the edits I made were rejected, which I found a bit troublesome; but in any event I'd want to see the substantive issues raised on the talk page addressed before I could support this nomination. Aside from copy editing problems, the themes and genres section needs a lot of work, the 2003 trial section needs expanding to include the TV documentary, and the lead needs to make more specific reference to Jackson's musical work and albums. Gusworld (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ive closed the nomination for now, there is so much that needs doing, there isnt a consensus for FA. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: Nominator attempted to withdraw the nomination [7]. Karanacs (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:24, 24 April 2008.

[edit] Bob Chappuis

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is an interesting broad article that has been stable since becomeing a WP:GA.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
All links checked out as good.Full disclosure, I passed this for GA back in Feb. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak object
I will need convincing that the Time magazine is not a violation of fair use. I don't see any critical commentary anywhere about it or how it is an iconic picture or anything.
It is that the picture sort of marks one of the first people to star in football without playing both offense and defense. I have movee the picture to the part of the text that talks about this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
But the picture doesn't add unusual to the fact that he was the first does it? It just shows us what he looks like? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
By its inclusion in the article the picture adds a lot of information. Very few college football players ever make the cover of Time. When you read the lead and then scroll down for a quick look this picture jumps out at you. It is not unusual for an important politician, world leader, or corporate titan, but this image is sort of shocking and adds to the article for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Secondly, I think the first two sections and the last two sections are better off merged, since they are very short- unless you intend to expand. The last two sections could be called "after sport" for instance.
The last two sections have been merged. Are you sure about the first two?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think so, because logically it works with his career only getting a bit of a start and being interrupted. A lot WW2 sports FA bios for people who played half a season before the war have it merged into early years, if it is very short, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you name a couple for me to look at? How about if I make College football in 1942 a aubsection of Early Years?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you wikilink "receiver" for us plese? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
"Time noted that Chappuis had the ability to spot his receivers tearing downfield and defenders rushing in to nail him" is a bit peacockish. Can it be toned down or simply farmed off to a direct quote? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Another general thing, I think that there is too much Chappuis quoting, especially on mundane comments that he made in a colloquial style - this makes the article a bit knockabout for my taste - can't you just paraphrase and simply say that his father disliked OSU, or that he retired so that he can enjoy R&R? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
done for the two specific quotes that you mention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:24, 24 April 2008.

[edit] Joking Apart

Self-nomination. The article appears to satisfy the criteria: it's comprehensive, stable, well referenced, neutral, etc. I'd expect any 'fixes needed' to be minor. It has been a GA for nearly a year and has been considerably expanded and improved since then, partially as a result of the GA sweep process.

If you are blessed with copy-editing skills, I would really appreciate it if you could just correct any issues. I've spent hours on this article singlehandedly (with thanks to the two GA reviewers) and it's frustrating to get 'oppose' votes because of a couple of stray commas. I listed it at the LOCE a few weeks ago, but there's no sign of it being seen as a GA anytime this century. The JPStalk to me 12:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
All the other links checked out with the link checker. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • refs 1 and 7 are from the same article, but different URLs. Have now clarified the first.
  • The text about Craddock's divorce is credited to his work partner, not a member of his family. In the context of what it supports there are no WP:BLP issues.
  • You may be right about the citizen-journalism site; can be easily replaced, but I request opinions of other commentators on FAC first.
  • I'm fairly sure the clippings do say where they are from, unless you can point to something I'm missing. As far as I can see, those clippings would meet WP:RS without the link to the site. Although the external page to which you are referring houses some Radio Times clippings, they are not cited in this article. The JPStalk to me 15:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I was missing the scroll bars, which were hidden in the background. I found them by accident when my cursor rolled over it and suddenly they were there. Odd. But that aside, the fact that we don't have the originals is a bit of a concern. They probably squeak by, but it would be better to find the originals. Annoying that the Telegraph and Express both don't have full archives like the New York Times. I'll mark this one resolved for now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We should not be linking to copyright violations though. BuddingJournalist 00:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Ealdgyth, I've never been a huge fan of those scroll bars. They take a long time and are not entirely disciplined. jokingapart.co.uk is registered to Craig Robins, who is also the founder of Replay and also conducted interviews with the same people for the featurette. In this respect, I think it's reliable. (If we consider a documentary that he has produced and edited as a reliable source, then so should we his website)

A DNS search for kennycraddock.com returns "Julia Robinson". I guess the information is a little trivial anyway... so gone. Yeah, OffTheTelly is a magazine type site. The author of this article, Graham Kibble-White, is an established writer (a lot of results on Amazon.co.uk) so that counts as reliable. The citizen site has now gone, and Replay now has 'publisher' information.

Links to those articles have now gone. The JPStalk to me 11:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hide most of the issues. Left the jokingapart.com one out so other folks can judge it for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Here are examples just from the lead of why the whole text needs a massage.

  • "The show is semi-autobiographical, being inspired by"—"Being" in this grammar is clumsy, and in any case needs to be "having been". Why not "...ical; it was inpsired"?
  • "Some of the first series"—"Some of the episodes in the first series"
  • "Although the show attracted a low audience because of scheduling problems, scored highly on the Appreciation Index and it accrued a loyal fanbase." Um ...
  • Caption: "The opening titles. The title is superimposed over a stack of legal documents"—See User:Tony1/Monthly_updates_of_styleguide_and_policy_changes/January 2008 on this.
  • "the BAFTA-award winning show"—Another hyphen required. TONY (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    Unhelpful, Tony. If you have the skills could you consider fixing it yourself. The timescale of the LOCE is a joke. I commend your desire for a high standard of English, but your collaboration in fixing issues would be most helpful. The JPStalk to me 17:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    By the way, fixed the above examples. Attempted to list as a FAC, rather than GA, at LOCE but the process is impenetrable. The JPStalk to me 13:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - very comprehensive article which is well referenced and follows the MOS. Due to the relative obscurity of the programme, this is a refreshing candidate for FA. Bob talk 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:49, 22 April 2008.

[edit] Prague Spring

Nominator, I have been working on this article the past few months and I believe it now meets the standards set. It is adequately sourced and the prose has been copyedited. It doesn't make major ommissions and note that it is an overview article with two sub-articles (Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia and Normalization (Czechoslovakia), the major contributors to it have been myself and Themightyquill. The Dominator (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Stylistically and reference-wise, it seems quite good, but it is still desperately short of content. It relies incredibly heavily on a handful of sources, and offers rather little on the reform period (which defines the prague spring), negotiations with the soviets, or the actual reasoning behind the invasion. The important role of the writers, for instance, is discussed initially but not continued. Compare this article with Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (which deserves the FA status it received last year). The two topics are undeniably comparable, and there has been just as much written about 1968, yet the Prague Spring article is less than half the size of the Hungarian Revolution article. This article (and the article on the invasion) could surely reach FA status (hopefully by next august), but its content doesn't do anywhere near a complete job of covering the topic. I'm sorry to those who have much hard work has been put into style and footnotes, but that's my honest opinion. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And my points from the previous nom stand as well, I support this article for FA status with the hopes that once it reaches it, it will be improved further, I'll try to get more content soon, I hope you can change your mind, after all, I realize that the reform process is far from complete, but it shouldn't even be complete, that would make it much too long, even though I and you could add more content about the reforms if you feel it's necessary, but I believe that the only large omission is the direct reason for the invasion. The DominatorTalkEdits 04:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll absolutely change my mind if it's ready for FA. International reaction to the reform would probably be worth including too. The current article only lists reaction to the invasion, which is really misplaced. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems I stumbled across something significant in the archived FAC. Happy to reassess if this is addressed, or argued down, especially as this is a topic I have significant ignorance about! Please do feel free to drop me a line at my talk page as I'm unlikely to keep a close eye on this FAC. --Dweller (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you just repeat that on this page, please? so people don't have to look through the archives to see if it's an actionable oppose (or improve the article based on your suggestions). The DominatorTalkEdits 03:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's in the history of this page and didn't take long to find, but I'm an obliging kind of chap. Diffs --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support.--Avala (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:49, 22 April 2008.

[edit] 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment

Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it meets all FAC criteria and is as complete as it needs to be to reflect the history of this unit. Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is published by About.com, but it clearly has an author whose credentials are established within a seperate biography page. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure. I will find another source. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing. Removed and working on a replacement. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Links were fine. Other sources look good. (Wanna do my ancestors regiment from Mississippi? (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Very good. Thanks.--Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Nitpicky reference issues:
Issues resolved, BuddingJournalist 07:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

BuddingJournalist 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply I believe I have addressed all of your concerns and welcome you taking another look to be sure. Regards, Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. One thing I noticed on revisiting: for the The War of the Rebellion references, you should make sure the Volume/Series/Chapter listings are consistent. Sometimes you give the Chapter, sometimes not; sometimes you give the Series, sometimes not. Also, be consistent in either using Arabic or Roman numerals for the numbers (for example, you have Series 3 and Series I). Finally, it'd be good to include page numbers too for offline reference or in case the link ever goes dead. BuddingJournalist 07:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply I corrected where applicable, but several sources only contain Series and Volumes, with no chapters. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from: Hal Jespersen (talk) This is a very good article. A few minor comments:

  1. I don't think that custom military organization template (the second box) works very well. You should consider coding it as a regular table. In my browser, some of the lines extend past the right-hand boundary. I don't see any reason to have a template for a single unit anyway; it will not be widely used in other articles.
  2. I'm not sure what the policy really is, but the practice of putting multiple footnotes on the same point looks funny. Why can't you combine the related citations into a single footnote, separated by semicolons? (As an aside, I don't know how you can possibly stand to use those verbose citation templates that someone came up with to plague Wikipedia editors. They really make the source code of the article very difficult to read and edit. To each his own, I guess ...)
  3. Near the end of the article, you use the expression "Some have argued that ..." I don't have the Wikipedia guidance page on this handy, but this is an expression to be avoided. You should cite an actual historian who argues that point of view. Perhaps the citation you have included does that, but since I do not have that book, I cannot tell.

Good luck with the review. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply I'm sorry the template isn't showing up appropriately within your browser. I wonder if the problem is widespread. As for footnotes, I have seen several articles where they are back to back and because of the codes used I don't believe they can be combined. Lastly, I have changes the attribution directly to the author (Detzer), who states it in his book. Thanks for the comments. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by MrPrada (talk) Overall, good so far. I will have to give it a more thorough reading. Three things that are mostly stylistic struck me right away:

  1. I'm almost positive there is a wikipedia article for John Jacob Astor II.
  2. Is there any way to get a larger flag of the Colors? Its very hard to make out right now, and even when you click on the image it is still not a very high resolution. That image can stay in the article, but perhaps you can find a larger version of the flag for use elsewhere
  3. The image of the POWs at Camp Pickney is too close to the "After Bull Run" section for my browser, and gets bisected by the horizontal line. You may wish to consider moving it up.

I'll check back and add more as I come across it. Good luck. MrPrada (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply In order, (1.) According to Astor family, there is no such article. (2.) I personally have never seen this flag and am not sure from where another photo could be obtained. (3.) I moved it up two paragraphs, which seperates it from the related text but solves the problem of the line. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Oppose—1a. Oddnessess and awkwardnesses, and other prose issues. Please find a word-nerd who's interested in this field to go through it and iron out the language; as authors, we get too close to it to tell, sometimes.

  • "On the same day in which Lincoln issued the call for troops, he wrote Ellsworth asking for his support in this endeavor." On/in tension. Why not "The same day L issued ..."? "Wrote Ellsworth" without the preposition is OK in US English, but consider whether it sounds stilted here. He wrote a letter; he wrote Ellsworth; he wrote words. What is the referent for this endeavor? There are lots of foregoing possibilities.
  • "fundraisers were successful in contributing $60,000 to the regiment"—Maybe, but surely it's the people the fundraisers smoothed over who contributed. Fundraisers raise money.
  • Another referent problem: "Early news reports covered the regiment's formation, with one reporting:" One what? Formation? And when we do think about it, "report reporting".
  • "Flashy" twice? I could only just cope once. It's a kind of attitudinal epithet, risky in this register.
  • I keep finding odd turns of phrase: "The initial uniforms of gray, blue and red were created, purchased with funds donated by the people of New York." Were they created or purchased? Confusing. TONY (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply I corrected those specific sentences and will review the rest of the article. I know of a few "word-nerds" which may be able to help. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Also I made a request at the League of Copyeditors for someone to have a look at the article. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply Images sourced. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply Lead expanded. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:52, 20 April 2008.

[edit] Aang

previous FAC (00:05, 24 March 2008)

Self-nominator: The article failed its previous nomination for bad prose and certain reference issues. I believe these issues have been addressed and would like the article to be looked at again. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, issues with the characteristics section: bordering on OR, some typos, some wording could be fixed. Sceptre (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
As much as I hate to say this, if you have seen the episodes, you would know most of things are stated directly in the episodes that are used a citations. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
"Aang is reluctant to fight, as demonstrated in "The Spirit World (Winter Solstice, Part 1)". In this episode, Aang wastes time trying to convince a spirit to stop destroying a village, instead of fighting the beast directly." reads, as someone who doesn't watch the show (but I know a religious shipper of) as original research. Try something like "Aang stated a reluctance to fight in "The Spirit World (Winter Solstice, Part 1)": instead of fighting a spirit that was destroying a village, he tried to negotiate." Sceptre (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked over the article and copyedited it. Please take a look at the article again and give your opinion. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There's still a few typos and grammatical errors. You might want to print the article out and combing through it; as an FA contributor myself, I can say it works. Sceptre (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment All the links checked out, sources looked okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, this needs a close copy-edit by a prose-pro. Examples:

  • Convoluted: Aang's appearance was derived from a drawing created by director Bryan Konietzko ("Aang was developed from a drawing by director Bryan Konietzko"?)
  • Redundancy: in the season finale of the second season ("in the second season finale"?)
  • Vocabulary: pack of bison ("herd"?);
  • Clarity: The show itself is currently divided into three seasons What does this mean?
  • Typos: tenth and eleventh episode Plural?
  • Wordiness: ... Aang is involved in a battle that takes place in the underground caverns of Ba Sing Se. Aang is nearly killed in this battle when Azula strikes him down with lightning. At the end of the episode, Katara escapes with Aang and successfully brings him back from near death using water from the Spirit Oasis. ("Aang is nearly killed in a battle in the caverns of Ba Sing Se when Azula strikes him with lightning. Aang is saved by Katara who revives him with water from the Spirit Oasis.")
--ROGER DAVIES talk 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked over the article and copyedited it. Please take a look at the article again and give your opinion. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - The topic is not broad enough to be a featured article at this point. The first half of the creation seems like it has more to do with the overall series rather than just the character. The second half seems to be very "ORish"; notes from episodes and unrelated topics shouldn't be used to back concept and creation sections. The reception is bare bones, which is not very good at all. Other than that, the whole thing seems weak structurally, and the sections should be rearranged and reformatted to give a better appearance. At this point, I would just suggest chopping it up between the main article (if there is anything that could strengthen it) and a character list if the article's current state is its maximum potential. TTN (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I'm seeing several in-universe writing examples here, these sould be fixed first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KC109 (talk • contribs) 22:32, April 17, 2008

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:52, 20 April 2008.

[edit] System Shock 2

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because I have been working very hard on this article for over two months and feel it meets all the FA criteria. It is factually accurate, well-written, has fair-use rationales for all images, and is complete in its coverage. This article deserves to join its Shock brethren as an FA. Thanks. -- Noj r (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I know there are copy-editing issues to deal with and I know the article has failed the nomination, but I want to take this opportunity to get opinions on how to improve the article. I have attempted to copy-edit the lead and the gameplay section and am interested in opinions on it, particularly from people who have already commented. Is the article being improved? I have to focus on school right now but I also don't want to give up on the article. Thanks for your time. -- Noj r (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Style follows other video game feature articles. I see no reason to warrant an oppose at this time. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Are the quotes necessary in the citations? It just seems to be a little out of place. I don't know how video games normally deal with such. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Answer: It is a frequently used technique to cite the narrative in video game articles. Many FA articles use it, like Final Fantasy VIII and Shadow of the Colossus, while older FA articles like The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask do not. I do not believe there is a set standard, the game itself acts as a reference for the narrative, but I choose to cite the story because I like to make sure everything is covered. Sorry for the lengthy explanation, hope that helps. -- Noj r (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I've never went to a video game review with such, so I was curious. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

  • One of the links on the external link checker is not found.
Which one so I can fix it? Ealdgyth said they all checked out below. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's okay now; it showed up before, but something must have changed. Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "widespread acclaim.[4] Despite poor sales,". If it didn't do well commercially, then you need to specify "widespread acclaim" as "widespread critical acclaim".
Done. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "is now regarded by critics as one of the greatest games ever made.[6]" You use plural "critics", but only provide a single reference. Regardless, a single reference to Gamespot doesn't justify such a claim. It only justifies "is now regarded by Gamespot as one of the greatest games ever made". But you can't put that in the lead.
Added two more references to bolster the claim. It is also proven in the Legacy section but must be proven in the lead as well.
  • Lead could probably be expanded slightly to mention gameplay.
The lead mentions it is a first person shooter/RPG, I dont know why it needs to go into more detail than that, especially when the gameplay section is right below it. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, stating the genre doesn't quite do it. As for the last part, well... what can I say? Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "attempt to connect three nodes in a straight line while being wary of red ones." Being wary? Can't you replace this with soemthing like "avoid"? Informal phrasing.
You can attempt to connect red nodes, but they may explode. You can avoid them but thats not the point, your gambling when you click on a red node. Clarified in the "hacking" paragraph that you can connect but they may break it. I removed the last part of the sentence in the picture since the paragraph explains the role of the red nodes. Tell me if that helps. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
My objection was with the informal phrasing, which has been removed. Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "inventory management and ammunition conservation also appear as well, enhancing the game's tense atmosphere". I'm not sure about this one. I'd thought such mechanisms exist as a practical factor of gameplay, and not to enhance the atmosphere. I may be wrong.
I have references to back this up. Many critics and the developers have said this was an effort to create a tense atmosphere. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's the OSA? Shouldn't it be wikilinked?
This has been debated before, here. It is never mentioned in the game what OSA stands for. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a clue about SS2, but if this is the case, then at least let the reader know that this is an acronym that doesn't stand for anything. Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's the Von Braun? Is that the ship? If so, make sure the reader knows this.
Done. Changed to "Ship" -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Skills can be bought using cybernetic modules at upgrade units, allowing the player to increase specific abilities." Does this not have the same meaning as the similar sentence in the second paragraph?
Done. Reworded. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "OS units"? Again, what does this mean. What does "OS" stand for?
Again, it is never explained in the game or instruction booklet. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll be honest: I think the gameplay section is hard to understand and is just quite excessive. You know, I just don't think you need a paragraph dedicated to collecting items, for example. Personally, I'd work on cutting it down.
Some changes have been made, what is specifically confusing? I have reread the section and believe it flows well and is explanatory. Of course, I beat the game and wrote the section, so that doesnt help... -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think there has been an attempt at summarising the story here. I personally think it's too long. Reads more like a recount than a summary.
Ive tried to cut it down. Please tell me what you think -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remeber that a full stop isn't required for captions that aren't full sentences.
Done. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "1 year"—"1" should be written out in full here.
Done. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The relevance of the paragraph in "Developemnt" about the competition winner is dubious to me.
Done. Cut it out, it really is trivial. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know why the release date of the game has been included in "Reception".
Me either. Done. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Cut out some redundant "alsos".
  • "cyber ninja's"—I may be wrong here, but shouldn't 's be outside the quotation marks?
  • I don't think there's any reference in the reception to graphics.
  • Arranging the reception section by two paragraphs for positive and two for negative really is just basic, and not something I'd expect of an FA.
  • No mention of sales, even though it's mentioned briefly in the lead. Stops it from being comprehensive.
It is stated many time by critics that the game was a failure commercially, however, I have looked everywhere and found no sales data. I dont see how that should prevent it from achieving FA though, many other FAs have no sales date. What if sales data is impossible to find, can it not pass FA? -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
But you've still mentioned it in the lead then have failed to mention it in the rest of the article, which shouldn't happen. As for whether it stops it from being an FA, I wouldn't say that it does definitely, but it really would help the article's chances if it did have it. May need to ask someone at WP:VG or WP:FAC about the imapct this has on the article. Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strange, the Bioshock article describes the setting as dystopian, yet this describes it as utopian. Do you mean that the setting used to be utopian? If so, reword.
This was discussed here. It is a utopia, because that is what it was before the disaster. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
But still, the wording is dubious because the reader can interpret it as the setting now. And if that is the case, then it was utopian and not is utopian. So this needs to be reworded. To say that something is abandoned, and then describe it as utopian is oxymoronic too. Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Again with the jargon—"revitalization units can be found"
Done. "revitalization" to "reconstitution". It also explicitly explains what it is right after. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How does the link to the Open Directory satisfy WP:EL? Delete either MobyGames or IMdB, as one is redundant in regards to the other.
I was looking at other FAs to see what they link to. Removed Moby Games. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A good article, but the lack of sales data stops it from being comprehensve. The "Story" section and "gameplay" section aren't concise too. In general, it also has readership problems i.e. jargon and assuming that the reader will know. Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look over the article. I will address the more difficult issues later today. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll have another look tomorrow to answer more of your questions. Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I can say it looks better now after looking at the changes. I've done a bit of copyediting myself. I'd say that the "gameplay" section looks fine now. I still have concerns about technical terms and jargon, like "TriOptimum" that is neither explained nor wikilinked. For the setting and plot, I have trouble distinguishing between what is plot and what is setting, because the second paragraph of "setting" just feels like story-telling, rather than setting. It's great that it's been condensed, but, as David Fuchs said in the PR, the style needs working on too. It has that "and then this happened" style if you know what I mean. Plus, again with claims being made: "SHODAN is recognized by game critics as one of the most notorious villains in video game history[64]" This suffers the same point as the other sentence i.e. plural claim, one citation. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

It is recognized as reliable by wikiproject video games and Kotaku cites their sources. They are also professional bloggers not random goons and are cited on many FA articles.
He was the lead programmer on System Shock 2, this is his blog. I believe it is reliable and noteworthy because this was someone working on the title. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Another industry professional, Kieron Gillen. It is his work blog. I believe it is reliable and noteworthy because he is a respected journalist and has interesting things to say about the title. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The two refs above are from the Bioshock article. I figured since they came from an FA they were alright. Will fix them later when i have time.
All links checked out as good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per criteria 3 and 1A concerns:
    • Image:Systemshock2box.jpg is not low resolution (WP:NFCC#3B).
      • Ill reduce its size when i have time. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Systemshock2 ingame final.jpg and Image:SS2 Medical.jpg should not coexist. WP:NFCC#3A states "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice". Showing HUD, inventory, hybrid and medical floor could all be accomplished in one screenshot (walk up to hybrid on medical level, open inventory and take screenshot). Although moot, both are also not low resolution.
      • The said image would be so convoluted it wouldnt be a very good image at all. Ill resize these when i have time later today. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Tau Ceti V.jpg does not appear necessary to our understanding. Game events take place entirely on the conjoined ships; the greater Tau Ceti V system is of negligible and secondary importance to the story and game itself. How does this image contribute significantly to our understanding of the game or plot (NFCC#8)? I'm not convinced the concept artwork is necessary either.
      • The prologue takes place on Tau Ceti V. Its also there for aesthetics, it looks nice, instead of having paragraphs of text. If it is preventing FA then Ill remove it. Concept art? Maybe we shouldn't have images at all... -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
        • TCV plays a negligible and unimportant role in the plot. Fair use images cannot be used for aesthetic reasons. Indeed, we shouldn't have fair use images if they can't be supported by policy. What significant contribution do these images make to our understanding (NFCC#8)? Why are they necessary (NFCC#3A)? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I share the same prose and comprehension concerns noted above. A few more from a cursory glance: "befriends [SHODAN]" is not how I would characterize a "serve me or die" relationship; mention of characters of Tommy and Rebecca appears out of the blue; etc. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • fixed befriends issue. Tommy and Rebecca are mentioned midway in the section, because they appear at the end, and it would seem strange to readers why two people got away, who are they? etc. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "Taking place on board an adrift starship in the year 2114, the player takes control..." Argh! In the lead no less. BuddingJournalist 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for various reasons, although mostly prose, which does not meet 1a.
    • As I pointed out above, please fix the misplaced modifier in the lead.
    • Lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD to include a summary of the entire article. No summary of gameplay or development is presented. Do the last two sentences of the lead merit inclusion there?
    • "released a self-proclaimed spiritual successor to the System Shock series, entitled BioShock, that was released to" Ungainly repetition.
    • "he encounters a malevolent AI who" Using AI in this fashion is colloquial at best. Artificial intelligence generally refers to the branch of computer science, not an intelligent machine. Also, please spell out abbreviations on first use.
    • "The development of BioShock has apparently reintroduced interest in the System Shock franchise leading Electronic Arts to renew their trademark on the System Shock name in 2006." First, either it did renew interest or it didn't. No need to waffle. "The development of Bioshock"? Do you mean, the success? Spot the missing punctuation mark. "Reintroduce" is odd with "interest". Are you sure it's the renewed interest that led EA to renew their trademark? Your given source does not make this claim.
    • "This has led to speculation regarding the development of a third installment in the series." We shouldn't be in the business of reporting rumors.
    • "System Shock 2 is similar to its predecessor in that it is a hybrid encompassing many gameplay mechanics from various genres." So many ways to improve this awkward sentence. Use active voice, cut redundancy, etc.
    • "while RPG-style character" Again, spell out abbreviations on first use.
    • "conservation also appear as well," This actually made me chuckle. Spot the two redundancies.
    • "Marines, the Navy" American? Under what government is the game taking place?
    • "or in the OSA" The what?
    • "result in special skills relating to combat and weapons training," Missing a verb. "result in attaining" perhaps?
    • "Marines will result...the Navy will result...the OSA results" Violation of verb parallelism. Present tense works just fine for all three.
    • "After the player has chosen a class, three tours of duty on board a star ship must be made." Made or completed? What kind of starship (note that it should probably be one word)?
    • "Ultimately, the different classes allow different routes to be taken regarding objectives..." Why "ultimately"? Recast to avoid passive construction and rid repetition.
    • In general, far too much reliance on the awkward passive when the active would do just fine.
    • I'm stopping here, after only the first five paragraphs. Please go through and thoroughly copy-edit the article or enlist the help of other editors. Once the prose of the entire article has received a polish, feel free to bring me back here for an update. BuddingJournalist 00:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I am amazed at the blatant poor writing you have pointed out that I have outrightly passed over and over again. I am working on copy-editing the article and hope I can pick this stuff out like you do someday. Thanks. -- Noj r (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:38, 19 April 2008.

[edit] Kenneth Dewar

Self-nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria and is a balanced and informative account of the life of Royal Navy officer. It passed GA easily, and comments from Peer Review have been implemented as best as can. It's well referenced and to my mind would make an interedting addition to the ranks of FAs. Harlsbottom (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—The prose needs a thorough copy-edit. I spied these pimples just at the opening.

  • "Dewar became a noted thinker on naval tactics before seeing extensive service in the First World War, serving in"—ooh, "a noted thinker" is a little la-de-dah, and fuzzy besides. A notable naval tactician? And: "service ... serving".
  • "sea-going"—check if one word.
  • Repetition ungainly, again: "he and his executive officer dared to criticise directly or indirectly their superior officer, Rear-Admiral Collard, to their superiors." And which was it—directly or indirectly? "Or" is again a problem in the very next sentence: "All three men were dismissed the ship, and were subjected to highly publicised Courts-martial or cross-examination in Gibraltar." There were only three of them; can't you tell use that ... two were ... and one was ... , or some such?
  • BrEng now usually drops the dot in "Dr".
  • "on 8 March 1900.[3] He was consequently posted to the Devonport destroyer HMS Osprey on 15 March." Why do we need "subsequently"? TONY (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Response I've gone through it again and addressed prose issues you raised as well as re-wording and other issues which came up. However, as regards "Doctor" one can still use Dr. quite happily in Britain, and unless it's in the MOS that it has to be Dr I see no reason to change it. And sea-going is definitely a word - just scan Google Books for examples. Harlsbottom (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Still opposing, since I sampled another small bit and found much to improve.

  • "He was fortunate after the "Geddes Axe" (the systematic contraction of the Naval Service to a size substantially smaller than its pre-war level) and his controversial tenure at the Admiralty that he was still considered worthy of sea duty, the qualification for promotion to flag rank." Unwieldy snake. Comma after Admiralty, but it needs to be split up anyway.
  • "During the U.S. blockade of the Mexican port of Tampico in 1924 Dewar and Cape Town cancelled their planned cruise of the Caribbean to adequately represent the British government at Vera Cruz, proceeding there on 4 January." I had to read it twice to understand that there MUST be a comma after "1924". The whole article needs a comma audit (commas after most sentence-initial prepositional phrases would be nice). Ambiguous: at first you think the "planned cruise of the Caribbean" was "to adequately represent the British government at Vera Cruz".
  • "was relieved in command of Cape Town"—no, "of the command".

Another word-person is needed. TONY (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Granted, there's still more to do - I've been working on it today anyway. I accept there are still a number of unwieldy stretches of prose out there. Your last point is incorrect - "relieved in command of" is perfectly acceptable in print. As far as I'm aware my nautical terminology is on solid ground. If you suspect any of them then Google book search any exact phrase in "..." Regards, Harlsbottom (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's too much naval jargon making the article difficult to read and sound pompous. Most of the naval terms can be replaced with plain English. I have made a few suggestions here [8]. There's a problem with some of the dates too, where the year is at the start of the sentence and the day/month at the end. The lack of punctuation is another problem and I have to read some sentences twice before understanding them. I suggest asking a writer who is new to the article to knock it into shape. GrahamColmTalk 14:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:05, 19 April 2008.

[edit] Evolution of mammals

Nominator: User:Leptictidium

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is very complete, has almost 100 references to support it, is rich in images and the language, though technical, is easily understandable. Leptictidium (mammal talk!) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Articles need to be stable. Wikipedia has a strange habit of having evolution pages turning into edit wars. This is a support unless the FAC brings such attention. Cross your fingers. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Update - Changed to oppose based on potential image problems as pointed out by others below. Fix that, and I will change back. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

* Comment. I haven't actually read the article yet but it is obvious that WP:LEAD has not been followed. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments I notice that Leptictidium hasn't edited this article a lot. Does the main contributor, Philcha (talk · contribs) agree that it's ready for FAC? It's never gone through GA or PR. The references are seriously lacking in publisher or last access dates (over 20 by a very quick count, probably closer to 30 or 40) I also note sections that are uncited and a lot of short choppy paragraphs. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment.
    • I'm developing the lead section, see proposal at User talk:Leptictidium.
    • I understand about the refs. I started the article because the "Evolution" section of Mammal was unsatisfactory - wrong on some points, and I already knew enough to see that there was too much ground to cover there. So I used the most convenient sources. I've upgraded a few since then, as I've come across suitable material (one earlier to-day).
    • I don't intend to spend time on minutiae like last access dates. IMO Wikipedia should do a lot more to make it easy to format citations, since most Wikipedia editors come with little experience of any kind of mark-up language and most web developers use WYSIWIG editors rather than hand-coding (X)HTML. I've raised or contributed to proposals about making citations easier, but there seems to be no momentum.
    • I will resist any attempt to make the style of the article more academic - IMO Wikipedia should be written for the benefit of non-specialists. That means I will use and defend all the normal techniques for improving the readbility of web pages.
    • Subject to the above, all comments are welcome and actual help would be greatly appreciated. Philcha (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • PS, re "minutiae like last access dates", the one aspect of citations that I'm fanatical about is web links - most readers do not have subscriptions to academic journals. Philcha (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we were mainly asking if you think the article is ready for FAC. Unfortunately, minutiae like last access dates is part of the FA criteria. None of the other is needed, in fact articles that are engaging to the regular reader, not the scientist are encouraged. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Question I think the issue here for Philcha and User:Leptictidium to consider is whether this article is actually ready for FAC. Sure any article with enough input from reviewers, and given enough time, can be massively improved but this isn't what FAC is about. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Oppose: critical evaluation of several images utilized in this article is needed. Several images "released to the public domain" appear to be blatant copyright violations. Alterations of background colors, gamma, color levels, etc. all constitute derivative works for which the original authors retain copyright.
  • Oppose The article has been presented here too soon. There are problems with content and style. It's reads like a transcript of a lecture; Wikipedia informs, it does not teach. Here are some examples:
    • The evolution of mammals from synapsids (mammal-like "reptiles") was a gradual process which took approximately 70 million years, why the gradual?
    • This part of the story introduces new complications.
    • Note that the diagram shown here omits extinct groups.
    • Here are the most significant of the many differences between this family tree
    • It has been suggested that lactation's original function
    • Since we can't know much about the internal mechanisms of extinct creatures
    • We have already seen that the first clear evidence of hair
    • So the evolution of mammals in the Mesozoic is full of uncertainties,
    • And, all those bullet points.

There are problems with redundancy including repetition. Lastly, is there not a better way of presenting those phylogenetic trees? This article has potential that is yet to be realised.GrahamColmTalk 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. These monospaced text-based trees are okay, but not for a Featured Article. We can do better. Also, the illustrations (for example image:TheriaAnkle01.gif) ought to be in SVG format so that they display better, are scalable, and editable. — brighterorange (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Re the "family trees", what tools are available to produce better alternatives than the "ASCII art"? An alternative ( the clade template) was discussed at Talk:Evolution of mammals, but is unsatisfactory because the root appears halfway down the block, and for other usability-related reasons; it's also difficult to make later changes to accommodate new evidence / analyses. I proposed an alternative at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals) but have heard nothing encouraging.
As for the bullet points, see Wikipedia:Embedded list. Bullet lists are a widely-recognised technique for increasing the readability of web pages by making the hierarchical structure of some content immediately obvious. If they're so bad, why are bullet points used so widely in Talk / discussion pages, including this one (notably in the complaint about the use of bullet points!), along with the colon mark-up for indentation? Philcha (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose In addition to the concerns about writing style (eg. GrahamColm's quotes) and bullet points which should be prose, I'm concerned that this article lacking knowledge of phylogenetics and promoting it as inaccurate: "This endeavor often involves Molecular phylogenetics, a technique which has become popular since the mid-1980s but is still often controversial because of its assumptions, especially about the reliability of the molecular clock."

Farther down I see some phylogenetic trees of mammals based on genomic sequences and retrotransposon insertions (2001 & 2006)—this is then followed with some criticism about mitochondrial mutation rates (the methods cited didn't depend on mitochondrial sequence!) and with references more than 10 years old (1996,1995,1997). While phylogenetics has some messy spots and should get fair warning about how unresolved some aspects of the tree are, I'm also not seeing similar criticisms of techniques used to generate a fossil-based tree.

Although this is not my field of expertise and I could be wrong here, it looks to me like the phylogenetic aspects of mammalian evolution are seriously deficient in the article. DNA sequencing ability is increasing exponentially; phylogenetic analysis is only going to become more important as time goes on. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Question. I was under the impression mid-Permian would have been about 260-270 mya and the mid-Jurassic 165-175 mya. The lead gives this gap as 70 million years, but these ranges suggest 90. --JayHenry (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:05, 19 April 2008.

[edit] Caulfield Grammar School

previous FAR
WP:FFA, has not been on main page


Self-nom: This article was previously featured from 2005 until 2007 when it was demoted. See the talk page for a full list of FACs and peer reviews that have been undertaken. Most recently, Caulfield was listed as a good article. I believe that all criticisms mentioned in previous reviews have been addressed - the lack of citations in the FARC has been dealt with and there are no outstanding {{fact}} tags present. Please assist with any wording issues if you find them. Harro5 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This one is still lacking access date.
the links all checked out using the link checker tool and the other sources look good. One thing I noticed was that a lot of the article is cited to the school website, and that the article is a bit short on citations, although I leave whether that should affect the promotion or non-promotion of the article to folks who can take the time to review the whole article. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed the links here - all are still current and have full info. I also note that Duke University, a featured article, has many citations from official Duke websites. Information about an educational institution's programs and academics are often only available from the school itself, but I don't think Caulfield includes POV from the school's publications. Harro5 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Just be careful about weasel words. Once my old high school newsletter said that we "topped" the State Maths Competition when we got 5 awards and another school got 30. So maybe even straightforward things like "topped" can be a bit bogus....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Any specific issues in this article will be addressed. Previous FACs and peer reviews should have found any blatant POV that existed. Harro5 07:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Various glitches related to 1a, 1c, and 2. Here are just a few examples of why extra hands are needed to sift through and repair.

  • MOS requires captions that are just nominal groups and not whole sentences to drop the final period.
  • "In 1958 Caulfield became a member of the Associated Public Schools of Victoria, showing it to be by that time a well-regarded independent school"—"Showing it to be" is clumsy.
  • "The mansion was classified in 1956 by the National Trust as a building of state significance"—are you sure it's not "historical significance"? Citation?
  • Ref 5: Shouldn't there be page references? It's cited all over the place, and our readers deserve to be able to verify individual claims such as that there was student activism at certain times. Same for all of that type of ref. TONY (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have addressed the first three (just removed the sentence about 'well-regarded school' - POV). I will be home in one week and able to add page numbers, but don't have that book physically accessible at the moment. Any other examples of issues? Thanks. Harro5 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, there are, but I review by providing selected examples of why a whole article needs attention—I don't fix articles up myself. Can you bring in one or more collaborators to do that, please? TONY (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Any further comments or suggestions for the article would be appreciated. At present there is one oppose but no detail as to what still needs to be addressed. Thanks. Harro5 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No response by the nominator to my rejoinder.
    • 'learning place'—See "Words as words" in MOS.
    • See MOS on currencies; after the first "AU$", why would we assume anything else?
    • "The school's centenary year,"—Spot the redundant word.

And more. TONY (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Tony. While the editors of this article have put considerable effort into this article, the prose needs a lot of work, preferably by an editor not already involved with the article. I made an attempt at tidying the prose in the History section but it still requires much more. For some guidance, read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Further, there are several uncited claims in the article. I have tagged some but there are still others; including whole paragraphs such as the one beginning "For students from Years 5 to 12, inter-school sport is a compulsory activity...". To me at least, there seems to be an overuse of commas where they are either unnecessary or the sentence is better split into two. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:05, 19 April 2008.

[edit] 1995 Japanese Grand Prix

Self-nomination - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria set in place. The article has been through a Peer review, before having it's GA nomination passed. The article since then has been thoroughly reviewed by AlexJ and The Rambling Man (see here and here). Since the GA was passed, and because of the comments made, I have improved the article more, and I feel it could pass FA nomination. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
All the links check out with the link checker tool Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Responses and clarifications -- ChicaneF1.com is a large database of accurate Formula One information that is regarded fairly well. F1DB is likewise a database like ChicaneF1. Autosport.com is the website for Autosport. Formula1.com is the governing body main site for Formula One. Do you have any other concerns about sourcing? Did you look at how these sources are used (like for database connections) or did you just decide to pick apart the source list without overview of it? Guroadrunner (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do look at the sources and how they are used. I'm sorry if you're upset, but there is no need to get testy at me. I'm not very knowledgable about Formula 1 racing, and it's better to ask a question and make sure that something like www.formula1.com actually is what I thought it was. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I just was surprised that a standard database and some other sites, which are regarded as reliable, is questioned as a reliable source. Also, I've had a bad recent few months overall so I'm likely to snap at people and things, so sometimes I get rough with people. Sorry about that. Guroadrunner (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Just for absolute clarification, Formula1.com is the website of the sports commercial rights holder, Formula One Management, not the governing body. Even so, it is very much a reliable source in the situations for which it is used as reference in this article. GrandPrix.com is a website run by journalist Joe Saward who is the former Grand Prix Editor of Autosport magazine and currently holds an official press pass for F1 events. Therefore it also meets WP:RS falling under "News organizations". Galeforcef1.com in addition to it's results service was formerly the host of AtlasF1 (now part of Autosport) and also hosted the official Pacific Grand Prix team (now defunct) website. AlexJ (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
GPRacing 192 has race reports for each individual races, along with qualifying & race times, along with quotes from other drivers on the race. F1Fanatic.co.uk isn't the most reliable site ever, yet is does have reviews of every season as an overview, which helps to cross check with other references. If you believe any of the above are unreliable (although I am bound to disagree), I will remove it from the article. D.M.N. (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment F1fanatic is a blog, so shouldn't be used as a reference. I'm not particularly familiar with GPUpdate, but it seems to be a legit news media outlet (see 'About us' from front page). GPracing192.net is a good resource, but seems to be unmaintained these days. If the same info can be found on another site, perhaps you should replace any GPracing192 refs (just because I'm worried that one day the site will go AWOL. According to the Library, Diniz has the 1995 Autocourse, so you could perhaps ask him to fill in any gaps due to removing F1fanatic.co.uk. 4u1e (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
D.M.N. asked me about the AUTOCOURSE last week. I've just got back from holiday, so I'll have a look later today.-- Diniz (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
AUTOCOURSE refs added. D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've left these outside the resolved box mainly because right now I'm just seeing statements that "it is well regarded" not specifics on what makes them reliable. How do they obtain their sources? Do you have news stories or other sources that state that they are a reliable source? One site, the GPracing192.net someone said it doesn't seem to be maintained any longer, and might go dead at some point. Galeforce is said to the former home of AtlasF1 as well as a now defunct site. I'm leaving them out so others can judge the reliablity of the sites for themselves, I'm not sure either way. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Ealdgyth puts a lot of effort into checking these websources, and "they're highly regarded" or "yes, they're reliable" or "WikiProject X recommends them" or "another FA uses them" aren't helpful answers. The reliability of a source needs to be evaluated specifically in relation to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB. Editors using these questionable sources need to identify a page about the source that establishes its editorial oversight or fact checking or ownership, or a secondary published source that establishes its expertise. "ChicaneF1.com is a large database of accurate Formula One information that is regarded fairly well," doesn't answer the query. Who gathers the data? Who fact checks? Who is the owner? What secondary publications speak highly to its reliability? Who regards them highly and where is that published? etcetera ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Not a problem. I will try to answer on a few questioned.
    ChicaneF1 is one of the most comprehensive Formula One statistics websites on the internet. Its intent is to "be the most comprehensive Formula 1 statistics website." It is published by Jonathan Davies, and has a news arrangement with ManipeF1. ChicaneF1's use for this article is purely for its statistics. An example page for use here would be http://www.chicanef1.com/racetit.pl?year=1995&gp=Japanese%20GP. Note detailed pages on qualifications and other parts of the race. It offers more detailed statistics compared to [Formula1.com]. Per WP:V, the references are used to ChicaneF1 as a published source of the information cited. In this case of each use of this reference--
  • Official race name = XXI Fuji Television Japanese Grand Prix[1] (official name of race, multiple sources cite this).
  • It was the 16th and penultimate race of the 1995 Formula One season.[1] (a basic 1995 race calendar page could be used if necessary).
  • Schumacher clinched his tenth pole position of his career, in his Benetton B195 with a time of 1:38.023.[1]. -- the use of this source is to establish that this was Schumacher's tenth pole position, a fact that would otherwise need a list of Schumacher poles to delineate which one it was.
  • The race was held mainly under damp conditions with a race start time of 14:00 JST (GMT +9).[1] -- telecast information from the BBC or ESPN back this up. Would a reliable television source be preferable?
  1. ^ a b c d 1995 Japanese GP - XXI Fuji Television Japanese Grand Prix. ChicaneF1.com. Retrieved on 2008-03-02.
Please let me know on this site.

-- Guroadrunner (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Regarding the use of gpracing192.net, It is used to explain succinctly that the title chase was wrapped up mathematically by Schumacher:
There was only a maximum of twenty points on offer for the remaining two races, meaning it was impossible for Hill to catch Schumacher.[1]
This is factual, as Hill had run out of races to beat Schumacher on points. I am not sure of another source that states this directly, and to tabulate and explain the F1 points system ourselves risks WP:OR. Guroadrunner (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


*Comment: I think the Michael Schumacher quotation box should refer to what the "new record" is, i.e. ten wins in a season.-- Diniz (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Resolved.-- Diniz (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Done. Might need a reword though. D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think the Benetton pic you have is a B194 painted in the 1995 colours, rather than a B195. The shape of the air intake looks wrong - that's one area in which there were quite a lot of changes between 1994 and 1995. Initially the 1995 cars had to have a vent at the back of the airbox to prevent any ram air pressure being built up. Such jiggery-pokery is not unusual - show cars are often painted in the latest sponsor's colours, not in the historically accurate ones. 4u1e (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very difficult to tell - I've done some comparisons using the drawings and photos from the 1994 and 1995 AUTOCOURSEs, and I can't choose between the B194 and B195. If a photo of Schumacher in a B195 is essential, then the Flickr user who changed the license of two of his photos for the Forti article has two such images from the 1995 British GP. I could request another license change if need be.-- Diniz (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It could well be a B194. I'm starting to think this is the case. The Williams next to it is definitely a FW16 painted in the FW17 livery. Readro (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going by the rounded shape of the air intake - I think the 195 had an almost triangular air intake, which was initially combined with a 'chimney' shape at the back of the airbox. The chimney disappeared later in the season (iirc because the FIA realised that the rule requiring a vent at the back of the airbox wasn't having the required effect). The airbox almost certainly didn't change, because its structure is part of the chassis and not that easy to alter. 4u1e (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Just had a look at my other photos. When the car is in the background, I'm fairly certain I can make out "B194" on the stand. Case closed. Nice detective work! Readro (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment BUT, that means the pic needs to go, or at least the caption will need re-writing. We can't leave it labelled as a B195 if it's the previous year's car. 4u1e (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments:
    • General prose comment: There may be jargon here but I can't recognize it because I'm a racing fan. Grab your Auntie Hilda or somebody who doesn't know anything about racing and have them read the paragraphs where you describe all the race action. Note her reaction. Some possibilities: "take the start", "jump the start", "stop and go penalty", etc.
      • I'll try and adjust some of these to make it less jargony. D.M.N. (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
      • For the first mention of "stop and go penalty", I've linked it to Formula One regulations#Penalties, which hopefully should explain it better. D.M.N. (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Criterion 1b concern: You have almost nothing here about media coverage of the event. Was it televised? How many people watched it? How many people attended? What general media stories were written about the race and in what magazines, etc?
      • Having looked at many sources, the media coverage from race to race tends to be the same. By this time the championship was decided so coverage may of been a little less. It would of been televised in at least 200 countries, but to find out how many exactly watched it would be very difficult. I might be able to find an attendance figure though. D.M.N. (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The broadcasters would have been the same for all '95 world championship F1 races, and there would probably be >50 of them so they can't all be listed. What could be mentioned somewhere is that Fuji Television were the host broadcaster of the race, and produced the world feed that was shown by all the broadcasters. I've been trying to think where a cite could be found for that - I believe (but need to check) the credits at the end of the BBC broadcast mention it. AlexJ (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I can stomach the use of the word "penultimate" thrice in two paragraphs.
      • Changed the second "penultimate" to "sixteenth". D.M.N. (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • In the lead, you say "race" and then in the first paragraph of the Background heading you say "round". Please be consistent; it is not clear that a race is a round is a race.
      • They both mean the same thing. Anyway, I've standardised it to "race" for consistency. D.M.N. (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Schumacher was on 92 points, with Damon Hill on 59 points, meaning it was impossible for Hill to catch Schumacher with only two rounds left and a maximum of 20 points on offer." Too clunky, please reword.
      • Reworded and split into two sentences. D.M.N. (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Having been in the Sauber..." The way this is worded implies there was only one Sauber in each of these races. If that's not strictly true, please reword.
      • Changed to "Having been in one of the two Sauber cars...." - hopefully that clarifies it better. D.M.N. (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Both practice sessions lasted an hour and 45 minutes..." This sentence suggests that we have already read that there are two practice sessions, but this is the first we've read of it. Suggest beginning this para with a sentence explaining the practice sessions.
      • Done. Hopefully I've worded it well, please make a note underneath if you feel it could be worded better. D.M.N. (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "The Williams and Ferraris..." You've made "Ferrari" plural but not "Williams". As I'm not sure you want to deal with saying something like "Williamses", suggest rewriting so you can make both of them singular.
      • Reworded to "The Williams and Ferrari cars..." - D.M.N. (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Barrichello, as a result retired from the race." Reword please. Maybe "Barrichello retired from the race as a result."
      • Yep, your version sounds better and more fluent. Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "It was later found out that the problem was a driveshaft failure..." Rewrite to active voice to specific a subject and please find a better term than "found out".
      • Reworded. Changed "found out" to "discovered" and I've also provided a link to driveshaft. D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Schumacher put the pressure on after his second stop, setting the fastest lap on lap 33, before Hill made his pitstop on lap 35, leaving Schumacher back in front." The opening phrase is too sportscaster-ish. He left Schumacher "back" in "front"? Confusing.
      • Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "However, as Coulthard braked for 130R..." Maybe say "... braked for the 130R portion of the track ..." or something like that. You don't want to make the reader look at the diagram to know what you're talking about at this point.
      • Good point. Reworded. D.M.N. (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You alternately write "Spoon Curve" and "Spoon curve". Please make consistent.

--Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. :) D.M.N. (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak object - the lead really is too small at this stage. I am unable to remember anything about this race from the top of my head, but if it was a wet race with a few incidents, then I would expect there to be quite a lot to talk about in this race, expecially with the wet-dry transition and the usual chaos. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I've expanded the lead as requested. On your second point, I've looked at many sources, including the BBC version of the race on YouTube, and I cannot find anything else highly notable to add. Plus there weren't many incidents as the race track actually started off fairly damp, it wasn't hugely wet, especially compared with the Japan 1994 race. D.M.N. (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The Williams' retiring is now mentioned twice in the lead. AlexJ (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Fixed. I really don't know how to expand the lead beyond that, sorry. D.M.N. (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I've added the fact that Schumacher's victory equalled Mansell's record for nine race wins in a season to the lead, as I think that the fact is of enough significance to be included there.-- Diniz (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I might have another look at other things. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:34, 18 April 2008.

[edit] The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

Self-nomination. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it has become a concise, well-written, grammatically pristine, and overall informative article on an extremely important topic in video games. Voyaging(talk) 00:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: either close and archive the peer review, or withdraw the FAC. Article can't be listed simultaneously at both places. I'll check back to see what you decided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

the links all checked out using the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed all the unreliable sources and added an access date on that last one. Thanks for the info! I'll try to look for reliable sources if any of that info is controversial. Voyaging(talk) 01:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I believe the RPG gamer is considered a reliable source. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to replace the sources rather than just drop them. Obviously someone thought the information needed a source. I'm not sure that the rpggamer, n-sider and zeldauniverse aren't reliable, I was asking what made them reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe N-sider is reliable... igordebraga ≠ 15:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support;
  • the re-releases section needs more references
  • put references next to all the scores in the video game scores box
  • add in the information from the audio section of The Legend of Zelda (series) article about how Ocarinas became popular because of this game. There is also information in there about Ocarina of Time to add.
  • add some information about the music in the reception section, for good or bad

Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose:

  • Per the instructions at FAC, this shouldn't be under peer review while also an FAC.
  • In the lead caption you've used a hyphen to represent a dash. WP: DASH—spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes
  • No, it's just a hyphen from the looks of it, unless I'm mistaken. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The same caption should not have a full stop at the end as it's not a full sentence. Do for other captions where this applies.
  • "Ocarina of Time is the start of The Legend of Zelda series' timeline". Probably should reword to say that its chronological setting forms the start of the timeline.
  • "Triforce, an omnipotent sacred relic". Omnipotence can't really be attributed to the object as it's just an object. You could say that it makes the wielder omnipotent, if that is correct.
  • Lead needs to be expanded slightly to mention development, gameplay and music.
  • The wikipedia article of 3D doesn't actually hyphenate it, so it probably shouldn't be done here. I don't know if one is more acceptable than the other, though.
  • "In combat, the player can cause Link to focus on an enemy". I'd change "cause" with soemthing like "direct" here or something similar. Just for the sake of better English, and to emphasise that the player is controlling link.
  • "Although much of the game is spent in battle, some parts encourage the player to use stealth". Unless I'm wrong, the player is forced to use stealth here.
  • Relating to stealth, I really don't see the point in listing the instances in which this happens.
  • "Link is thrown out". Probably need to reword this, he is not literally thrown out, is he?
  • "Link gains strength and new abilities by collecting items and weapons found". Maybe misleading when it comes to strength—this is not an RPG in which he has a growing value for this. Maybe subsitutte strength with heart points and health?
  • I wouldn't introduce the aspect of the horse as a result of a sidequest; it may be better to treat it as a gameplay element in its own right here.
  • "This mechanism was expanded for future games and is now common in the Zelda series." Which mechanism, riding a horse? Do you mean future games in general or future Zelda games? I thought this was only featured again in TP, so how does that warrant the statement?
  • "Ocarina of Time is set in Hyrule, a fictional kingdom surrounding Hyrule Castle". Firstly, I thought Hyrule Castle was actually in Hyrule. Secondly, what's the point in referring to a fictional place by stating its location in relation to one of its constitutents, which is no more well known than itself.
  • As I've said in countless other FACs, I think the story section is too long, but this seems to be the norm among video game articles. Don't mind me if I can't drag myself to analyse the section.
  • Try to cut out the passive voice where possible, you know: "Nintendo first showed OoT as a technical demo at" rather than "Ocarina of Time was first shown as a technical demo".
  • "Nintendo originally intended the game for the Nintendo 64DD peripheral". "intended the game for" means nothing. At least put "to be compatible with" or something like that.
  • "on a cartridge". as a cartridge?
  • "According to an interview with Shigeru Miyamoto". Just put "according to Shigeru Miyamoto" instead of stating the interview.
  • "golden plastic card affixed reading "Collector's Edition". Is it me or does this not make sense? "with the"?
    • I know whgat it's supposed to mean now. If you want to keep it in its current format, put a comma after "affixed" and change "reading" to "with the words" or "stating". Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "IGN reported that some retail employees were unsure if Nintendo would be able to fulfill the initial demand". I think we're entering into the realms of trivia here. The concept had already been established.
  • The last paragraph of this section is unsourced, probably trivial, and just seems like original research.
  • "harder to beat". Obvioulsy needs rewording for grammatical correctness/remove informality.
  • "occur (this includes the use of the Stone of Agony)." Jargon. Will leave the general reader none-the-wiser.
  • The last few sentences of this section is also unsourced trivia. However, it may be useful if there is relevant, verifiable justification for why these changes were made. Religious reasons for the Fire Temple etc.
  • "The music is inspired by a wide array of influences, as exemplified in its diversity from cartoon-like music in the Kokiri Forest to Spanish flamenco in the Gerudo Valley." Source? Same for the subsequent sentences.
  • Reserve any reference to the critical reception of the music to the "Reception" section.
  • The last paragraph of "Audio" needs a source to stay up there.
  • For game of this stature, the size of "Reception" is very disappointing. Expand to mention each feature individually, such as graphics, muisc etc.

A decent article, but "Reception" needs expanding and the prose could do with some clean-up. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Opppose Well, it's a well written article, but is what I would've liked to see:

  • More pictures of actual gameplay and/or cutscenes.
  • As stated above, the reception section needs a little tweaking.
  • Expand the Audio section a little.
  • Add a date stating when the re-releases came out.

That's about it. RC-0722 247.5/1 16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support

It is a well written article with lot of good information, but it would be nice to see a few parts of it expanded, especially the Setting section and the Reference section, as well as adding some screenshots of actual gameplay in the Story section. Skittlesrgood4uTalk Page/Contributions/Sandbox 20:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now: good, but needs some work (if some of the following concerns above are repeated by me, forgive me):
  • "Ocarina of Time's chronological setting forms the start of The Legend of Zelda series' timeline, when young Link"- you say Link is 10 or 11, so he's obviously "young". I'm also worried about this sentence because it presumes familiarity with the series and who link is, who you only talk about in the next sentence.
  • Young Link and Link are two different entities. He travels forward in time several years in the game, making him older. Only young Link is 10 or 11. I reworded it to make it more obvious. I also reordered the sentences to make it more understandable. Voyaging(talk) 15:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Ocarina of Time is the fifth game in The Legend of Zelda series and the first with 3-D graphics." seems out of place in the last paragraph where you're talking about reception
  • The paragraph's topic is not reception, but what makes the game important or notable. It was the first Zelda game with 3-D graphics. It is the fifth in the Zelda series, a very important video game series. It received extreme commercial and critical success. They all fit together to explain the game's importance. Voyaging(talk) 15:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Although much of the game is spent in battle, some parts require the use of stealth—an uncommon situation for the series." - citation?
  • Removed the last part of the sentence, sorta original research it seems. Voyaging(talk) 15:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Side quests were expanded for future Zelda games and are now common in the series." - citation?
  • Again, removed. No way anyone will find a reference for something like that. Voyaging(talk) 15:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "like all games in the series, Ocarina of Time has several optional side quests, or minor objectives, that the player can choose to complete or ignore" - citation?
  • "After completing certain tasks, Link can travel freely between the two time periods by replacing and taking the sword." - citation?
  • Basically, I'm concerned gameplay is undercited and a bit too short for the game- elaborate!
  • "Link also meets Zelda's handmaid and bodyguard, the Sheikah Impa." - out of place in the plot, improve flow
  • Removed. Definitely out of place and unnecessary. Voyaging(talk) 16:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "After Link kills the boss of Dodongo's Cavern, Darunia gives him the Goron's Ruby, symbolizing brothership" - see? this is what I'm talking about. Bosses are central to all LoZ games, and yet nothing was said about them until now.
  • Soundtrack- format that list of tracks and make it two columns and hideable, if you must include it.
  • Images- how does a picture of Zelda and Link or a picture of Ganondorf significantly help the reader's understanding? You have to justify their non-free use in the rationales.
  • Reception - I feel this is too short for what is often considered the greatest Zelda game of all time. Where's information on the cultural impact of this title?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The citation needed's should be addressed, as well as the unfortunately short reception section. bibliomaniac15 03:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:34, 18 April 2008.

[edit] Pierce Brosnan

Well on the way to FA Ultra! 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 04:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
All other links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to chip in, MI6.co.uk is a reliable source. Alientraveller (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've seen boxofficemojo cited all over the web for release figures and would probably consider it reliable. Karanacs (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's accepted by film guidelines. Ultra! 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to echo the statements by the other reviewers. Leaving a note on my talk page just saying "Please strike comments" I saw as somewhat demanding. It would have helped if instead of just "done" you'd told me what you had done exactly on the various issues. With thihngs like putting in publishers, I don't need notes on what you did, but for others where you might have changed out a reference or other problems, it helps if I have some idea of what was done. especially as I'm traveling at the moment and on a laptop which makes finding changes harder. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments—This is not yet up to standard in terms of 1a. Keep working on the prose; preferably, find a collaborator who's unfamiliar with it and can use her strategic distance to advantage. Easy to find problems, just in the lead. The whole text is at issue, not just these examples.

  • "Brosnan desired to be an artist"—Please use plain English: "wanted to be". When I read "artist", I thought it was referring to his acting (as an art); then we're hit with "but". Do you mean "graphic artist"?
    • done Ultra! 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please delink trivial chronological items such as "1996".
    • done Ultra! 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "He became a naturalized United States citizen in 2004."—Am I missing something? Can we dispense with "naturalized"?
    • done Ultra! 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • MOS breach: "His current projects are"—How long will they be current for? Use an unlinked "As of 2008, his ...". TONY (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • done Ultra! 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Definitely needs a copyedit. --Una Smith (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose: criterion three concerns:

    • I’m not comfortable with Image:PierceBrosnan(CannesPhotoCall).jpg. Self-made photos rarely have such a candid vantage point, rarely have such small, non-standard dimensions (400 × 606) and rarely fail to contain camera metadata (this has only Photoshop tags); these are big red flags. Was this image taken from this site? The uploader has a talk page with several concern/deletion notifications. I’m not comfortable with the article utilizing this image. Quack.
      • done. Ultra! 18:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Young Brosnan.jpg appears to violate WP:NFCC#3A which says “one [fair use image] is used only if necessary”. Why is it necessary to see a young Brosnan? What significant contribution does this photo make to our understanding (required per NFCC#8)? Free images of Brosnan as an adult are both capable of being obtained and perfectly adequate to facilitate understanding (NFCC#1).
      • done. Ultra! 18:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Brosnan at Madame Tussauds.jpg does not have the correct license. The Flickr user has released it under Attribution 2.0 Generic, not Attribution 3.0. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • done. Ultra! 18:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Stricken of my own accord. Please allow reviewers to strike their own comments going forward so Sandy/Raul can ensure they have been addressed to the reviewer's satisfaction. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article needs a thorough copyedit. There are also a few MOS issues, improperly formatted refs, and I think another look at the organization is in order. Please note that the copyedit concerns below are examples - this is not a full list.
    • Newspaper names should be italicized
    • There is no mention of his marriage until the James Bond section. I see that later in the article there is a Family section; this should be incorporated into the rest of the biography
    • Per WP:ELLIPSES, there should be a space, then three dots, then a space.
      • Done Ultra! 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Still looks to be formatted incorrectly. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The first paragraph of the James Bond section does not flow at all.
      • Done Ultra! 16:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)]
        • There is still little transition between the thoughts. It doesn't read well. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Lots of overly colloquial terms - "got a job", "left the door open", "brought things full circle ", "made" instead of earned/grossed/etc, "kept in mind", "right up until"

Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I revisited today. While some of the specific concerns have been addressed (in a very timely fashion!), the overall quality of the prose is not up to FA status. If you don't know any good copyeditors, I'd recommend requesting that the League of Copyeditors give you a hand. My oppose will stand until the article has gotten a thorough copyedit. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The prose is very poor. Here are some examples:
    • desired to be ?
      • Done Ultra! 15:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
        • No not done: Brosnan desired to be an artist in the Lead.
  • Done Ultra! 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • for work as a nurse
      • Done Ultra! 15:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • William Charmichael.[4][5]Brosnan quickly embraced his mother's new husband as a father figure.[4] Carmichael took Brosnan Is it Charmichael or Carmichael?
      • Done Ultra! 15:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Brosnan's first met Albert R. Broccoli, producer of the James Bond films, he visited his first wife ???
      • Done Ultra! 15:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In the UK we don't have High Schools so why When he attended high school, his nickname was "Irish".

  • Done Ultra! 15:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And the section about charitable works begins with a whole paragraph about politics: Brosnan supported John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election and is a vocal supporter of gun control and same-sex marriage.[65] An outspoken environmentalist,[66] Brosnan was named 'Best-dressed Environmentalist' in 2004 by the Sust... GrahamColmTalk 13:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Done Ultra! 15:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And there is more, His portrayal of the Shaw. ? and, and w0ould cause damage to the marinme life there. There are other examples, please check the whole article and not just the points raised here. GrahamColmTalk 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Done Ultra! 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • PS. WRT the demand you made on my Talk page to strike out my comments, reviewers are not obliged to do this. The onus is on the nominator to explain exactly what , if any, edits have been made in response to reviews. Strike outs are made solely for the benefit of the v. busy FAC directors. I will strike out my comments when I'm convinced that the whole article has been thoroughly copy edited. GrahamColmTalk 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mere comments ---> oppose declaration. I was asked to return, even though I hadn't formally opposed. Rather, I made comments, which meant that I didn't want to have to come back. But on reflection, I'm moving to an Oppose.

  • Why do I find things such as "Brosnan's first met Albert R. Broccoli, producer of the James Bond films, while meeting his first wife, Cassandra Harris, on the set of For Your Eyes Only." Eeuuuwww. Grammar and repetitions; commas are chaotic. That was the first sentence I laid eyes on.
    • Done Ultra! 14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Then ellipsis dots without the spaces that are required by MOS.
    • Done Ultra! 14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Then "... to replace then Bond Roger Moore"—ah, you mean "... to replace the then Bond, Roger Moore"?
    • Done Ultra! 14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not good enough, and the hard work other reviewers have put in to demonstrate why the writing needs to be significantly improved throughout has not been carried through—merely subverted by the addressing of their examples alone. Sorry to be so blunt. A collaborator is necessary. TONY (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:34, 18 April 2008.

[edit] The Contest

Self-nomination. This is a current GA, and the article has just had a peer review. A believe that this article is of FA status and I can't find anything wrong with the article myself, although if someone does find something wrong, I'll happily correct it. ISD (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • What makes http://epguides.com/ a reliable site? (granted, the information it's referencing isn't exactly highly controversial)
All the links check out with the link checker tool. It said that two sites had firewalled the Wikipedia servers, but they both worked. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Response to comment: I believe it is a relaible source because it is a site which is not a blog or wiki. It is written by a single individual, using other websites such as TV.com. There is an FAQ if you want to read more about it. ISD (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments—A polish of the prose is in order, so you can be proud of it. Not too bad, though.

  • "In it,.."—Stubby opening to the third sentence. What's "it", anyway?
  • "he was caught masturbating by his mother"—I had to read it twice to confirm that his mother wasn't doing the honours herself. Consider re-arranging the word order?
  • won the Primetime Emmy Award for, "Outstanding Individual Achievement in Writing in a Comedy Series"—why the comma after "for"?
  • More confusion about mother: "George is distracted by a female patient in the bed adjacent to his mother's in the hospital, who receives daily sponge baths from a beautiful female nurse." I had to re-read to determine that it was the female patient, not the mother, who enjoyed daily sponge baths.
  • "with only Kramer having a restful sleep"—refers to one night's sleep only ("a"). Is that correct?
  • "adverts"—I'd spell it out. That sentence needs rationalising.
  • Unlike the rest, here the dot is misplaced according to MOS: "one of the series' most infamous." Oh, there are a few others: where the quote starts within a WP sentence, use logical punctuation.
  • Ref 2 et al.: "Jason Alexander. Seinfeld Season 4: The Breakthrough Season [DVD]. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment". Shouldn't the catalogue number of the DVD be included? And the track number? TONY (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Response to comments - I've carried out all the corrections that you asked for. ISD (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
"The Contest" is referenced in an episode of the "Shaq" episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, in which Larry David and Shaquille O'Neal watch the episode together.[24] It also appears in the episode "Jungle Love" in the animated sitcom Family Guy. In it, Peter Griffin pays the villagers of a South American tribe to re-enact the episode. The same scene also references a different episode, "The Stall".
  • Catch my drift?
DVD Verdict gave the episode an A+ grade rating.[21] James Plath from DVD Town said that, "Estelle Harris, as George's mother, is hilarious".[22] The entrance where Kramer slams his $100 on Jerry's kitchen counter is considered one of the most famous Kramer entrances. Appropriately, it was the character's 100th entrance.[9] Donna Dorsett from audaud.com commented on the refusal to use the word "Masturbation", saying that, "If the word had been used, even once, the show would not have been nearly as hilarious. The episode was totally inoffensive".
  • Are DVD Verdict and DVD Town reliable? Why?
  • Who considers it one of the most famous entrances? Cite?
  • Why is audad.com notable?
"The episode is considered by most reviewers...himself. The part was performed by an unnamed actor.
  • He also said that "The Contest" episode, "one of the series' most infamous". - that's not a sentence.
  • unnamed or uncredited? Merge the last three sentences into one.
  • Again, why is tvdvdreviews.com reliable? Interchange the Donna Dorset and JFK jr sentences so that there is more validity to your "most reviewers as a success for being able to cover a controversial subject in an inoffensive manner" assertion.
Each of those episodes in the side template should be in quotations.
indopug (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Response to Comments: I have tried to carry out the changes you asked for. DVD Verdict, DVD Town, audad.com and tvdvdreviews.com would appear to be reliable according to what it says in WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. ISD (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
DVD Verdict doesn't even bother to explain why the episode is so good. It just grades it A+. Could you remove that whole sentence seeing as it doesn't much anyway? Could you quote from WP:RS, the statements that back these sites' reliability? I mean they don't even seem notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. indopug (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed DVD Verdict. According to "Reliable source examples", it says under "Popular culture and ficiton" that, "Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources." DVD Town, audaud.com and tvdvdreviews.com are none of these. It also says that, "When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." ISD (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • "One euphemism used in the episode, "master of my domain", became a catchphrase for the series, although it is not always used to refer to masturbation." Do you mean "for the series" only or in popular culture?
    • "noteworthy thing" Yuck.
    • "the word "Masturbation"" What's the purpose of capitalizing this everywhere? BuddingJournalist 23:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Response to comments - I've carried the changes you asked for. ISD (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose based on the prose.
  • The article needs a good copyedit. Here are examples from the Production section: Watch for pronoun antecedent confusion (second sentence) and be sure to differentiate between Seinfeld the show and Seinfeld the man. Throughout the article, sentences within a paragraph do not flow very well together. Overuse of the word "probably".
  • " However, most advertisers did not broadcast adverts during the show because the series did not have good ratings at the time" -> does this mean "regular advertisers" (companies that regularly bought time on those show) or "any advertisers"?

Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, the article needs a large copyedit. Ask the LOCE Sceptre (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:34, 18 April 2008.

[edit] The Chronic

Self-nomination. I'm nominating this article because I have been working on the article for about a month now and I have made significant additions to the page. I put it through a GAN, which it passed after being put on hold, and it has also been on Peer Review for about 2 weeks and I have improved on the parts suggested by the review. I think the article now passes the FA criteria and deserves to be a FA. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm unfamiliar with rap, so what makes http://www.rapcentral.co.uk/index.html a reliable source for information?
    • Hmm...I missed that when reviewing. Yeah, that should be fixed up. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I have removed 'digitaldreamdoor' and 'famous.y2u' as sources because they are not reliable enough. I think 'discogs' is reliable, seen as it is notable enough to have its own page on Wikipedia and the information it is citing isn't likely to be challenged. I also believe that 'RockOnTheNet' is reliable, as this has its own page on Wikipedia and it has been used to cite inforamtion on featured lists, such as Kanye West awards and 50 Cent awards, also, the information it is sourcing is that "Nuthin' But a "G" Thang" was nominating for a Grammy Award, which i don't think is likely to be challenged since it was actually nominated. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
All links checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've hid the resolved concerns, and left the others up for others to decide for themselves. I'm on the fence about them, better to let others decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Rock on the Net should be ok since it's the official site of the ARC Weekly Top 40. And I replaced the Discogs ref with an MTV one. That leaves us with rapcentral.co.uk. Although I'm not fully sure if it's a reliable source, I wouldn't use it. Spellcast (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure what the point of the "overview" section is. The lead should be an overview, and all the info in that section could be easily worked into the lead or elsewhere in the article. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It's just to give additional background information about the album. Should I go through it and move parts to the lead and the rest of the article ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think that would be preferable. I'll try and do a more thorough review this weekend, but that was my only initial comment. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. As per my GAN review; no major concerns from me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's some issues that need fixing.
    • It says The Source originally gave it 4.5/5 mics,[9] but later changed it to 5 mics. I trust it's true, but unless a ref is given showing they changed it, it should stick with the 4.5/5 rating for now. Spellcast (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This ref, http://famous.y2u.co.uk/F_Dr_Dre.htm, was used for this sentence: "Until this point, hip hop had been primarily party music (for example, The Beastie Boys) or angry and politically charged (for example, Public Enemy or X-Clan), and had consisted almost entirely of samples and breakbeats. Dr. Dre ushered in a new musical style and lyrics for hip hop. The beats were slower and mellower, borrowing from late 1970s and early 1980s funk music. By mixing these early influences with original live instrumentation, he created a distinctive genre known as G-funk." Since the ref was removed as unreliable, a new source should be added to verify some of that info. These refs could help. Spellcast (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I have added some All Music Guide and New York Times refs to verify this information. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: All three audio samples lack fair use rationales for this article (WP:NFCC#10C and WP:RAT). Further, why are all three necessary for our understanding? NFCC#3A requires "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary". Why would just one not be sufficent? What does each significantly contribute (NFCC#8) above and beyond the contribution made by the others? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have added The Chronic to the fair use rationales of the three samples. I think three should be used because they significantly increase readers' understanding of the singles released. "Nuthin' but a "G" Thang" should be used because it was the most successful single from the album and is arguably Dr. Dre's most famous song. "Let Me Ride" should be used since it was the song that won him a Grammy award. "Fuck wit Dre Day" should be used because it was another successful single and because it was his famous "diss track" towards Eazy-E. The sample shows the vicious lyrics aimed at Eazy-E and the nature of his insults. I also believe that three samples should be used because they show the differing production styles on the album. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, NFCC#10C actually wants "a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item", but that's a minor concern so I'll strike (you should fix anyway, though). I remain concerned, however, that importance to the musician and importance to the album are distinct from importance to our understanding, the latter of which is the threshold for inclusion. Could not the "diss track" be described in prose? I suppose I don't see need for more than one to give us a reasonable understanding of the album's music. I won't change to oppose, but I'll leave the concern unstricken (if that's a real word) so others can weigh in. I'll defer to those more knowledgeable of this topic. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No fewer than three fair-use audio clips; and none of them is treated in terms of commentary on their musical and/or lyrical styles—whether they are representative of the artist (in what way?), or distinctive in relation to the genre. Beware the fair-use police, who will be happier if there's a more specific educational function. See our 10 criteria at WP:NFC. TONY (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Refs: acharts.us—how do we know that this is a reliable source of information? Ref 29 et al.—it's "MTV Networks", yes?
    • I have added parts concerning the songs lyrical and production styles to the sample section. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • 'aCharts.us' is an official music chart site. I don't understand what you mean by "Ref 29 et al.—it's "MTV Networks", yes?" - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
          • re. MTV - the publishers that say "MTV" should say "MTV Networks" (according to Tony...I personally think otherwise). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Please specify the full name of the site owner. TONY (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think the article can really be considered as comprehensive. Discussion about the impact and influence is relatively limited. In-depth analysis of the themes and musical innovations is missing. I think a more comprehensive comparison between reviews at the time and reviews in retrospect would be a natural addition. The focus in the discussion of the lyrics is on controversy: that's important to mention but there is only superficial analysis of the main themes, the influence of the album's lyrical focus in subsequent releases by Death Row artists. The references explain the relative superficial nature of the article: most are short articles in various magazines and newspapers but none are from books or scholarly work which can take the time to really analyze in depth the place of this important record in rap history. No doubt, it's a very nice article: well-written, informative, balanced. But comprehensive? I think that's a big stretch. Pichpich (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - is there a source for the "subliminal" insults mentioned in the lead? Is it really 'subliminal' insults or is it more 'implied'? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:03, 17 April 2008.

[edit] Punt (boat)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've put lots of work into it over the years and it now meets all the FA criteria (at least I think it does, but please let me have your honest opinions!) Thruston (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

All the links checked out. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: (ec) Too few inline citations, entire sections go unreferenced. Too many short stubby paragraphs. External links should not be in the prose of the text. In an article about England (mainly) why are the primary units in feet? In fact why are feet mentioned at all, shouldn't it all be metres? Per MoS, emdashes should go unspaced. Shouldn't this article be moved to "Punting in England"? indopug (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Object - lack of inline references. Too many external links bordering on spruiking various Punting organisations. Also, the quote taglines at the front of the seections are unencyclopedic. Blnguyen ([[U ser talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 06:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose – the sections are in casual-sistemation: links --> ext links --> bibliography --> notes. MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Image:Rivington-Punting-1983-Cover-art.jpg violates WP:NFCC#3A ("one [fair use image] is used only if necessary"). It is not necessary to "illuminate" references. Author, Title, Publisher, ISBN, etc. are all quite sufficient. Although moot, image is also not low resolution (NFCC#3B), does not appear to contribute significantly to our understanding (NFCC#8) and punt-related imagery thereon could be replaced with free alternatives (NFCC#1). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: thanks for these comments, it's great to have new eyes look at it. I'll slowly work on fixing some of these and wait a-while before pushing Punt (boat) above the FA parapet again.Thruston (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:03, 17 April 2008.

[edit] Force

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a core-topic myself and many others have worked very hard on. It is thorough, well-referenced, and represents an article that is better than practically any other I've found in any other encycloepdia. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise all the links worked and the sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I took care of everything but physics post which I think is a good source despite Tab Stevens being somewhat of a low profile and connexions which is a Rice University project and has a high degree of reliability. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably want to take those done graphics out, they really bog down the FAC page. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: "According to Newton's Second Law, the combination of all forces acting on a body (known as the net force or resultant force) is equal to the product of acceleration and the mass of the body.": can you confirm that in every case "the rate of change of linear momentum" is equivalent to acceleration? I heard that on a quantum/relativistic/modern physics level this needn't be true (I'm asking this because this isn't the way Newton himself proposed the law)? On another note, can the first and second paras of the lead be merged? It would make more sense that way; one para what a force is, the second the history of our understanding of force. There are entire paragraphs in the article without a single citation/reference. Please try to include at least one cite at the end of every paragraph for verifiability. indopug (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe what you may be refering to is the issue with relativistic particles that carry momentum despite the rest mass of such particles being zero. However, if you follow the formulations outlined in our section on special relativity, there is a clear indication of how the idea of "force" can be recast to deal with this. In such a situation the four-acceleration is directly relatable to the rate of change of the four-momentum through some proper time interval. I'll also point out that the way forces behave in quantum dynamics is outlined in the Feynman diagrams section and, for massive particles, always follows the same way. Some paragraphs in the article are basically common knowledge so it is hard to know what to cite. If you can indicate specific examples of facts you want to see cited that aren't, I will try to include them. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment References could use some formatting clean-up; they're inconsistent at the moment, and there are some random typos/errors that a copyedit would take care of. BuddingJournalist 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • I think this is a pretty good article for people who are physicists, it definitely needs some work for others to be able to understand. I took college level physics 5 years ago and I am having trouble in certain spots. What level of reader is this article directed at? The article seems to expect a certain level understanding for things like: Simple machines, General relativity, kinematics, momentum and many more.
      • What part of the FAC-criteria are you referring to with this questioning? We try to write a readable article. However, I don't know what is not understandable with the points you outline below. You must explain why you find things confusing or hard to understand or I cannot fix them. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Mention that the "Theory of impetus" was a precursor to momentum?
    • "Pre-Newtonian concepts" section only mentions the western world. Were there any notable force discoveries in the east?
    • Please state Newton's laws before discussing them. Right now it launches into discussions of things that the reader are supposed to know beforehand.
    • Awkward sentence "Accelerations can be defined through kinematic measurements while mass can be determined through, for example, counting atoms."
      • What's awkward about it? Seems straightforward to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The article doesn't clearly divide what is and isn't true anymore. For example impetus is mentioned as a "medieval idea" but it is not clearly refuted.
      • That's because impetus, as an idea, is not clearly refuted. Impetus is considered by some philosophers of science to be nascent inertia/momentum. Others see the mixing of imprecise terminology to be a problem. In any case, we cannot "refute" the idea in main part because medieval thinkers had not fleshed it out enough. That's a discussion for the impetus page. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "sometimes called the "second most famous formula in physics"." How is this relevant? Why is it called this? What is the most famous? Also blogs shouldn't be used as sources whenever possible.
      • There are a lot of people who call it this, that's just one example. It's a relevant comment about the equation. The most famous is E=mc2. Blogs are fine when they are written by reliable people with PhDs about the subjects in which they have their PhDs. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "which follows as a direct consequence of the caveat in Newton's First Law," which caveat?
    • Doesn't mention to the reader that Newtons laws work on only the macroscopic level.
      • Because that's false. It also works on the microscopic level if you apply the rules properly. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • why does this sentence have ticks around it? If it's a quote what's it quoting from? "'When a resultant force acts on an object of constant mass, an acceleration will result with the product of its mass and acceleration equal to the resultant force, the direction of the acceleration being in the same direction as that of the resultant force. F=ma'"
    • Why is there a link for "internal forces" Should that be describe on this page?
      • No. Internal forces are about system analysis. They have nothing to do with forces per se. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This sentence is overly complex and could be stated in a simpler manner: "As with other physical concepts (e.g. temperature), the intuitive notion is quantified using operational definitions that are consistent with direct perception, but are more precise and consistent with the conceptual definition of force offered by Newtonian mechanics."
    • I stopped at Descriptions. -Ravedave (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of your comments are ill-posed and not very helpful (that is, they aren't actionable as either I think that they are proposing edits which are problematic or I cannot tell what edits you are proposing). I hope that you can formulate them better as we proceed. Maybe giving some suggested wording, offering some questions, etc. I want the article to be readable, but we need to strike a balance between reaching a broad audience and extensive coverage. The FAC criteria require that we include as much relevant information as possible. That's what I tried to do.

If the article is to confusing to understand, perhaps you could offer some pointers on how to make it more understandable. So far, about six different people have read it and all see problems/solutions in places that are different from each other. I need to know what you are expecting out of a feature article if I am to accommodate your desires.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed from oppose to comment. No thanks.-Ravedave (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Abstaining for now. Fails Wikipedia:Explain jargon, which is required for featured articles. Both paragraphs of the lead are unreadable by anyone unfamiliar with physics. Compare with the opening paragraphs of the physics articles on Encarta or Britannica. The lead (at least) should be parsable by someone learning physics (think junior high school), not just people who already understand it and are familiar with the jargon. Kaldari (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • As I see it, there are two ways to address this comment. One is to try to rewrite the article explaining all the terminology. The other is to hope that the reader clicks on the wikilinks. If we use your approach, I'm afraid we will bog down the reader immediately. However, I can see why just wikilinking can look overwhelming. Perhaps you would like to propose an alternative wording so I can see what you are talking about? Comparing our introduction to Britannica or Encarta, I see we actually do a better job using precise formulations. Precision versus readability is an old problem at Wikipedia, as is audience determination. How do we make everyone happy? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that our lead is far more precise, however, what we gain in precision is small compared to what we lose in readability. Encyclopedia articles do not need to be written to the level of precision of a college textbook or academic paper. For example, in the first couple sentences I would say "an object" or "a body" instead of "a mass", "can cause" instead of "has the capacity to cause", "the acceleration of the body multiplied by the mass of the body" instead of "the product of acceleration and the mass of the body". I have no idea what the 3rd sentence means, so I can't help you with that (and I took college physics and calculus). I would remove the clause "In an extended body" from the 5th sentence (what's an "extended body" anyway?). I would change "intuitive misunderstandings" to just "misunderstandings" (what's an "intuitive misunderstanding"?). The second paragraph of the lead either needs to be less specific or needs a lot more explanation of the terms that are used. I'm a strong believer that the lead section of every article, no matter how technical, should at least be readable by someone in high school. You can get more detailed in the article body, however. And I realize a lot of the information can be parsed by following links, but there's no reason to make the text difficult to read when it doesn't have to be. Kaldari (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I fixed the first paragraph along the lines you propose. Before tackling the second paragraph, could you let me know what you think of the first pass? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
          • That is a big improvement already. Now I don't feel completely stupid when trying to read the lead section ;) With a bit more work on "dumbing down" the article text, I think I could change my Oppose to a Support. And by "dumbing down" I just mean using more common language when possible and trying to explain esoteric terms and ideas. Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Okay, good. I don't want to get stalled, however. I'm running out of ideas for how to explain these concepts any more clearly. Already I feel as if the discussion of Archimedes is getting redundant. Please help as much as you can. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The WP:Explain jargon page offers a potential solution in the form of a glossary at the end of the article. I haven't seen a page that uses this approach, but perhaps that would be beneficial in terms of not bogging down the flow (especially if wikilinks were also used)?—RJH (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, how exactly would a glossary work? Would we link to the glossary from the places in the text where the terminology was used or would we just have a glossary at the end and allow readers to read it there? Let me compare this article to another featured article that passed: redshift. Is that article better than this one? Why or why not? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Because of the (admittedly regrettable) colloquial definition of "massive" nowadays, can "massive" be cut from the first sentence to avoid the potential of misleading readers? BuddingJournalist 21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Sure. I'll try to redo it. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comment I agree with Kaldari - this lead is unreadable. I am working on a PhD in English literature, but I like to read popular science books in my spare time (!). This article, which addresses a key concept in physics, should be able to be understood by someone like myself, who wants to delve deeper into these topics. The lead is very off-putting because of the density of links and jargon. I haven't read the rest of the article, but I will in the next few days. I might note that when I listened to the MIT online physics lectures, this whole concept seemed much clearer. We can surely do better. Awadewit (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    I agree that the article should be readable by someone like yourself, but I need you to explain what I need to do in order for me to improve it. Please provide any help you can! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'm going to read over it and place my thoughts on the article talk page. I'll try to explain how an interested but rather uninformed person like myself reads the article. Awadewit (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    Exactly the data I need! Thank you so much! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'm going to have oppose for now, since the entire article is difficult to understand and the prose is poor in places. However, I have begun placing my comments on the talk page and I am willing to work with the editors to make the page more accessible. Awadewit (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    Update: I am working with the editors to make the prose more accessible. Awadewit (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm afraid, I'm with Awadewit on this one. I'd like to consider myself a reasonably intelligent layperson, but I couldn't get past the first three sentences. I wanted to dive in and edit, but got stuck. So here's the thing about those first three sentences:
    • Sentence one says: "Force is..." Sentence is about a "combination of forces." Then sentence three says "More precisely, force is..."
    • I would have thought that sentence three follows right on from sentence one. It is (literally) a precision of the opening statement. So I wondered if sentence two a) could be moved to after sentence three or b) could be eliminated altogether. I dived in...
    • ...and this is where I got stuck. I couldn't figure it out. What is the relationship between those three sentences?
  • OK, so if you want, call me a reasonably unintelligent layperson. But then when my eye wandered even further down the lead, the words started blurring before me.
  • (Oh, but I did get an "A" in Physics O-Level, so surely there's hope for me yet?! Help me out!  ;) ) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Wouldn't the second sentence be more comprehensible if it read: "The net effect of all the forces acting on a object divided by the mass of the object is equal to the acceleration of the object."--Grahame (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think the problem is with the individual sentences; it's how they fit together. Does that make sense?
        • I think you are confused with the fact that force is only defined when it is a net force. When the force is balanced with an equal and opposite force, the net force is zero and the situation becomes indistinguishable in a bare mechanics sense from a situation with no forces. However, whether forces exist when they are balanced is a semantics question. They do exist in the sense that the models for such forces follow the same definitions as the models for unbalanced forces and there are predictable results (at least from an engineering standpoint in equilbrium mechanics) as to how such forces interact. Still, it is technically not correct to say that a force must always result in an acceleration. Only unbalanced/net/all the combined forces on an object result in the net acceleration. The situation itself is complicated: complicated enough to confuse those receiving top marks in O-Level physics, I'd say. How we are to rectify this situation while maintaining readability and connection for a wide audience is the question. I understand your frustration, but your comment of "I don't get it" isn't actionable at this juncture. If you can figure out the nuances we need and propose a solution, I'll be happy to implement it or at least consider it. Right now, I'm not sure how to proceed with your criticism. 69.86.169.166 (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I dove in. I'm going slowly, and I'd be happy to do this on the talk page if you think it helps. If you think it doesn't, then so be it. It may be too agonizing for you. I apologize already. But let's try. I've moved on a sentence or two, and came up with the following suggestion for the first part of the lead:
In physics, a force is a push or pull that can cause an object with mass to accelerate.[1] So the key variables in calculating force are mass and acceleration: the combination of all the forces acting on a object is equal to the acceleration of the object multiplied by the mass of the object. More precisely, the force on an object is the amount an object's momentum (mass multiplied by velocity) changes as time elapses.[2] Because one of these key variables, momentum, is a vector (which means that it has direction as well as magnitude), forces must also be vectors.
Forces that act on three-dimensional objects may also cause rotation, deformation, or a change in pressure. Rotational effects are determined by the torques (the rotational equivalent of forces), while deformation and pressure are determined by the stresses that the forces create with respect to certain areas of the object.[3][4]
First, I'd like to know if I've "broken" anything. Have my changes introduced inaccuracies? I fear they might have, and this is why: rotation, deformation, or a change of pressure don't seem immediately to me to be instances of acceleration, and yet we started out defining force solely in terms of mass and acceleration. If these are instances of acceleration, then it might be useful to say so; if they indeed aren't, then the apparent contradiction should perhaps be explained.
Does this make sense? I do feel terribly bad that I am probably asking you to explain things that seem as obvious as saying that the sky is blue. But if you feel at all that we could make progress this way, then I'm happy to be your token idiot on whom to try out new formulations.
I should also say that I'm happy not to understand everything in this article. But I'd like to be able to understand more than I currently do. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it looks good to me. A few comments:
  1. Should the word "So" begin a sentence?
  2. Yes, rotations, deformations, and changes in pressure are all technically instances of accelerations, though they are rarely demarcated as such. I don't think mentioning this is necessary as by logical construction the reader should be able to figure it out (as you did, in fact. Even though these things didn't seem immediately to you to be accelerations, the prose led you in that direction.)
  3. I changed the bit about momentum and force to more accurately reflect the mathematics of the situation. This was the only technical inaccuracy introduced.
Please do not apologize for your lack of understanding. I am not upset by it in the least and am gratified that someone not understanding the article would want to work on it to make it more understanding to them. I am willing to spend the time it takes. I have been working on this article for over a year, so a few more days/weeks will not hurt. It's just good to get a few more eyes on it -- especially non-physicist ones.
ScienceApologist (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm relieved I didn't break anything. I would be happy to continue along these lines, probably better on the talk page, if you find it useful. I am withdrawing my "oppose." But right now, I need to go to bed, so will be back tomorrow. Oh, but I am happy to note that I'm personally fairly cavalier about beginning sentences with conjunctions such as "So." I recognize that others are more concerned about such things. And explicitness, where it does not become to ridiculous, would certainly help me. Thanks for this. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Question: Should it say "the net force on an object is the amount an object's momentum changes as time elapses" or "the net force on an object is equal to the amount an object's momentum changes as time elapses"? Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a distinction, but your comment made me realize that the wording about the time derivative of momentum was off. I fixed it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is an excellent article and one I enjoyed reading, but to achieve FA status even more hard work is needed. I know it has been said before, but readabilty will be a problem for many people. The problem begins with the second sentence of the Lead section which sets the tone for the whole article, (with the possible exception of the history). Force is well worthy of publication in a physics text-book, but not an encyclopedia. I feel really bad for being negative about such a good article. GrahamColmTalk 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    Ay ay ay! I wish there was something I could do to make it better! I feel like I'm not being given any pointers in what direction to go. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have posted my thoughts of a rewritten lead to the talk page (though this had not taken into account Vb's comments below) — BillC talk 21:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm ignoring Vb's comments as being a singular fringe perspective anyway. Emphasizing the fact that there is a degeneracy of definitions between force and inertial mass is not helpful. Trying to remove Newton's second law as a central point misses the very way forces are used in classical physics. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am very sorry but this article is not really correct and contains contradistinctions. Force is definitively not defined by Newton's second law (even if Landau states so). Though the text explains this in detail ("The use of Newton's second law as a definition of force has been disparaged in some of the more rigorous textbooks,[3][13] because it is essentially a mathematical truism)", this wrong understanding of the concept appeared once again in the lead. The first sentence is correct ("A force, in physics, is a push or pull that can cause an object with mass to accelerate.[1]"). The second one is false ("A more mathematically precise definition is that the combination of all the forces (also known as the net force) acting on an object is equal to the acceleration of the object multiplied by the mass of the object.") The text overtones the difference between the two formulations of Newton's second law F=ma and F=dp/dt. This difference has really nothing to do with the definition of force and, while it should be mentioned, it should not be so often repeated as if it were a common misunderstanding. On the other hand, the concept of mass in Newton's second law is not defined by "counting the atoms" (what is the mass of an atom?) but by the proportionality factor linking force and acceleration (if Newton's second Law is assumed). This is the inertial mass, i.e. a measure of the inertia of the body (that it can be interpreted as a measure of the amount of matter is sommeting utterly indepedent). I am ready to reread this article and maybe support it if:
    1. the concept of force is clearly defined without reference to Newton's second law.
    2. the concept of inertial mass is correctly used in relation with Newton's second law
    3. the difference between F=ma and F=dp/dt is less underlined (e.g. removed from the lead)

Vb (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry, this singular perspective has been advocated from time to time but is not supported by the majority of sources. Certainly the idea that inertial mass is inextricably connected to the definition of force is true, but it is simply not the case that Newton's second law does not define a force. We may not like the way it is defined by the majority of sources, but there you go. We cannot indulge the fantasies of people hoping to excise Newton from the definition of force. Also the distinction between F=ma and F=dp/dt is a perfectly reasonable one to make. One assumes constant mass, the other doesn't. I believe that this comment needs to be ignored. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This could all be resolved by editing the Lead, and dumping the second sentence. However, my general comments (above) would still apply. BTW, please do not call rational arguments "fantasies" -it's not helping. GrahamColmTalk 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Graham, if I came off as abrupt or if my use of the term "fantasies" was too pejorative. We've had some problems at the article with certain people wanting to reformulate definitinos and remove Newton almost entirely from the article on the basis that he is "wrong". This rather strident demand that we demote discussion of Newton because his definition is a truism seems to me to be fairly unbalanced: that almost every introductory text on physics uses Newtonian mechanics and the "truism" definition of force as a definitional framework is undeniable. Sure many texts disparage the concept, but they don't deny its utility and its empirical success. That's what matters here. I guess it was the statement that the article is "not really correct" that got to me. Hey, this sentiment basically flies in the face of the careful exploration and summary that was done of all the available reliable and verifiable sources over the last year in trying to get the article up to FA standard. Part of the reason we introduce Newton so stridently is because that's how force is treated in outside sources. It might be fun to rewrite the story of force so that Newton plays a backseat role, but I'm convinced such a treatment would be essentially original research. So, all I can say is read the archives of the talk page for more. I'll note also that this user struck a similar tone on the article earlier and made comments disparaging Newton -- claiming in fact that Newton knew he was wrong when he wrote down his second law (there's no evidence of this at all). I'll have you know that there is a small but adamant group of "disparage-Newton" activists who seem to think that on Wikipedia we should not use Newton's definitions for forces because they're somehow "wrong" (Despite the verifiability not truth threshhold). Their arguments are sometimes reasonable, sometimes impenetrable. See Talk:Force/Archive_3#Dissident_view, Talk:Force/Archive_3#Correct_definition_of_force, [[10]], and Talk:Force/Archive2#Enormousdude_Violates_WP:3RR.3F for examples. Basically, there are two ways we can handle this: use the traditional way introductory textbooks, encyclopedias, histories of science, or go along with the half-dozen or so people who for about four years have been hoping to get Newton's Laws basically removed from the force article. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No I don't advocate that Newton's second law should be removed from the article. I don't even state that Newton had a false definition of force. I simply say, as many "more rigorous textbooks,[3][13]" that Newton's second law is an empirical law which can be denied by experiment (see e.g. Modified Newtonian Dynamics). If it were a definition it could not. Newton's second law is a law of physics (as the name says) and not a definition of anything: it states that force is proportional to accelaration (if constant mass BTW) and that the proportionality constant is the inertial mass. Since force is a concept which is utterly independent of kinematics this is a law. If it weren't, it would be a truism as clearly said in this article. Vb 06:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.195.48 (talk)
You're using MOND to try to make your point? Puh-leeaze. Sure people can ask the question, "what if Newton's second law is wrong?" but so far no one has provided anything more than vague suppositions for it not being so. Trying to force (no pun intended) this issue is a violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
To make the point clear. Newton's second law is a bit like Ohm's Law, U=RI. It states that U is proportional to I. Both U and I are independent quantities which can be idependentlymeasured (just like force -with a dynamometer- and acceleration -via kinematic measurements). Ohm's law defines the proportionality factor R. Of course Ohm's Law can be improved. Everybody knows that the law is only valid for a given range of I an U. However Ohm's law is no way a definition of U! What I say here is basic physics and I am very surprised this is open to discussion. A good textbook on the topic is "the evolution of ideas in physics" by Einstein and Infeld where all those concepts are clearly explained from scratch. Vb 07:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
So your real point is that maybe some mass is not "ohmic" in the sense that maybe the acceleration and force are not in a linear regime. Fine. Except, this is a minority opinion -- so minority that it hardly gets mention in the sources. Remember, we are bound by WP:RS and WP:V -- not by technical accuracy. Also, if you believe the equivalence principle -- I mean REALLY believe it -- then Newton's Law regains its status as a flat definition. While theorists play with the equivalence principle a lot, there are no experiments to date which deny this. In fact, the equivalence principle has been tested to such an extent that we might say that it is one of the best measured phenomena in all of physics. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No It is not my point at all. It is a question of principle. Newton's second law is called like it is and not Newton's second definition for a good reason. It is because it is a postulate, an axiom of classical mechanics - which can be tested by experiment. It is not a definition - which

cannot. This is just as Ohm's law is a postulate of linear electrical theory. It is not at all a definition of electric potential! I am not a supporter of MOND theory and I don't want to stress such an exception in this article. There are other examples where the relation between force and acceleration becomes non linear: For example the special relativity still sticks to the concept of force with the same definition as in classical physics even if Newton's second law is not valid in this context. Vb 15:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Comment: For ease of reading shouldn't the section on Newton's Third Law state "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction", not just express this as a formular.--Grahame (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I thought long and hard on this one. The problem is that we don't define action (physics) in our article due to the fact that we don't delve deeply into Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics. While this statement of Newton's Third Law is technically correct, in terms of forces it is much simpler than that. The problem is that people often misinterpret Newton's third law because the statement you outline as the famous example is missing two important pieces: a discussion of action being a proxy for force and a discussion of the fact that there needs to be two distinct objects in the system before Newton's Third Law applies. These two strict requirements for Newton's Third Law are essential and that's why I didn't include the wording you propose. In point of fact, it is included at the article on Newton's Third Law, but I think for purposes of an article on force we should stick to Newton's Third Law's implications for forces and not be too concerned about the normal wording that people know and love since that isn't directly relevant to the question of forces. If people are confused, let them research Newton's Third Law in more detail. This is my 2 cents. YMMV. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reluctant oppose I feel bad for having to oppose this article, since the authors clearly lavished a lot of care and thoughtful attention to it, and I agree with many of their perspectives. It's hard, I think, to cover any technical subject completely while keeping the prose intelligible and "brilliant", especially if you're not getting unambiguous suggestions.

The writing seems rough and uneven, although that may be because the authors are having to please too many people; too many cooks and all that. My real worries are that the article does not cover its subject completely/accurately and includes tangential subjects that might be better as a minor subsection. Admittedly, I'm no expert, but here would be my suggestions for improving the article:

  • My impression is that the article would benefit from sticking to one conception/definition of "force", and explain that really well, and not try to cover minor definitions, extensions and other usages of the word "force" in great detail. Specifically, I think the authors should stick to the vector force F = dp/dt used in the classical Newtonian mechanics of particles and rigid bodies. That's hard enough to explain, and provides a natural scope for the article, a bite-size morsel that everyone could digest.
  • As a technical point, I think F = dp/dt is more accurate than F=ma, since it allows the mass of the body to change as well. I say this as someone who just moved a wheelbarrow while it was raining. ;)
  • Remaining for the moment with classical mechanics, I think it's important to note that Newton's vectorial force-momentum approach to classical mechanics is not the only way. As I'm sure you know, there are several alternative approaches — the field of analytical mechanics — that don't use forces, but scalar functions and a variational principle. The principle of least action is maybe the most famous, but there's also several others, such as the Hamilton-Jacobi equation or Gauss' principle of least constraint. The concept of force is not essential to classical mechanics. That said, you might mention the special advantages of the Newtonian approach, e.g., great for frictional forces, usually used for molecular dynamics simulations, etc.
  • Forces seem most appropriate when talking about particles and rigid bodies? For fields, fluids and deformable solids, it seems as though pressure (and, more generally, the stress tensor) are more fundamental than force; well, at least they seem to be the goal of calculations, and the net force is calculated from them. You might consider having a special section devoted to the extrapolation of the force concept to continua via pressure/stresses.
  • The extension of force and acceleration to special relativity is OK, but I'm worried that people are going to think that they actually get used on a regular basis. There's the related problem that people get all confused about what definition of mass to use. I'd just devote a sentence or two to it, mentioning that a four-force can be defined but is rarely used, the four-momentum being preferred.
  • I think the "four fundamental forces" and the Feynman diagrams are misleading and will confuse most lay-readers. As far as I know, vectorial Newtonian forces and accelerations are never used in theoretical quantum field theory or indeed in any form of quantum mechanics. The focus there seems to be on scalar quantities such as energy, or more generally four-momentum. I think that's why scientists seem to prefer to call them "interactions", even if the popular press insists on calling them "forces". Perhaps you could put such non-Newtonian definitions of "force" into a special section?
  • A FA about force should talk about how classical forces are measured experimentally and also how we perceive force (well, actually, pressure) physiologically.
  • The treatment of centripetal force is ambiguously worded and doesn't make clear that the centripetal force is not a physical force in its own right, but rather a force requirement, namely, the force required for a mass m to move at speed v in a circle of radius r. Any physical force can supply the wants of that force requirement; an object can move in that that circle due to a magnetic field force, tension in a string, a spring force, gravity, etc.
  • Consistent with the historical development, I think more attention should be given to the equilibrium of forces and maybe how that led to D'Alembert's principle. That might tie in nicely to the discussion of analytical mechanics?
  • You mention the machines of the ancient world, but it'd be nice to have a whole section on the multiplication of force: you know, how levers work, how pulleys work, how jacks work, etc. Our readers might want to lift a heavy rock out of their garden, or their engine out of their car, or jack up a corner of their house. :) It'd be good to enlighten them on how that works.
  • If you're going to give examples of macroscopic forces, you might consider giving some examples of microscopic or even intermolecular forces, such as van der Waals forces. You could have a cool picture of a gecko climbing up glass as an illustration! :) There are also faux forces that derive at least partly from entropy, such as the elastic force of a rubber band or "hydrophobic forces". of course, it's worth emphasizing that some popular formulae for intermolecular forces/interactions, such as the Lennard-Jones potential, are just approximations of a more complicated quantum-mechanical potential.

I'm sorry that I can't be more supportive, but I'm sympathetic and willing to help, not just make a bazillion criticisms. I really appreciate everyone's hard work on the article, and hope that these comments are somehow helpful. Willow (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, this is something I can sink my teeth into. Maybe the problem is that we have too broad of an article? We might be able to slough off some of the extra ideas into daughter articles. I'm going to think about your organizational suggestions and try to make some grand changes soon. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment It might be worth splitting force into Force and Introduction to Force, as has been done with Introduction to quantum mechanics/quantum mechanics. -Ravedave (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:03, 17 April 2008.

[edit] The Wiggles

previous FAC (18:16, 18 February 2008)

Nominator --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Australia's "richest entertainers."" - this should be a statement rather than a quote
This was a quote directly from the source, but I can see how it can be redundant, so I deleted the phrase. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

*"seventeen gold, twelve platinum," - 2 links to the same article

  • "the touring company" - first mention of this...you called them a band until now. Clarify
Done.
  • Paul Paddick should be listed in the infobox as a member, I think
I believe this has already been discussed, probably in its GAN, but I can't find it. Paddick, as important as he is to The Wiggles organisation, is not a full member of the group, and came along a few years after the group was formed. Capt. F was created right off, but played by Anthony at first. The SMH article about him ("Master of Sword Play") makes this point very clear: Paddick is an employee of the organisation, much like Sam Moran was as a Wiggly dancer and understudy before he replaced Greg. So no, he shouldn't be listed in the infobox. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Have to agree with Figure. While Paddick is a major persona, he is not considered part of the core group. He's generally introduced first among the friends.Balloonman (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • References - all publishers that are newspapers (New York Times, SMH, etc.) need to be in italics
Done, replaced publisher perimeter in templates with work. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

*"before returning to school" - school or university? Applies throughout this section

  • The audio samples in the Origins section should go in a box...I forget the code for it, but Odyssey Number Five is/has an example which you can copy paste. Also, these audio samples need descriptions (again, that article has examples)

Done, by Efe, thanks. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • "Fatt replied, "How long will it take?"" - what relevance does this have? Kinda confusing

But it's such a great quote, and so Jeff. But I deleted it and made the language more formal: Needing a keyboardist, Field asked his old band mate, Fatt, for his assistance in they thought would be a temporary project.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • A photo with all 4 of them doing the fingers would be great. But it'd need to be free - can't rationalise it when you have the other free one. :(

Yup. This is the third time I've said this, but the guys need to come close enough to where I live so that I can go to one of their meet-and-greets before a concert (which I'm entitled to, since my kids are disabled) with a camera and say, "Hey guys, everyone stand together and do that finger-wagging move so I can put it in your WP article!" ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • "Anthony Field arranged with the ABC" - just refer to him using surname
Done, see below.
  • "song writing sessions for a month each summer " - which year was this in...I'm getting a bit confused! :)
Clarifed; their song writing session occured each summer once a year.

*"was created by Cook after seeing professional" - don't need to wlink his name --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the Greg Page's retirement section should be put somewhere within the Success at home and abroad section, and be followed by a "Sam Moran era" section or something...otherwise you get confused when it talks about Moran before saying that Page left
Excellent suggestion. The other problem with this section is that it has the potential to be terribly long and unwieldy as we get further in time from Greg's retirement, so I think a new section is necessary. I also created a subsection, "Greg Page retirement", to make things more clear. There are a few times when Moran is mentioned in previous sections (like his quote about Jeff's schtick, and the finger-wagging image), but I think that's appropriate. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

*"Cook gave the" - again, don't wlink the names here

    • And in general, try and be a bit more careful with that sort of thing - using full names rather than surnames, etc. It's tough, I know!
  • Especially with this article, since the guys are all known by their first names on stage and in the media. There is one exception to this rule, and the reason for it is well documented. See Talk:The_Wiggles#Remaining_FAC_feedback, fourth point down. In the "Early career section", when talking about their stage personnas (their colors and schticks), the decision was made to use their first names because the prose just didn't work and didn't flow well the other way. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Try and not quote so much in the Page leaving section
Improved, I think.

*Last paragraph of that section needs sources for the quotes

  • Any of the redlinks notable?
There was one left, and I deleted it. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: Please check links; at least one appears dead. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I fixed the audio files because it break the paragraphs. Please add caption to those files in relation to the discussions in that section to make its use fair. --Efe (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the changes I made fulfill this requirement. Using the above as an example, I made the files' captions more specific and descriptive. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
There is still no caption added in the audio sample box...and why in the "origins" section? --Efe (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The tone of voice of this article is simply not encyclopedic. The frequent use of direct speech gives it a fanzine flavour. Here are some examples:

  • Field, to test out the effect of their music on children, gave a copy of their album to one of his young students; the child's parent returned it, saying, "Take the tape back! It's driving me nuts!" because her child had listened to "Dorothy the Dinosaur" 40 times.
  • Needing a keyboardist, Field asked his old band mate, Fatt, to help. Fatt replied, "How long will it take?"
  • The Wiggles reported being turned down by a Sydney booking agent, who told them, "How am I going to make money out of four men singing children's songs? ... There'd be no money in it for me and there'd be no money in it for you. It's not a really good idea." They began to tour full-time in 1992.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 07:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think the author needs to fix these passages. Its really not good; they add nothing or little to the meaning. If these quotes really make sense, it would be better to re-word to remove quotations, as in direct sentence. --Efe (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. One of the challenges of this kind of article is that it's about a children's music group, and there are all these great quotes and antedotes out there. It's hard deciding which gems to use, and how to use them. One quote, from Anthony, was so great I put it on my user page: "I'm not even my own kids' favorite Wiggle." It was obviously not appropriate for this article, though. And that's unfortunate, 'cause it's such a great quote. ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you haven't done it (well, at least, not thoroughly enough) so my oppose remains in place. The article is still peppered with quotes of dubious merit. ("The Wiggles music isn't all that far removed from what we did in The Cockroaches, just a different subject matter".) This is supposed to an encyclopedic article not an interview :) The best advice here, I guess, is "murder your darlings". That is, lop out the bits you regard as your finest and most eloquent prose, and replace them with clear concise everyday English. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning behind this oppose, but I disagree with it. Here's why: I have changed some of them because I agreed that they didn't help the article's quality, but I think that we need to retain what's now there because they exhibit the spirit of this group. Every quote and antecdote is verifiable, and told by the group's members. Plus, they aren't that much different than what's on other FA articles. I was able to find two examples, and I'm sure there are more.
Example #1: R.E.M., which has been brought up as an example of a FA about a musical group, and something I should follow.
Of the van, friend-of-the-band Jane Pratt explained: "It had no seats in the back, and they would put all of their equipment in the back. When they would stay at hotels, three of them would go into one room, two would go in the other but they would keep rotating so that one person slept in the van, that was pretty much the plan."[9] "When you live in a van together for about five years, you get real close," joked Berry.[9]
Example #2: Sesame Street. BTW, this article has inspired me to improve The Wiggles. It proves that even an article about a children-focused entertainment entity can have a high quality article on WP.
Educator Sister Mary Mel O'Dowd worried that the show might start to replace "personalized experiences". "If Sesame Street is the only thing ghetto kids have, I don't think it's going to do much good. It never hurts a child to be able to count to 10 or recognize the 26 letters of the alphabet. But without the guidance of a teacher, he'll be like one of our preschoolers who was able to write 'CAUTION' on the blackboard after seeing it on the back of so many buses, and told me 'That says STOP.'"[34]
So I disagree that the quotes and anecdotes included in this article make it not encyclopedic. As a result, I request that this oppose be withdrawn, or if not, a compelling reason be given for it to remain. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'm not much fussed about the content of other featured articles; my focus now is on this one and whether I think it exemplifies Wikipedia's best work. One of the requirements for a featured article is that it is written to a professional standard. This article fails that criterion because it is written in a style more suitable for a tabloid interview or a fly-on-the-wall documentary. The tone of voice, the register, is inappropriate for an encyclopic entry and that is because this article is heavily interlaced with quotes broadly of a trivial nature. I note what you say but for as long as you continue to fail to respond to an actionable request, my opposition will remain in place. This issue can only be resolved to my satisfaction with a radical copy-edit to reduce the emphasis on quotes. --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
And I rechecked them as well. Thanks.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominator Support, of course. I believe that every single comment and suggestion has been considered and followed, all in good faith. This article has been thoroughly copyedited once, had three peer reviews, been through the GAN process twice before it passed, and been through a FAN three times now. It has had lots of input and feedback. I believe that it is now ready for FA-status. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment

:* Some dates in the footnotes need linking

  • Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "1.5 million children", "15 years" Additional eyes may be needed in case I missed something. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Logical quotation should be used, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks.
I believe this is completed. The issue is that WP MOS is different than my own style, so it's been difficult to follow it. More eyes could be used to ensure it's consistent. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed by placing images on the right, as per MOS cited above. The only exception was the NASA image, which I placed on the left to follow this guideline, since the guys' eyes are looking to the right: Wherever possible, images of faces should be placed so that the face or eyes look toward the text, because the reader's eye will tend to follow their direction. Portraits with the face looking to the reader's right should therefore be left-aligned, looking into the text of the article.
  • Common terms do not need linking, eg. "music", "videos", "Christmas", "roses". Epbr123 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. If I missed any, I apologise and again ask for additional eyes. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Object - the tone is unencyclopedic, especially in the section at the bottom for the characters. "Wags is a tall, brown, furry dog with floppy ears and a happy face" "Captain Feathersword, "the friendly pirate", wears a hat, patch, and puffy shirt" etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition, some of the one line paras at the end need to be merged or expanded. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, please remember the subject of this article. Every description of the characters in this article is accurate and verifiable, a difficult thing to do with children's characters. I suppose I could have included the characters descriptions on the Playhouse Disney site, but they're horrible and definately unencyclopedic. As I did above, I refer you to Sesame Street. IMO, one way that article is lacking is that it doesn't include references in its description of its characters. There is a single one-line paragraph at the end of The Wiggles Characters section, the line about Wags the Dog, because it was the only verifiable statement about Wags that I was able to find.

Problems

  • Matt Damon—if you format it correctly, you might get it to link to the article rather than show in red. Ah, it's another Matt Damon—better start a stub article and do a disambiguation; does he have a distinguishing middle name or some such? Same with the other redlink?
  • "Top 4000 ts"—ts is what?
The above two items were vandalism, which has been reverted.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair-use justification: I find it inadequate. If there's an educational function (as required), it's unclear in the main text. What is it about the settings that makes them suitable for children? What did they do to the original Cockroaches songs, musically and in terms of the lyrics? And how is the educational function of the Wiggles's songs achieved. More details, analysis, required. I don't see that the sources have this information. TONY (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I have concerns about comprehensiveness. There are also a few prose issues and many quotations that are not directly cited.

  • Question on the timeline: Was the first self-titled album created before the stuff that happened in the second paragraph of the Origins section? I found it a little odd that it mentioned the "self-titled album" but took another paragraph to explain where the name came from.
  • I thought "songwriting" was one word
  • Need a citation for the quote here "Their songs combined "fun with educational messages" that were accessible to parents and children." (even if the next sentence cite covers it, just in case someone inserts another fact in the middle)
  • I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but this appears to be a bit of a contradiction in these 2 sentences "The Wiggles were musicians, "a rock band, pure and simple".[1] They were not tied to one style or genre of music"
  • Go through the article and watch for unnecessary repetition within sentences and paragraphs. (Ex: "Cook, as a guitarist, was conscious that he was probably the first guitarist children would see" two "guitarist" refs?) (Ex 2 :They have been awarded with several music industry awards in Australia")
  • "The Wiggles wrote new music each year since their inception; three albums worth of original children's music, drawing upon several genres of music and types of instruments, were written during marathon song writing sessions for a month each summer and were based on simple concepts familiar to young children" - Does this mean the wrote three albums total or that they wrote three albums a year each year since 1991?
  • This is a pretty broad claim "Fatt reported that children with autism "respond to [The] Wiggles and nothing else"." - I think that this might need to be more specific
  • Need citation for the quotation here "For a few years during the late 90s, while "riding an enormous wave of success in America and the UK", The Wiggles travelled in two planes and on two buses so that if disaster occurred, "at least half of them would survive and carry on". After "
  • Need citation for quotes: "Their "strong connection" with the US was "forged in the shell-shocked weeks after the terrorist attacks on New York in 2001," when The Wiggles travelled to America to perform despite the "stated risks".
  • Need a cite for the quotes: "n "one of the highlights of their 15 years of being together", The Wiggles were awarded honorary doctorate degrees from the Australian Catholic University in recognition of "their outstanding contribution to early child development" in 2006. "
  • This sentence makes it sound like the kids would want them to disband "The Wiggles "struggled" over their decision to replace Page, but they decided not to disband because they thought that was what their young audience would want."
  • The tone of this is off a bit - it reads like an ad from the Wiggles "Dorothy is a "rososaurus", a "yellow-spotted green dinosaur with surprisingly scary teeth".[34] She lives in a beautiful pink and purple house with her own Rosy Orchestra and a rose garden in her backyard. She loves to eat roses and dance the ballet.[34] She enjoys serving guests rose-derived treats such as "rosy tea".["
  • Need a citation for the quotes: "Ferrie described Dorothy as "a dinosaur superstar ... very open, friendly, and warm. She is like a mother figure even though she is only meant to be five, and kids really respond to her ... She is calm and mothering but friendly as well. She's young and still playful but has got a motherly feeling to her". "
  • Need a cite for quotes "Ferrie insisted that Dorothy "is number one after the boys including Captain Feathersword, in terms of who kids say they love""
  • This ref does not have a publisher listed: Bourgeau, Michel. "Play your guitar with Murray" (DOC). Retrieved on 2007-08-06.
  • Overall in the article there is an overemphasis on quotes.
  • There is no section about critical response. Have there been no reviews of their music? Have there been any controversies about the group?

Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:25, 16 April 2008.

[edit] The Bhoys from Seville

Nominator,I have (and a few other people) have been working on this page and i now believe it meets the standard to be a featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobo6balde66 (talk • contribs) 01:50, April 15, 2008

Withdrawn ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobo6balde66 (talk • contribs) 16:17, April 16, 2008

  • Strong object- suggest withdrawal - There are a lot of problems with this article.
  • There are many single sentence paragraphs. Many short paragraphs.
  • The lead is too short and does not accurately summarise the article.
  • Inconsistent presentation, eg UEFA and Uefa
  • Succession box placed in teh middle of the article
  • Some unsourced standalone paragraphs
  • References not filled in properly, some incomplete and some inconsistently.
  • Matches need more detail as well

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly suggest withdraw - a number of paragraphs lack citations, expansion tag on one section, many short stubby paragraphs. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strongly urge withdrawal: Images are fine, but article was brought to FAC with cleanup banner - prima facie indication that proper preparation and consideration of FA criteria has not been undertaken. My concerns echo those already presented (stubs, insufficient lead, missing references, etc.) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose — a stub-section + the prose isn't fantastic; please delete the image in the incipit. MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 18:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:56, 16 April 2008.

[edit] 2007 United Kingdom floods

Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because it details a real life event and covers all areas of this. It also has relevant media and has 178 references to support the article. SimpsonsFan08 talk contribs 21:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination, if that's possible SimpsonsFan08 talk contribs 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There's a lot of good information here, and I applaud the effort that's gone into this article, but it would be better reformatted and submitted as a featured list. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Object per MF. The article is basically a list of dot points cobbled together with no cohesive structure and overview of the nature of the floods. The other issue is that the article has many one sentence paragraphs and also has lacks an integrated approach in dealing with the response to the floods; this is too much like a casualites list. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Way too many one-sentence paragraphs and one-sentence sections. More similar to a timeline article than an article. Also, I'd like to see more sources from places other than BBC. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:50, 16 April 2008.

[edit] Virginia

Self-nomination after good article status and three peer reviews. Patrick Ѻ 12:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
All the other links checked out with the link checker. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, I'll look into finding what we can. Some of those I would trust, like adherents and netstate because of their effort to source all their information. The Jewish Encyclopedia was the better of two alternatives, and seeing that its sourcing a 18th century date, I don't know what a newer source does for us. Likewise, the CE cites the movement of the capital, for which I find it reliable. Still, I'll have a look through tonight.--Patrick Ѻ 09:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so the only sites listed above currently used in the article are the Jewish Encyclopedia, adherents.com, techsideline.com, and baconsrebellion.com. Baconsrebellion.com has a source from Kansas University following it, that would give some coverage, but the article is not really an opinion piece. Other sentences have been changed to follow from the source, such as the top tourist destination and the Scots-Irish. Hope this helps.--Patrick Ѻ 21:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Statemaster.com is used for their statistics in Minnesota and Oklahoma, the two US state featured articles, which I looked to for some sources. Data have government sources listed, and I will see if I can locate the original source, though I don't believe it is necessary.--Patrick Ѻ 22:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Per policy, images should be properly placed within sections to not sandwich texts. --Efe (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a, 2a, POV. Prose issues throughout; puffery in the lead and elsewhere. Is it from the governor's public relations department?

  • Right at the top, this sentence contains two quite separate ideas: population and area. A comma is needed: "Virginia is the 12th-most populous state in the U.S. with over 7.7 million residents and the 35th largest in area."
  • "the third largest state highway system"—I didn't follow up the source (shouldn't have to): does this mean in terms of road-length? Traffic flow? Highway length per capita?
  • This claim that the V govt is the most efficient—um, I've learnt to be suspicious of reports such as the one this is based on (Governing Magazine and the Pew Center on the States): who knows whose pockets who is pissing in. Of course the Governer praised the report. And what exactly does "efficiency" mean? The explanation in the source doesn't convince me that a sweeping claim such as that should be made, let alone in the lead.
  • "Virginia has a diverse economy with several important industries, from the federal government in Northern Virginia and military bases in Hampton Roads to the many agricultural areas." Um, government offices, military bases and a bit of agriculture doesn't sound like "a diverse economy" to me. OK, you let more out of the bag later in the para, but the sentence doesn't hold up well as a stand-alone topice-theme at the opening of an important para. "The many agricultural areas"? Have you mentioned them in the preceding part of the lead? Why "the"?
  • More puffery in the lead: top ... leading ... strength ... large ...

At random: "thirty-fifth largest state"—so there are at least 35 largest states? Why not "35th-largest"? "does not extend past the low-water mark of the southern shore of the Potomac River, meaning Maryland and"—don't like "meaning" here.

Please find collaborators from the edit histories of good articles on similar topics. TONY (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a rework to qualify for among our best work.

Thank you for your criticism, it does mean more coming from good editors. I will correct the issues raised as well as I can on FAC. I do understand the lead should be a short summary of the article best points, and need not exist in vacuum, though the language can be toned town. However, if I misunderstand you on this next point, please correct me: are you insinuating the the Pew Center on the States, part of the Pew Research Center and run by the same folks as The Pew Charitable Trusts, is not to be trusted for their research because of bribery? I think that's quite unfounded.--Patrick Ѻ 11:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Object 1a - I have been sampling the "Health" section and have changed one sentence with an obvious problem. Other problems
"Notable examples include Inova Fairfax Hospital, the largest hospital in the Washington Metropolitan Area, the Medical College of Virginia (MCV), the medical school of Virginia Commonwealth University, which is home to the nation's oldest organ transplant program, and the University of Virginia Medical Center, part of the University of Virginia Health System, which according to U.S.News & World Report has the eight ranked endocrinology specialty in the nation, and the best in the South." - very very long sentnece
"Virginia is twenty-third among United States in both percentage of residents who exercise and in the rate of pre-mature deaths" -> "Virginia is the 23rd ranked state in the pre-mature deaths and percentage of people who exercise."
MOS - use 23rd 25th etc. Also, does 1st in this instance mean most deaths or least deaths?
Is that private health insurance?
"Virginia is unique among most states" - can't be unique if it is only unqiue among most...also move "as of 2007" to the front.

I am expecting further roughage in the rest of the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:50, 16 April 2008.

[edit] Janet Jackson

  • Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because... the article has recently passed GAN and has received a PR. I believe the article meets FA criteria. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  • The main image of Janet is going to be deleted. --Efe (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment The "Personal Life" section should be integrated into the rest of the biography. The whole secret marriage bit might be hard to integrate, but the first few sentences about her upbringing can simply be cut and pasted at the beginning of the bio section, word for word. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Commment: The lead seems to be a collection of sales, awards, nominations and certifications rather than an overview of her life and career. For example, am I overlooking it or is Nipplegate missing from the lead?! Also could you please tell me how each of those six non-free screenshot images significantly contribute to the article, rather than just being cosmetic? I think for it to qualify for fair-use on Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken, the prose of the article must discuss whats going on in those pics. Shouldn't there be a musical style section? indopug (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Commment: First can we have a little more professionalism, there is no need to call it nibblegate. I think that might break a whole number of policies. Realist2 (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Which ones, could you point them out to me? indopug (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM for one, which is why it was removed from the LEAD in the first place. the LEAD does in fact give a decent overview of her entire career mentioning all of her works in television, music and film. I honestly fail to see anything wrong with the LEAD as it stands now. As for the images, the section in which each image appears does discuss the image. Can you be more specific? Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The superbowl incident also falls under WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because it happened recently doesn't make it a case of recentism. The incident gathered more press and media coverage than any of Janet's songs/album/movies. The event transcended the boundaries of the entertainment sphere and even popular culture; the "wardrobe malfunction" became a part off national consciousness. Heck, I'm from opposite side of the world, and the incident made it to the front page of my newspaper.
For the screenshots, I think the article has to specifically discuss what is going on in that scene (that has been screenshotted). In other words, the images need to be there for more reason than "this is how she looked in the movie". I'll ask Elcobbola, the resident fair-use expert, to weigh-in on the matter. indopug (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the Super Bowl incident is covered sufficiently, just by glancing at the article. And as someone who was born in 1983 and grew up during Janet Jackson's career peaks, I can say from an OR point of view that the success of Rhythm Nation and her appearance on the cover Rolling Stone to promote Janet got just as much attention, if not more, than this incident. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article isn't comprehensive or not well divided into particular topics/sections, jumbles subjects in each para, etc.

  • comment: I have to disagree. I fail to see how the article is not comprehensive and jumbled. Can you give specific examples? Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I said "or" so it does not necessarily mean not comprehensive. I was referring to the legacy and I think you split it now. --Efe (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The first para of the Legacy sections seems not a legacy, and some parts of it.
  • Instead, it could be public image, like how she handle herself as an artist and as a member of Jackson family.
  • Jacksons are said to be creative, so it would be better to put a section devoted to her artistry, style, etc.
  • Indo is right, the lead seems too focused about her achievements.
  • comment: As opposed to what exactly? Her personal life is not significant because it garners no media coverage. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Its too much. Just state the most imprtant and notable achievement. --Efe (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency: #25, no.13, number 20.
  • Both Dupri and Jackson later joined the Universal Music Group label Island Records. (remove both)
  • Billboard in Billboard 200 and Billboard Hot 100 should be in italics.
  • "Most Searched in Internet History," and the "Most Searched for News Item," (commas should be written outside the quotation marks)
  • Some parts are unsourced. Very surprising that with this very huge article, sources do not reach 100, or above. Unless if there is a single source that is being heavily relied on.
  • comment: there are a number of sources which have multiple use in the article. No one source is relied on for the bulk of the entire article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Also, I wouldn't consider the article huge. The ave featured article is supposed to be around 60 kilos. JJ is currently 69. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • They should be properly sourced; at least, readers can trace where these informations can be found. --Efe (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "With U" was the third and final single off the album but because of low album sales and lack of airplay, Virgin Records did not make a music video to support it.
    • 20 Y.O. was eventually certified platinum, but sold less than its predecessor Damita Jo. 20 Y.O. was nominated for a Grammy for Best Contemporary R&B Album but did not win the award. 9Is this a full sentence? somethings missing)
  • comment: Those are two separate sentences. The period after Damita Jo is not part of the albums title.

Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    • It needs to be rephrsed. Seems confusing. --Efe (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The release of 20 Y.O. satisfied Jackson's contract with Virgin.

--Efe (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: From the lead section "Jackson's Control, Rhythm Nation 1814, and janet. led her to become the only recording artist to ever score five or more top ten singles from three consecutive albums,[2] which include "Control," "Rhythm Nation," "Black Cat," "Love Will Never Do (Without You)" and "Again." What is the reason/significance of the 5 hit singles mentioned? Are they more notable than the other hit singles from these albums? Rossrs (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Again" was nominated for an academy award for best original song, while "Black Cat" is Janet's only song written entirely by herself, in addition to being her sole Rock genre single, which became a number one hit single on the Hot 100 and on the Rock singles chart. Control, Rhythm Nation and Love Will Never Do (Without You) are considered to be some of Janet's signature songs. All five songs mention are either number one hot singles or reached at least number 5 on the Hot 100. each song is discussed to an extent within the body of the article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks very random and I think that is a problem. For example why not mention "What Have You Done For Me Lately" because it was her first major hit, or "That's the Way Love Goes" because it was number one for so many weeks? "Signature hits" is very much a matter of opinion - there seems to be nothing more significant about "Control" + "Rhythm Nation" + "Love Will Never Do" than "Miss You Much" + "Nasty" + "All For You". It is POV and I think it should be removed. Rossrs (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Calling it POV is a bit much, its simply examples of hits from those consecutive albums, but I have adjusted it. What Have You Done For Me Lately (Control) + Black Cat (Rhythm Nation) + Again (janet.). Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Calling it POV is not "a bit much". It's entirely accurate. What, aside from your own opinion, leads you to give those three, or any three, examples? It's an arbitrary list and it's given undue weight by placing it in the infobox without explanation or context, and anyone reading it could be forgiven for thinking that these are her most notable songs, when this is not the case. The list is so arbitrary that you were able to change it with one edit, and any other editor could just as easily change it to suit their taste, with one more edit. It does not belong in the lead and it needs to be removed completely. Rossrs (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I can see your point. it has been removed. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it's a very good article. I'm still reading through it ..... Rossrs (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've reworded a few bits, but the changes are not major. Another sentence that needs to be rewritten in my opinion - " In 1991, Jackson secretly entered into her second marriage with dancer, songwriter and director René Elizondo; a marriage which remained secret until Elizondo filed for divorce in 2000." I think it's awkward, partly because the word "secret/secretly" is used twice. I'm not even sure "secret" is the right word. There is a big difference between "private" and "secret" and surely those close to the couple would have known, just nobody that didn't need to know. I can't think of a way or rewriting it, but I wonder if you could think about it, and see if you can do something with it. Rossrs (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Most media coverage of her relationships (including the references in the article if I'm not mistaken) refer to both of Jackson's marriages as "secret" because both times Janet made serious effort to conceal her marriage from public eye- something she has stated herself on a few recent interviews. I'll try to reword it, but i don't see a huge issue with the word "secret" or private- but, at the very least there should be some acknowledgement that she attempted to keep her relationship out of the public eye. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Fair enough. I agree "secret" is appropriate (as long as it's used once and not twice) It looks much better. Rossrs (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: criterion three concerns. Article has superfluous use of six fair use images and eight audio samples, none of which appear supported by policy. NFCC#3A requires minimal usage ("As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.")
    • Image:Janet jackson good times.jpg: why is identification of this "signature character" necessary (WP:NFCC#3A) and what is its significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8)? Seemingly telling is that article prose makes no mention of the "signature" Penny character; if character is indeed a "signature", implication is that article is not comprehensive (FA criterion 1B).
    • Image:Poeticjustice Janet.jpg, Image:Nuttyprofessor2.jpg and Image:Whydidigetmarried.jpg. How is illustration of a first role or staring roles necessary for us to understand Jackson herself, her acting career or her participation in those films? What significant contribution do they make to our understanding? Images do not depict unique expression, makeup or costume; it seems any need to provide visual identification of Jackson could be accomplished with free alternatives (NFCC#1 requirement).
    • Image:Covers20yo.jpg: how is a design contest germane to critical commentary of Jackson? How do these covers contribute significantly to our understanding of Jackson? Although a moot point, the purpose set forth in the FUR is also not acceptable per NFCC#10C and WP:RAT.
    • Image:Michaeljanetscream.jpg has the purpose of "illustration of the worlds most successful sibling act; worlds most expensive music video". How is seeing the most expensive music video necessary to understand Jackson? How does the image identify the expense? If an image of Michael is necessary to illustrate "the sibling act", a free use alternative could be utilized (NFCC#1).
    • Why are all eight audio samples necessary? What significant understanding of her voice, technical aspects, etc. does each provide above and beyond that provided by the others? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for two reasons; all those sound clips and the poor quality of the prose. With regard to the latter here are some of many examples:
    • Her father, however, planned for for her to follow in the ..
    • a former member of The Sylvers, who had previously worked with the The Whispers,
    • In 1998, Jackson set out on the The Velvet Rope Tour
    • Jackson's "comeback" album—similar to the The Breakthrough of Mary J. Blige
    • but reentered the charts in 2008 peeking ...
    • The albums first single ..
    • but after the albums release it climbed ...
    • Jackson found recordbreaking success.
    • her common conditions for interviewers has been that there be no mention of or questions about Michael
    • as professor Denise Gaines ..

There are other problems with subject-verb agreement and punctuation. Please get a pair of fresh eyes to copy-edit the article, and may I suggest that you read it out loud to yourself? I find this useful. GrahamColmTalk 17:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:10, 15 April 2008.

[edit] The Drapier's Letters

  • Self-nominator: All sources are academic and from scholars who are highly regarded in the field of Swift studies. There is only one picture, because there were no illustrations provided with the original. Very little isn't directly cited. The article deals primarily with the work at hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

  • The lead does not provide adequate context for "Swift was able to inspire the popular sentiment against Wood and his patent" Who is Wood? Patent for what? Why would Swift want to inspire people against it?Addressed
  • "immortalizes" is a WP:PEACOCK word
  • Does the "Smith, Sophie. Dean Swift" source support the claim of "most important of Swift's "Irish tracts"" TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Addressed
1. The picture along with the lead sure provides such context, and context is part of the article, not part of a lead. Hence why there are "background" sections of articles. Also, the first paragraph verifies and provides adequate context to negate your criticism that there is no context. 2. Immortalizes is completely appropriate for such an article, especially seeing as how poems, books, and statues were made in honor of Swift's contributions to Irish independence. 3. and yes, Sophie Smith does those things. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
And RedPen - immortalizes means to "make immortal", i.e. Ireland is turned into a goddess. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1)There is no context for who 'Wood' is (he is not even provided with a first name)or what his 'patent' is or what the 'patent' has to do with Swift writing this document. Any 'background' included in the lead needs to make sense to the reader - and this doesn't. Addressed
2)per PEACOCK: "Examples include describing people as "important" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the significance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section." "The first example simply tells the reader that the Brazilian economy is important. The second example shows the reader that it is. Show, don't tell." You have provided only original reasearch that "The 1735 Works of Jonathan Swift, collected and edited by George Faulkner, immortalizes the praise and thanks issued by the Irish people through allegory upon its title page." TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Rewrote the intro to make it clear who the patent belonged to. 2. Peacock does not apply to the word "immortalizes" nor are you using the sense of the word properly. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying Wood.
PEACOCK is perfectly applicable. The sentance in the lead makes a claim of 'immortalization' - which you stated is supported by the fact that "poems, books, and statues were made in honor of Swift's contributions to Irish independence" - however, per "Show, don't tell" the fact of the of the poems books and statues should be mentioned - not the interpretation that those artificats have 'immortalized' Swift.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the sentence states "Works of Jonathan Swift, collected and edited by George Faulkner, immortalizes". This is in relation to the title page, i.e. turning the moment into divine experience. This is clear. This is concise. And the illustration to the side is the picture in which Faulkner immortalized the actual event. Your use of "peacock" shows that you do not understand how the word is used as a verb, nor does it pertain to this article. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether it is the frontise piece illustration in 'Collected Works' as you state here or the poems and statues you state above, the word 'immortalizes' is a PEACOCK word that, if used, needs to be from a direct quote of a Reliable Source who has made that analysis, not a Wikipedia editor. (see WP:SYN.) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you strike your comment until you learn the difference between adjectives (what Peacock is about) and verbs (what Peacock is not about) and that synthesis is not about describing actions, but on positions. Please do not try to Wikilawyer and throw around terms that you do not understand their proper meanings. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh please. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Un-indent: I am completely serious. Peacock words deal with adjectives to make the word noun the adjective modifies to seem grandier than it actually is. This is a verb, and when you turn something into an allegorical goddess, the appropriate verb is "immortalize". See here. If you feel that such is inappropriate, the second use verifies the first and the aptness to describing such: "be or provide a memorial to a person or an event". The event is, as captioned, Ireland bestowing favor to Swift. The Horace quote plays off of this, i.e. "monument" and "brass". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1) "Peacock words deal with adjectives" Where in WP:PEACOCK to you see that PEACOCK is limited to adjectives?
2) "As the caption states" is WP editors' work, (other than the latin which makes no claims of Ireland being a goddess). Without reliable source providing the analysis that the woman in the illustration is a) a goddess, b) Ireland c) handing a paper that symbolizes thanks and priase - you have SYN. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The caption is to the picture itself on the picture itself. Furthermore, your claims are argumentative and not in the spirit of Wikipedia nor do they show respect to this process. If you want to challenge the background and basis of the picture, I suggest you challenge Wikicommons over it. Now, for Peacock. Here is standard English: "Examples include describing people". Notice the word "describing". "Describing" words are adjectives, see here. Furthermore, verbs are not "unqualified opinion". Now, if you still have problem with this, I can take you through the list and cite from the dictionary how each word is used as an adjective. Furthermore, your idea of the word as a Peacock term does not represent a consensus, thus, your use here is inappropriate. I suggest you reread what the Feature Articles review is about and stop following me across various pages and edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia editor, wikicommons editor, image uploder - it doesnt matter - none are qualified as reliable sources to make analysis. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I inserted a ref to an article that states it is Ireland thanking him in the picture. If you do not understand how a physical manifestation of a country would be deemed a "goddess" in terms of "allegory", then that cannot be helped. Now, "immortalizes" is a proper term for making a painting about a subject and also for turning the praise into an image about divinity. However, you are being extremely argumentative at this point. Feature article requests do not deal with captions of pictures that are taken from Wikicommons. So, if you have a problem, go there. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Much of the article is missing citations in a few key places at ends of paragraphs, making it seem like there is some WP:OR violations present. Also, the References subsection should be broken apart into "Notes" and then "References" per WP:LAYOUT, it will make it much easier to go back and forth and check sources. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There are no "notes" used, so that is N/A. Fixed citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that part looks good as far as citations. I still think that, as per WP:LAYOUT, the article should have two separate sections for the "Notes", first, and then the "References". Cirt (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Cirt, are you specifically referring to: 'Ehrenpreis challenges Ferguson's characterization of Swift as not actually caring about an investigation on p. 305' as belonging in a seperate 'Notes' section? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, lacking discussion/analysis - The article seems to be missing something at the end - some sort of Reception or Legacy section where secondary sources analyze the impact of these works on later writings. The article seems to be merely descriptive, a historical accounting listing events in a chronological factual manner. Writing is fine, just that it'd be nice to have some more commentary/analysis/discussion of the "The Drapier's Letters" by secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • There is also a bit of awkward wording throughout, and generalizations where there should be attribution. Examples: "Some say...", "Others say...", "Many critics said..." - Instead, directly attribute who said what in those sentences, instead of speaking in these generalized terms. Cirt (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be a little difficult to have reception or legacy at the end, since each of the 7 letters were issued separately, and their immediate impact/history of events is mentioned in their individual sections. There needs to be a Wood's Halfpence controversy page in order to discuss the accounts of the whole issue, which the Drapier's Letters were only one piece. Swift was honored for his writing, but, if you know Irish history, he didn't accomplish much. And on the vagueness of the critics, those citations refer to the trend opinion in Swift research, so its a critical consensus, unless it says "some critics" then it is talking about a particular view not held by all. They aren't opinions held by the critic cited, but they are opinions acknowledged and argued about the whole critical community held in those works. It would be disrespectful to attribute something to, say, Ehrenpreis, when he acknowledges the idea coming from others. I hope that makes sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added a publication section and a reception section. Does that adequately cover your concerns? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Links were fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article isn't ready yet, in my view. A couple of brief comments...
    • I completely agree that the use of "immortalizes" in the lead is inappropriate.
    • There's much contradiction and inconsistency. Rather importantly, this includes whether or not the government in question is English or British.
    • Rather too much NPOV. E.g. (though I've changed this) the article stated that Swift "makes clear" that the Irish deserve independence.
    • It needs a thorough copy-edit for grammar and typos. Again, I've done a bit of this.
    • Often I find the prose simply unclear.
    • An example: "Banners and signs was put up recognizing Swift as the Drapier and images, such as the Drapier comparing his campaign to David fighting against Goliath, became a popular theme to express their approval." OK, the grammar mistake (was for were) can be fixed easily enough, though again this is far from the only example. But the sense is also unclear. Are these images in which the draper himself compares his campaign to David vs. Goliath, or are they simply images that do them comparing themselves? The grammar seems to suggest the former, but it's unclear and (to me) unlikely. Likewise "images ... became a popular theme to express their approval." How can images become a theme? And to whom does "their" refer? This sentence is all over the place, and unfortunately it's not the only one.
    • And the previous sentence: "Although the original printing of the Drapier's Letters resulted in the arrest of Harding and a bounty placed upon the Drapier's head, his place among the Irish citizenry was deemed heroic." Whose place? I presume you mean the Drapier's, but the grammar is ambiguous, as the pronoun could equally refer to Harding. Also better to have "Harding's arrest" rather than "the arrest of Harding." And how can a "place" be "heroic"? Plus "deemed" is an awkward word, when there are plenty of commoner ones available.
    • Or earlier: "The letter's purpose was to challenge Ireland's parliament to investigate the matter which everyone already knew what the basis was." Again, I've tried to copy-edit (and already made a couple of changes to this sentence), but have little idea what the last half of the sentence is supposed to mean.
    • Another (I'd changed this, but it got changed back): "The Drapier's Letters is the collective name for a series of seven pamphlets written by Dean Jonathan Swift..." It seems to me obvious that "Drapier's Letters" should take the plural. It would also seem much simpler to say "The Drapier's Letters are a series of seven pamphlets written by Dean Jonathan Swift..." I don't see what's gained by saying that this is a "collective name."
    • And one more example, pretty much at random: "During this time, Lord Carteret, one of two British Secretaries of States, pushed Walpole into defending the Wood's patent while simultaneously attempting to destroy the patent in order to remove his rival. Thus, while Carteret appeared to the English as a defender of the Patent and as if he sought to remove the Irish dissent, especially by finding the "Drapier", he was really furthering his anti-Walpole agenda and aiding in the cause of Ireland."
      • "During this time." Vague. Which time? No time period has previously been specified, except for the "1722" at the section outset.
      • Confusion between "British" and "English"
      • "Secretaries of States" should be "Secretaries of State"
      • "the Wood's patent" would be better as "Wood's patent"
      • What's meant by "destroy[ing] the patent"?
      • Who is "his rival"? Walpole? The other Secretary of State? (NB is the implication that there are only two British Secretaries of State? Surely not.) Presumably the former given the following sentence, but here it is not clear.
      • What exactly is described in either the defence or the destruction is completely opaque.
      • As is what's meant by "and as if he sought to remove the [why "the"?] Irish dissent."
      • Again, I tried to copy-edit this sentence, only to get reverted and to have abuse on my talk page for my trouble. Basta!
  • I'm sorry that the above is not very detailed. I'll try to get back to this later. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Actually, I see that my attempts to copy-edit the article are simply being reverted, and the editor in question has decided to be uncivil on my talk page. So I'll simply !vote oppose. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The above user has added completely inaccurate information and has complained about grammar while adding in ungrammatical changes. The above user also does not follow standard grammatical rules.
1. "I completely agree that the use of "immortalizes" in the lead is inappropriate." Except that immortalizes is an appropriate verb which means to make a memorial of and also to turn something into a divine stature, which the title page has done both.
  • "Immortalizes" means "makes immortal." You may be looking for the word "memorializes." As for the notion that the engraving has turned these letters into "a divine stature"... At best that desperately unclear; at worst it's POV. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
here the term means the same, but when using divinities, immortalizes is always more appropriate. Furthermore, POV? Ireland the goddess is there along with cherubs bringing down laurels from Heaven, and that is not "point of view". It is a representation that was chosen by the artist. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
2. "the article stated that Swift "makes clear"" This is not "POV", because this statement means "Swift states it over and over", which is what the word "makes clear" means in such a situation.
  • You may be looking for the word "repeats" or perhaps "reiterates." This is different from "makes clear." As this exchange perhaps shows, one can state something over and over without it necessarily becoming clear. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Makes clear is proper, concise, and is a verb. here The only one who has a problem with it seems to be you. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
3. "Rather importantly, this includes whether or not the government in question is English or British." The government of Walpole is English. The government of King George, as King of Scotland and Ireland in addition to England is British. This is how history operates.
  • What?! Walpole's government is King George's. (Hence, the secretaries of state, of whom Walpole is one, are British.) This is how British politics operates. NB don't forget Wales. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow. You just rewrote history. Ireland and Scotland are Kingdoms. Their Kings were George I. Walpole was not a secretary of state. He was the "Prime Minister" (before the title actually existed) of England. Not Britain. There is a large and significant difference, because Ireland and England both had independent parliaments. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
4. "It needs a thorough copy-edit for grammar and typos. " The above user, in "copy-editing" has put in many ungrammatical sentences and has restated sentences to make them historical inaccurate.
  • I've tried to provide some examples of the grammatical and typographical mistakes above. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And I have pointed out how many of your edits were adding more typos and grammatical mistakes on your talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
5. " Are these images in which the draper himself compares" Images literally means "images". They are created images, which, as proper English grammar rules suggest, "became a popular theme". How can images become themes? This is completely obvious, since people use various images of themes for their books and always have.
  • A new inconsistency: are these images that become themes, or images of themes (as you've just stated). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made it clear beyond all doubt. However, your understanding shows much to be wanted in regards to understanding the relationship between "image" and "theme" in writing. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
6. "And to whom does "their" refer? " Clearly "Irish citizenry", which standard grammar rules would suggest.
  • As I've suggested, it's not clear.
Then you are not following standard English grammar that would have the sentence refer back to the last noun. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
7. "It seems to me obvious that "Drapier's Letters" should take the plural." Titles of books do not take the plural, unless you are referring to multiple books.
Its called, surprise, Drapier's Letters. Please see the ref note on Herbert Davis's edition. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I won't go on. I do, however, suggest that you take well-intentioned advice, rather than rejecting it all tout court. My suggested changes may be imperfect (I wouldn't claim otherwise), but they point to issues that you should address. Indeed, I'd advise that it's a good rule of thumb that someone nominating an article at FAC should address each comment that arises, and change the text accordingly, even if he or she believes that the commenter is mistaken. For each such comment indicates a failure of communication somewhere, and these should be eliminated as far as possible for an article to deserve FA status. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you follow WP:AGF, especially seeing as how I have taken the advice from others and made corrections to the article. However, many of your suggestions are not suggestions, but errors that would destroy the historical integrity of the article. Instead of asking, you went through and outright changed items that were inappropriate. You also put forth things like "(NB is the implication that there are only two British Secretaries of State? Surely not.)" when the context of the sentence reads that he was one of two secretaries of state at the time. Yes, there were two when he was secretary of state. This is found on his biography page. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, you may wish to read the note at the bottom of every submission page: "Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ...by others, do not submit it. " When you ask for comments about about an article's FA potential, attacking everyone who comments is not a great way to gain a reputation as a Civil wikipedian. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article has the potential to be an FA, but the writing needs some work - it needs to be copy edited and some sections need to be revised for clarity.

The article needs to be copy edited for grammar, typos, etc.:

  • According to WP:ENGVAR, this article should be in British English.
(The rule does not speak of such there. Perhaps its a change in piping? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
"An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation". Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Problems with this - its Ireland, not England, and its Ireland before it was a nation. Therefore, it has no ties to any "English-speaking nation" per se. Also, most of the criticism comes from America, and Swift studies are jointly shared between the US, England, and Ireland. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify for me: are you actually attempting to argue that an article about Irish political controversy with England should use American English? I fail to see the tie of the topic to America that would support such reasoning. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Its a historical article. 2. The English then is not the English of England now, and this was before spelling standardization. 3. Most of the sources are written in "American" English. 4. The nationality of the country would demand that it would be written in Irish English, if you want to follow the true letter of the MoS ruling, which would be absurd 3 in regard to the sources. I don't know if you have read Hiberno English, but a lot of the page would become illegible. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand all of these arguments - I have made most of them myself. What I am going to tell you is that it is a lost cause. See, for example, the bloodbath here. This is a losing battle - people will change this article to BE if you do not. People will post angry messages. I advise you to give up the battle now - it is not the most important one. I won't push this one, but others will, as you can see. Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Method of Style demands that if the national identity be chosen, which is Hiberno English. However, this does not require a national identity. You have two choices - American (since it was the original language of the article and predominantly how it was edited as) or Hiberno. British is not one of the options. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The letters emphasize the constitutional independence of the Irish Nation; since this subject was politically sensitive, Swift wrote under the pseudonym M. B. Drapier - Why is "nation" capitalized?
(Not sure, especially seeing as how it was a "kingdom" and not a "nation". Changed. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
  • Although the letters were condemned by the Irish Government in line with orders from the English Government,[2] Swift was able to inspire the popular sentiment against Wood and his patent. - Why is "government" capitalized? (There is also an incorrect "the" in front of "popular sentiment").
(Removed all improper capitalization for the word "government". Now, for "the", it is proper because "the" refers to a specific, singular "popular sentiment", instead of a generalized, unspecific "popular sentiment". This is in accord with standard "definite article" English grammatical rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
"popular sentiment" here is general and should not have a "the" - this is incorrect. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(Popular sentiment is not general. Its very specific to the anti-Wood's sentiment. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
  • The 1735 Works of Jonathan Swift, collected and edited by George Faulkner, immortalizes the praise and thanks issued by the Irish people through allegory upon its title page. (pictured) - "issued" doesn't seem like the right word, does it?; "pictured" is unnecessary and discouraged somewhere in the MOS
("pictured" was added by "TheRedPen" and I dare not remove it in order to not seem as if I am edit warring. "issued" is the verb expressing the action of the goddess "Ireland" in the picture, issuing forth the praise in paper form Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
Addressed - I think this is better anyways.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is that "issued" is not usually used together with the idea of "giving thanks and praise" - it is confusing to readers - better words might be "given" or "exhibited". Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
How about: The title page of 1735 Works of Jonathan Swift, [collected and edited by George Faulkner <-is this necessary if Faulkner isnt notable?], features/contains an allegorical illustration of the Irish people giving/exhititing/bequeathing Swift their thanks and praise.
(Faulkner and his edition is notable to the publication of the works, see The Drapier's Letters#Publication. Rewrote sentence to make it clear as to why its important. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
  • Above all, the Drapier's Letters are the reason why Swift is seen as a hero to many Irish people, because was one of the earliest writers to defy England's control over the Irish nation. - missing "he"
(Fixed Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
  • In 1722, hardware manufacturer William Wood was granted a patent to produce copper coinage to the value of £108,000 for use in Ireland - missing link on pound sign
(added Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
  • the leadership of Ireland started requested help in leading the people to challenge the authority of the coin - error in verb tense - should be "requesting"
(Fixed Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
  • During this time, Lord Carteret, one of two British Secretaries of States, pushed Walpole into defending the Wood's patent while simultaneously attempting to destroy the patent in order to remove Walpole as his rival to the king's favor. - should be "Secretaries of State"; unnecessary "the" in front of "Wood"; should be "in the king's favor"
(Change. Bonus - corrected verb tense disagreement of "pushed" and "attempting" Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
  • Thus, Carteret appeared to the English as a defender of the Patent and as if he sought to remove the Irish dissent (especially by finding the "Drapier") while he was really furthering his anti-Walpole agenda and aiding in the cause of Ireland. - confusing wording; "patent" should not be capitalized
(Rewrote Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
  • There are also some POV and vague statements throughout the article. Examples:
  • The Drapier's Letters are the most important of Swift's "Irish tracts", and are Swift's most important work after Gulliver's Travels, A Tale of a Tub, and A Modest Proposal. - These kinds of statements are hard to support and sound like POV.
(Yes, it is a POV, but held by the reference cited and verified by later critics. If a critic disagrees with that arrangement and is provided, then a disagreeing statement can be issued after. NPOV requires to provide as much POV as held on each side. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
If it is cited in the reference, could a footnote be added after that sentence to make that clear? Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(I don't see why this is necessary, since it is directly cited by the page for this claim, which follows standard verifiability guidelines for such statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
  • Paragraph two of "Pamphleteering" is a little vague - some details would flesh out the precise claims being made there.
(Reworded, try now. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
Better, but could still be more precise. For example, "religiously devout" could be supplemented by a short phrase describing in which religion. Ireland is known for its religious strife, so this is particularly important to know. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(The religion of the Drapier is never made clear by the Drapier, therefore, it would be impossible to make claims as to what denomination he would be devout to. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
  • Many critics have compared the language and rhetoric style of the first letter to a Hebrew prophet or to a Evangelical preacher who is warning the masses of the threat to their very soul. - These are two different styles - examples or more detail explaining the comparison would assist the uninformed reader.
(Note - Ehrenpreis and Ferguson conflate the two together, so perhaps they were not that different to the 18th century perspective. Ehrenpreis particularly focuses on Swift's emphasis on the "danger" to the "soul" in making the comparison. Wikilinks added to specific pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
Wikilinks are not enough - if critics conflate them, I suppose we have to as well, but that doesn't mean we can't explain what they mean by their conflation. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(That would be an OR violation, since it goes beyond what the critics have stated. Ottava Rima (talk))
  • There are many Anglican overtones in this combination, and duty to God is combined with duty to one's God and country. - Clarifying what the Anglican overtones are would help here.
(Pretty much all of the ones listed on the Wikipedia page. Wikilinked to it in order to stop any confusion. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
Wikilinking is not enough - besides, Anglican theology changed over time - what parts of it are we referring to here? Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(Actually, Anglican theory didn't change that much in Swift's time. It was very generic and very mainstream. He also made it clear that the actual changes in policy would not matter, because reliance on the religion was more important than actually understanding the nuances of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
  • In the second letter, the Drapier walks a careful line between openly indicting the King; through the language that is used to describe Wood, there is a constant reference to the King's authority and power, and a constitutional argument is made over the ultimate authority of the Monarch in comparison to the coin, which is unnecessary compared to the politically petty amount of Wood's power. - wordy sentence that lacks clarity - how is authority and power described? the constitutional argument is not entirely clear, etc.
(Rewrote Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))
This is still unclear - it needs to be expanded and explained in more detail. Assume you are reader unfamiliar with these topics and try to imagine understanding this. This section needs to fill in more of the "gaps in the reasoning" for such a reader. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(This cannot be fixed with the Drapier's writings, since Molyneux's work needs to be explained for such a thing to happen. What you are asking for would be importing in far more detail on "the King's perogative" than what the Drapier uses, and it would go off topic. The Drapier calls the people to action and guarantees that they are protected. He doesn't necessarily explain the law about it, and goes on to say quite often that he isn't experienced with the law. A page devoted to the controversy could explain what you want, but the Drapier's Letters is not devoted to the controversy, but merely to a set of writings by Jonathan Swift. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

These issues could be resolved with the assistance of a careful copy editor. I would be more than happy to help out since the eighteenth century is dear to my heart. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Made changes and corrections. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, these are just examples and many more exist throughout the article. However, I would be happy to go through the article and copy edit it and offer suggestions for improvement on the article's talk page. Let me know if you would like any such assistance. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not really worthwhile to debate each of these individual points unless the editor is willing to undertake a more general copy edit of the article. If s/he is willing to do so, I am willing to debate each of these points in great detail as well as a great many more. As many people at FAC know and as Ottava Rima can discover from looking at my userpage, I am dedicated to improving Wikipedia's quality coverage of eighteenth-century topics. However, unless we can agree that a more general copy edit needs to take place, I don't really see a reason to go on debating these specific examples of a more general problem. Awadewit (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't own the page. This is Wikipedia; everyone is free to edit. Awadewit, your query is rather moot. There is no restriction keeping you from editing a page, and WP:BOLD encourages you to do such. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I am now copy editing this article. I have also left comments on the talk page in the process. Awadewit (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have also added some questions about the sources on the talk page - there might be some issues there. Awadewit (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have serious doubts about the sources, how they are being used, and whether the article "accurately represents the relevant body of published knowledge" - please see Talk:The Drapier's Letters#Questions on sources for my concerns. Awadewit (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made every effort to improve this article. I spent a long time copy editing it, listing questions that arose from that copy editing on the article's talk page, and evaluating the sources that the article is based on. Unfortunately, the discussion with the primary contributor is not progressing anywhere. Anyone who wants to help bring this article up to FAC standards can see my efforts at the article's talk page. Awadewit (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you implying that I haven't made any of the changes? Or are you implying that I am responsible for editing a page? There are criteria for FAC. Being perfect is not part of it. Being complete is not part of it. Also, I am not responsible for the page any more than you are. Please remember that. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I am saying that as the nominator you are responsible for responding to the comments here, per the FAC directions: "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly." Awadewit (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it says "expected" and not must. I only "must" be familiar with the topic. Now, if you want to say where I haven't made an effort at addressing objections, you would be blatantly wrong, as I have made many of the suggested changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose—1a, until the prose is polished properly. Here are eeny-meeny-miney examples from the start.

  • Lead: no hyphen after "-ly"—see MOS.
  • Why US spelling in what is clearly a British-related article?
  • Why is "England" linked at all on the English WP? (And it's not the first occurrence of the root of the word, anyway.) "Ireland" is linked in the lead and in the caption ... Why?
  • We could do with another comma in such a large sentence, after "prosecuted": "One of these, Proposal for the Universal use of Irish Manufacture (1720) had so inflamed the English authorities that the printer was prosecuted although the pamphlet had done little more than recommend that the Irish use what they made rather than exporting it to England." The article needs an audit for missing commas—another is probably required after "first of the pamphlets".
  • "Swift's choice in adopting this pseudonym was twofold: it provided him an ..."—Nope, his reasons were twofold. Why not just plain "Swift had two reasons for ..."?
  • "... the Drapier through the Drapier's ... the Drapier's ...".
  • " It was this lack of arrest and the unity of the Irish people behind the "Drapier" that aided in Walpole withdrawing the patent"—Ungainly, in fact, ungrammatical at the end. "lack of foresight", yes, but "lack of arrest"? "that aided in W withdrawing ..."? Why "in"? Grammatically you need "W's withdrawing of the patent". Bombsite, this.

Please let me know when you've had fresh eyes go through it finely to iron out the glitches. The whole text. TONY (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC) PS Am I in for rudeness on my talk page too? I'd have thought a reviewer's assistance would occasion thanks, not reversion; if you had issues with the edits, collaboration was in order. TONY (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Its not British. Ireland was not part of Britain at the time. If it is to follow a language, it would have to follow Hiberno English. I am not rewriting all of the "to be" of the thread in regards to the complex rules of Hiberno English, and the original language of the article was in American English, as follows most of the scholarship collected on the matter. 2. England is different from Great Britain or Britain. The difference is necessary for historical accuracy. 3. Reasons were not two fold. His choice was, since his choice provided two benefits. His reasons provided no benefits and were not divided. 4. Your critique of the use of "the Drapier" multiple times becomes silly when applying standard nominalization rules of the English language. When dealing with alter egos, an addition of "his" would leave the sentences beyond comprehension. 5. Please keep your smug comments out of this section. Such comments do not belong FaC's. Furthermore, most editing comments don't belong here but on the talk page of the topic. You are mostly supposed to limit your comments to support, oppose, or what conditions you would change your mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is nothing at FAC that says comments must be limited. Copyediting concerns can surely be posted here on the FAC page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Standard talk page rules. Talk pages are the place to discuss issues with a page. It would be pointless to have duplicates. This is a support or an oppose area, and unnecessary discussion clutters. Furthermore, he made a statement which does not belong on Wikipedia discussion pages, since this is not a message board system and the responses are supposed to be on topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks much better now, thanks for addressing my above comments. Cirt (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - prose is below the mark;
  • Could you shorten the first sentence? Its way too long; maybe a full-stop after "Swift". Is "Dean" needed when first addressing Swift? I think calling him "Irish poet Jonathan Swift" might be better for those who do not know Swift is. That "Dean" (a term I have never heard used before for a religious title) even confused me for a bit into thinking that it was his first name.
  • Although the letters were condemned by the Irish government, in line with orders from the English government, Swift inspired popular sentiment against Wood and his patent, which forced the patent to be withdrawn; he was later honored for this service to the people of Ireland." - a tad ambiguous; were the letters condemned by the Irish in line with English orders, or did Swift inspire popular sentiment in line with the English orders? A long sentence again, cut it after "his patent".
  • What are "Irish tracts" and why are they in quotes? There isn't even a handy wikilink to come to my rescue.
  • Is it Drapier's Letters or Drapier Letters? I see both in the lead.
  • "Since this subject was politically sensitive, Swift wrote under the pseudonym M. B. Drapier." - I don't understand how one (political sensitivity) implies the other (the need for a pseudonym)? Not at first glance, anyway.
  • Why the British spellings? Do the Irish use American spellings now? If not, British English is how we should go shouldn't we?
  • patent, mint, coinage - common English words don't need to be linked.
  • "are a primary reason" - is that used frequently? "are the primary reason" or "are an important reason" might be better.
  • "to the value of £108,000" --> "worth £108,000"?
  • "though not technically as legal tender." --> I do not understand.
  • "one of two British Secretaries of State" --> needs a "the"
  • "However, ?he? privately attempted to destroy the patent" - ambiguous; 3 people are mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • "and aiding in the Irish".
Please get a copy-editor to run through the entire text. indopug (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A few direct responses 1. Dean is needed, because he held the Dean, which meant that he help run St. Patrick's Cathedral, which was the religious center of Dublin. A lot of the histories call him Dean, but few people realize today that Swift was a religious man. I reworked the opening to establish the importance.
2. The "Swift's Irish tracts" needs to be made. Its just a way to describe the essays and pamphlets produced by Swift while in Ireland and not to his Sermons or his books. I agree that it may be confusing until the wikilink is made.
3. According to Wikipedia, the ethnic English would be Hiberno English. To switch over would require a massive redo of the verb "to be" along with a few other verbs. "British" English is a modern idea and would not be culturally fitting, and MOS says that its mostly a suggestion unless it deals with modern importance.
4. A lot of words have been linked that don't necessarily need it, but I don't want to edit war over some of them, so I try to leave the wikilinking alone.
5. The legal issue is brought up later, and I removed it from the earlier paragraph to avoid confusing
6. The page has gone through many copyedits by many wikipedians.
7. Changes requested have been made here Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:37, 14 April 2008.

[edit] Marshall Field and Company Building

I'm nominating this article for featured article because this is an interesting and historic building that has a well-cited story and many complimentary images. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Call me blind, I could not find that earlier. Resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but who are the editors? AOL has different levels of folks involved. In years past, you could become a "moderator" and help out without actually being an employee. I'm wondering if this was a staff writer or if it was a volunteer editor, or what. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
My suspicion was that it was a local weekly newspaper, and was really expecting you to tell me that. Kinda like Village Voice but for Chicago.
the links all checked out using the link checker tool and the other sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In short I am not sure about two refs, but only one is essential to the current article. I don't have much invested in this nomination yet and would gladly either nominate Bob Chappuis or renominate Jack Kemp in its place.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This is an improvement in the writing, but needs polishing still. Here are examples, just in one sentence.
    • "The 12-story granite building was built in stages between 1892 and 1914.[15][10] The building was built on a six partition block with sections that were added to the building in 1902, 1906, 1907, and 1914.[9][10] The two primary sections along State Street (The north building built in 1902 and the south in 1907) were designed by Charles B. Atwood (before his death) at D. H. Burnham & Company." "Six partition block"—something missing? Building ... built ... building ... built ... building built .... Do watch the repetitions in your writing. And who'd have guess Atwood would have designed it before he died? Not from the spirit world? TONY (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I have addressed this concern.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Rejoinder—Nope, that was just an example. By "needs polishing", I wasn't referring not just to that sentence, but to the text as a whole. Can you find someone else to sift through it? TONY (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I didn't intend to oppose, but the magnitude of criterion three issues is somewhat overwhelming:
    • Image:Potter Palmer.jpg and Image:Marshall field interior.jpg must have sources per WP:IUP.
    • Image:Chicago018.jpg, Image:Walnut room.jpg, Image:Chicago020.jpg and Image:Chicago021.jpg cannot be used. Per their source’s page use is allowed for “non-profit people or organizations” (i.e. non-commercial use). Per WP:IUP, WP:TAG and Jimbo, we can’t use these.
    • Image:170659629 73495525d2.jpg has a non-commercial and no-derivates provision to its CC license at Flickr. We cannot use this per the same policies/Jimbo in the previous bullet.
    • The apparent function of Image:0609Departments 411 06 0.jpg is to provide an example of use in pop culture. Why is a fair use image necessary to convey this meaning (WP:NFCC#3A)? Isn't prose sufficient? What is the significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8), especially with a free clock image to the right?
      • The subject is not the clock, but the Rockwell painting in this part of the article and as such free use is allowable unless a separate article exists for the image, as I understand it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
        • What criterion gave you that impression? Lack of a more focused article doesn't really give the image a free pass. To use FU images, they need to be both necessary (NFCC#3A) and significantly contribute to our understanding (NFCC#8). How does this image meet those two thresholds? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
          • The questions is whether the free use clock image is a valid substitute for the fair use Rockwell painting. If the subject were a clock, the answer would be no. However, the subject is the painting. In fact, there are two interesting elements of the story. 1.)Which of the two matching clocks is it. 2.)What is the painting that has caused such serious corporate actions and undergone a series of changes of provenance. It is not the clock that is relevant here but the painting that is necessary for these explanations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I don’t believe that Image:0609Departments 411 01 0.jpg is actually PD. For the sake of argument, lets ignore that the asserted dates are not necessarily publishing dates and assume each individual image is actually PD. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. sets forth that exact copies of PD images cannot be copyrighted. This image, however, does not constitute an exact copy, as the author made conscious decisions in the selection of those particular images, the arrangement thereof and the addition of a timeline. I would argue that it passes Threshold of originality and is, therefore, not PD and needs proper attribution.
      • Is it required to reveal the source images to make such an originality claim so that others can use the sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
        • No, an original work is an original work regardless of source elements. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Is there something that makes you beleive that these images were put together after 1923?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
            • The image is from a 2006 magazine article. Other images in the article are visually similar (and I don't just mean of the same building), one of which has a contemporary date (2006) in the same font/format. The onus is really on the uploader to support PD; I just don't see sufficient support. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Image sandwiching issues in the lead; see WP:MOS#Images. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I shrunk the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Size is somewhat secondary. Shrinking indeed reduces the sandwiching, but it still remains. Is it necessary to have a company name plaque in that location? Is there any precedent? MOS aside, the position at the top of the lead is, for me anyway, distracting. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Surrender/withdrawal - SandyGeorgia and Raul654. I surrender on this one. Why don't you close it so I can get something else in the queue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I will archive it today; you might consider peer review for future articles which need sourcing, MoS and copyediting attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 14 April 2008.

[edit] Talyllyn Railway

Self nomination A group of editors, including myself, have been working to improve this article since the turn of the year. After achieving good article status recently, we now feel the article is improved in quality to the point of meeting the featured article criteria. Gwernol 13:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Any chance that your two lovely self-made maps that are PNG can be included instead as SVGs? — brighterorange (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to, but don't have access to appropriate software to perform the conversion, unfortunately. I use OmniGraffle which only has an SVG export option in the professional version which I don't have. Thanks for the n-dash conversion, by the way. Gwernol 19:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
There are three png maps - I've listed them at the Graphics lab to see if anyone is willing to convert them. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, not to worry, I've figured out how to convert them into SVGs myself using Inkscape. I'm uploading them now. Gwernol 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, yes, three. Excellent! — brighterorange (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose until carefully copy-edited; get someone new to do it. Here are mere examples from the top.

  • "Narrow-guage" with the hyphen when a double adjective; I've corrected on, but there is at least one other.
  • "has never closed"; then remove "it".
  • "Since preservation in 1951,"—You've only just told us this.
  • I see too many instances of "the railway" and "railway" in the lead; can you find ways of substituting for some?
  • "later" may mean before or after the Talyllyn; do you mean "subsequent"?
  • At least one metric conversion missing.
  • "in order to"—why not just "to"?
  • "The company obtained parliamentary approval for the railway on 5 July 1865." Now it's less precise than in the lead; better the other way around, or why not specify the title of the act here? Again, you can easily avoid "the railway" repetitions (e.g., "as engineer for the construction of the railway" --> "as constuction engineer").
  • "He laid out plans for a relatively straight line climbing steadily from Tywyn to the quarry and work quickly got underway. By September 1866 construction had advanced to the point where ...". Are you sure the ideas are allocated properly among the sentence? More commas would help readability, too; perhaps audit the whole article in that respect. TONY (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks for your input. You've raised some good points, and I'll have a look at cleaning them up later. I'll also see if I can get someone to read it through from scratch. One point I'd disagree with is the hyphen in narrow gauge. The article Narrow gauge railway does not use hyphens, and more importantly, the Oxford English Dictionary lists the entry for it as two distinct words (WP:HYPHEN recommends consulting a good dictionary). Hopefully we can get the rest cleaned up to your approval soon. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 14 April 2008.

[edit] SummerSlam (2007)

Self-nominator - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have worked hard on getting it to GA status and I feel that it meets the FA criteria. It's well-written, has a reasonable size lead, stays focused throughout the article, and is very well sourced. With that being said, I feel the article is as good as it'll ever be and that it cannot get much better over time (although I am probably just over exaggerating). Anyway, I hope this becomes WP:PW's next pay-per-view article to become a Featured Article. –LAX 10:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise the links check out with the link checker tool Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
On the sites above, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. It is all based on WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. Some of these look like self-published sites, after digging around them. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's quite strong, and its obvious a lot of good effort has gone into the page. Once the issues above have been resolved I'm willing to support. I have some minor ce concerns that I can look after myself. Ceoil (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Image:Kane Entrance.jpg needs to be repositioned. Left-aligned images should not be placed under level 2 (===) headers per WP:MOS#Images. I would have corrected it myself, but image arrangement appears deliberate; I'll leave the placement up to the article's author(s). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My, we're lucky to have Ealdgyth doing this: I learn from what she says. TONY (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 22:37, 9 April 2008.

[edit] Thriller (album)

I'm nominating this article for featured article statues because...

I believe it reaches the critera needed, and I haven't seen many better album articles. Any improvements needed I will make, so just tell me what needs improving and it will be done. It's the 25th anniversary of Thriller (think Thriller 25), and I'm determined to get it to the top. I am the Self-nominator. I know the guys career inside out so if you're confused about anything I should be able to explain my reasoning.Realist2 (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

*I have left a message on Ealdgyths page asking her if there is anything else he would like to add since ive completed his list. Hopefully he will return when he's not busy. --Realist2 (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

She has already returned and everything is taken care of regarding sources. All resolved and hidden away. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

*I have completed the list by Dizfreak, i have informed him, hopefully he will return. --Realist2 (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

*I have completed the list by Efe, i have informed him, im sure he will update his position as well. --Realist2 (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

* I have done 90% of Indopug's list, i have contacted him asking him to update his opinion in the hope that maybe he is satisfied with the progress already made, hopefully he will return, --Realist2 (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the nomination, i dont intend to do anymore. --Realist2 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
All other links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Cut "and the second produced in collaboration with Quincy Jones" from "Thriller is the sixth studio album by American pop singer Michael Jackson" for it to be general. Maybe you can insert the former to the following sentences.
  • Im interested to read about the style of the album.
    • DONE
  • There is an inconsistent formatting of dates here; from MM-DD-YY to DD-MM-YY.
    • DONE
  • "debuting his signature move - the moonwalk." This must be em dash, not hyphen.
    • DONE
  • I think it would be better to expand recording (production, any background), and split it from release.
    • DONE - not quite to your extent but its better
  • Why do you have to mention the releases of every single?
    • DONE - took a single out and took some of the positions out of the others
  • "This harsh stance worked" sounds POV.
    • DONE
  • Inconsistency on formatting texts. Time to TIME. Magazines should be in italics, like TIME and Billboard.
    • DONE
  • Inline citations should go after the punctuation and do not put space.
    • DONE
  • Some sentences are stubby.
    • DONE
  • "Although singles had already fallen in importance, Thriller's release firmly established albums as the dominant force in the industry." Any source? And sounds POV.
    • DONE
  • Are awards related to "Influence and legacy"? This must be in reception or response of something.
    • DONE
  • "High profile samples and covers" are these samples really a high profile? It would be better also if you convert these lists to prose. And by the way, these are for the songs, not the album itself.
    • Yes they are high profile ive been keeping it to those five or six, people add silly ones but their quickly deleted, it shows sampleing of all most all the big songs on the album, you cant sample an album, you sample something from it, songs from the album are sampled by lots of people, thats what it shows.
      • What I mean is this an article about an album. It does not give any significance to the article; this must be written in each song sampled by various singers. --Efe (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I can write it in pros, the list is showing how many songs from the album are being sampled, you cant sample an album, you sample part of it, the fact that songs are being sampled by the likes of kanye west all the way to the prodigy show that it had cross over apply. It was this cross over apply that made, pop, rock, funk, gospel fans buy the album.
          • Ok. Write it in prose so that it will look good; lets see if it works. BTW, the PR was already closed. --Efe (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
            • OK i quickly altered it, it might need cleaning up and twiging but i think the alteration gives these samples a little more context.
              • DONE
  • Remove the chart positions in the track listing area.
    • Why remove the singles positions, one of the achievements of the album is that it has the most top ten hits, its an actual record this album has achieved, its part of the albums accomplishment.
  • Sales are highly unsourced, as well as certifications.
  • A lot has to be cleaned-up in the later part of the article.
    • DONE
  • The list below "Thriller 25 sales" do not look good.
    • DONE
  • Is it important to mention credits on the re-released album?
    • You would be supprised how much interest that gets
  • References are inconsistently formatted. Some dates (publication date, not the accessdate) are not enclosed in parenthesis. Years must not be linked, unless it is preceded with a complete date.
    • DONE
  • Some sources do not pass against WP:RS, most especially the fanclub sites.
    • DONE all sources are reliable, the only time fan sources are used is when it links to an offical sony press release on sales, shipments and rekease dates. They have all come from sony directly.

This review was taken from the article's PR. I pasted it here as requested. --Efe (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE for reasons I list below. Needs a lot of work.--DizFreak talk Contributions 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Founds several issues which I feel need to be dealt with before it comes close to FA.Maybe it needs a completed PR?--DizFreak talk Contributions 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Fails FA 1(a) Several grammatical errors such as "because the market had since weakened so Jackson threatening to pull the album release."
    • DONE
  • Neither ref 22 or 23 address "MTV, a struggling cable channel, became huge. Jackson's videos were credited to this success and MTV's focus switched from rock to pop and R&B.[22][23]". They only address the fact MTV became more popular.
    • DONE - the sources are ok per below copy and pastes from sources themselves
    • OK these are direct qoutes from the sources;-
    • A)"Older fans still remember the Jackson 5 lead singer who won legions of fans with songs such as "ABC" and "Ben." They may fondly recall how Jackson moonwalked for the first time across the stage at Motown's 25th anniversary special in 1983 and put MTV on the map with pioneering videos such as "Thriller," "Billie Jean" and "Beat It.""
    • B)"Michael has always been charismatic," Silberman said. "Michael Jackson was the first black artist to be played regularly across the board on radio stations, MTV; he was the first to have that kind of crossover appeal. Still, despite the scandals and bad press that he has had, he has always been fantastic as a performer. Michael's electrifying."
    • C)
      • March 1983
      • Michael Jackson's Billie Jean video airs on MTV, which subsequently plays more pop and R&B videos,
      • including ...
      • December 1983
      • Michael Jackson's 14-minute Thriller film, which raises the ambition bar for music video.
      • September 1984
      • First MTV Video Music Awards
    • I think that clearly shows it, it even shows that the MTV awards started running shortly after these videos aired. What more do you need?

Michael Jackson's Billie Jean video airs on MTV, which subsequently plays more pop and R&B videos, including ...

I do not see how your quote addressed the fact I mentioned above [i]MTV's focus switched from rock to pop and R&B.[/i], only that they played more of it. --DizFreak talk Contributions 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

December 1983 Michael Jackson's 14-minute Thriller film, which raises the ambition bar for music video. September 1984 First MTV Video Music Awards

    • I think that clearly shows it, it even shows that the MTV awards started running shortly after these videos aired. What more do you need?
      • Nor does it state the VMA had a direct correlation with the video music awards. I have yet to see someone say "We started the Video Music Awards due to inspiration by Michael Jackson" --DizFreak talk Contributions 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
        • DONE OK i re did it with exact par quotes from the sources.
  • Fails FA 1(d) and FA 4. The section Highly Publicized Events reads more like a Michael Jackson page, very little on Thriller (album). When it does mention Thriller it reads as if it is tacked on.
    • DONE OK, trimmed out a lot of the waffle. However these issues are important, people ask , why? and how? did thriller outsell every other album by so much, these events are attributed to the high album sales, additionally Thriller broke racial barriers and MJ going to the White House is an example of this. Before thriller the president would never have allowed a black entertainer to step foot on the whitehouse carpet.
  • Under Influence and Legacy The quote from Time Magazine is from the year it won many Grammys. How does this address the influence the album has twenty-plus years later?
    • DONE
  • Thriller 25 template overlaps the Thriller 25 Sales.
    • DONE

To sum up, as far as i can see, from the list I have done everything, im just waiting for a reply about a source format Realist2 (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok thats resolved, i believe the entire request list has been completed. Realist2 (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose: because the article becomes extraordinarily listy and unreadable below the "Influence and legacy" section.
  • Samples and covers is unnecessary; "high profile" is POV anyway and the information could (maybe) be included in the indiviual song articles.
    • Removed heading to get rid of POV
  • Including a chart listing along with the track listing is completely incorrect and at ods with everything else on Wikipedia. Please make it like any other album article.
    • DONE
  • I oppose the use of separate infoboxs and sections for the two Thriller re-releases. Merge the release info of these albums into the main Release section of the article, keep the Track listings for three versions in one section etc. Those additional infoboxs are unnecessary and you can put those album covers in the release section.
    • I removed large sections of the info boxes for the re-releases, might make it better
  • I really hate the extremely detailed information of the Thriller 25 section. Its just release date after release date and the whole thing is immensely unreadable and boring. Realise that when many many years from now if people were to read this article they would want the "Behind-the-scenes making of", an analysis of the music inside and why critics/everybody thought it was so great. Not sure that readers will ever care that ""Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008" reached #3 in Sweden, #4 in New Zealand, #8 in Australia, #32 in Canada, but saw disappointing sales in America.[52][53][38][54][55]." (also copy-edit; there are two full-stops there).
    • Removed chunks of info singles positions still there but chunks of other non important stuff removed
  • The two huge Sales sections are, again, too detailed for my liking. FAs are supposed to be not-too-listy. I wonder if a separate article called Sales, certifications, charting history and awards for Thriller (or sumthin' like that) can hold all the tables of information the present arrticle unfortunately has. Then, the Thriller article can be dedicated to information in prose.
    • Cut out half of the info at the very bottom
  • "Mariah Carey,[24] Usher,[25] Britney Spears,[24] Janet Jackson,[10] Kanye West, Rihanna,[26] and Chris Brown[27]" - If you are going list each every person who liked Thriller, its gonna be a long list. Besides a list of people's names really helps anybody understand the importance of this album or why it was considered so great. If you could include a succinct quote from an artist explaining how the album changed his/her life, it would be much more informative, interesting and readable.
    • Cut list of singers in half, not so OTT anymore, added a person quote as well,
  • I'm very disappointed with how sparse the first three sections of the article, the most important part of the article. The article is not comprehensive either, for example:
  • What did contemporary critics, just when it was released, think of it? That it was an international smash is known, but did any critic dismiss the album as crappy?
    • DONE
  • The recording section is too small; surely more information about the how made the album was made is out there. Even if Jackson doesn't speak much about the making, surely Quincy or somebody else involved would've said something. Was MJ a tyrant during recording, was his behaviour eccentric; all interesting stuff/gossip people expect from a Wikipedia album FA (See Loveless and Be Here Now. Have you used info from the The Making of Michael Jackson's Thriller?
    • DONE
  • The music, well, hardliy anything is written about this too. Please do a little more research and I'm sure you'll find that some nerdy musicologist has micro-analysed the music on the album.
  • Not sure about 'highly publicised events', haven't seen a section name like that anywhere. But the info is okay.
    • There is no other way to describe it.
  • The Influence and Legacy should be expanded to double its size if you want pay justice to the impact of the album; what about how MJ's weird clothes were a huge fad for a while etc? Also, with expansion, the section could be expanded to be sub-sectioned: Impact on MTV, Impact on artists, Impact on the music industry... because it did have huge impact. (If not sub-sections, then a big paragraph for each of these points)
    • DONE - think thats big enough now
  • Quite simply, overall, the article is very very detailed in places where it needn't be and, indeed, where details would the hamper the entire article (Charts, sales, release info). Worse, The article contains virtually no information on the Recording, the Production, Contemporary criticism and not enough on Legacy. indopug (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • PS: Seeing this, "[3][4][5][6][7]", in the lead is butt-ugly.
    • DONE
  • It would be better to leave the lead neat by removing all these sources. Just be sure you source them fully below. --Efe (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • DONE
  • Note Splitting up comments from reviewers by replying to every line makes the FAC page very difficult to read. Per the FAC instructions: "If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text." BuddingJournalist 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Another note More importantly, you should never delete comments ([12], [13]) made by other editors, especially not with the glib edit summary of "repeating yourself". I have since restored the latter comment. BuddingJournalist 19:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Far too many prose/grammar issues. Prose needs a major overhaul. Examples highlighted below, but note that these are examples only. Please do not fix only these.
    • "Thriller enabled Jackson to become the predominant pop star of the late 20th century; allowing him to break down racial barriers by appearing on MTV, and begin his work as a humanitarian by allowing his songs to be used for charitable causes." Misused semicolon. "allowing him...allowing his" is quite awkward; parallelism breaks down as a result of this construct. How exactly does an album "allow" someone to break racial barriers? Or "allow" someone to begin charitable work? And are you certain Jackson did not do any charitable work before its release?
    • "...interviews a decade, however Jones and Temperton gave detailed recorded accounts of what occured" Who is Temperton? Please introduce names on first use. Comma splice. Spot the spelling error.
    • "Jones discusses "Bille Jean" and why it was so personal to Jackson who was struggling to cope with obsessed fans." Spot the missing comma and the spelling error. Why the sudden use of present tense with "discusses"?
    • "Jones and Jackson were determined to make a rock song that would appeal to both races spending weeks looking for a suitable guitarist until they found Eddie Van Halen." "Both races"? Not all races? And no mention of what "both" means (presumably black and white?). In any case, what does having to appeal to both races have to do with finding a suitable guitarist? Two disparate ideas clumped awkwardly together into a single sentence. Please use commas! Finally, this entire paragraph is a mishmash of different ideas and has no flow.
    • "they didn't fit the direction the album was going" Avoid contractions in encyclopedic language.
    • "Thriller was released on November 30, 1982, to high sales." Spot the unneeded comma.
    • "It was #1 in both the United States and the United Kingdom..." "Both" is unnecessary. Please spell out "#1".
    • "global pop culture; replicated everywhere from Bollywood, to prisons in the Philippines" Again, semicolon abuse.
    • "because he was Afro-American" Dated terminology.
    • "CBS Records President Walter Yetnikoff denounced MTV, saying, "I'm not going to give you any more videos..." "Denounce" is not the right word here.
    • "The film scared viewers (especially the younger audience) but marked an increase in scale for music videos..." Huh? Not a logical contradiction. The necessity of the first half is unclear.
    • "Debuting his signature move – the moonwalk Jackson's performances during the event helped many view..."
    • "When the actual recording of events aired..." Huh?
    • "On March 7, 1985, the song "We Are the World"; a charity single to aid people"
    • "Even Rap artists such as Kanye West..." Rap is capitalized because...?
    • "In 2001 Timberlake and Spears meet their idol in person through a friend."
    • "They both praised him saying:" They both said the same exact thing? Note the lack of punctuation/typos in the quotation. BuddingJournalist 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Conclusion

I have removed the nomination, im not doing anymore. Realist2 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:02, 9 April 2008.

[edit] Walt Whitman

We thought we'd give this a shot - after a few months of fighting through vandalism, we think this article is fairly well improved to (hopefully) FA quality. Admitted possible weakness include lack of depth in legacy, confusing sexuality question (inherent to the subject?), and possibly a need for better prose. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I can't really offer you a complete review, but I will point out now while you are still online that you will get pounded about the totally unreferenced lead. A number of statements there need referencing. The ones that jump out at me include the quote in the first paragraph, his sexuality being controversial, and his funeral becoming a public spectacle. SorryGuy  Talk  02:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Good catch - I've added a few. Let me know if you think any others should be covered. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Before doing that, the lead is supposed to summarize the entire article. You've got a full paragraph on one small aspect of the entire article, with the rest overlooked. Before sourcing the lead, I'd suggest rewriting it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind being more specific? The lead was written specifically to summarize the whole article (though, admittedly, the article has changed somewhat since then). --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment This statement "Born on Long Island in 1819", is redundant, or maybe the date. It is already stated right after the name. About the referencing issues of the lead, I think it is fine to ignore them as long as its factual and fully sourced below. --Efe (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and taken care of. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Your web site refs need date of last access.
  • The D'Emilo and Freeman Intimate Matters ref (current ref 111) lacks a page number
All other links checked out fine with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I expect nothing less than picky! I'll try to take care of these now. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If you don't have the Intimate Matters book, I think I can locate it on my shelves. Maybe. Hopefully you have it, now that I think about it.... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have access to it; one of the editors who collaborated on this article added it, presumably implying the entirety of the book served as a reference. Hopefully he'll respond here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Doubtful that they meant the entire book, it covers a very wide time frame. Let me dig. Nope, it must still be in a box. Sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comments First quick questions:
  • Why is there no section on Walt Whitman's poetry (except for that buried within his life), but there is an entire section on his "Lifestyle and beliefs"? As Whitman is known primarily as a poet, this seems like a major omission.
  • I'm concerned that the article was written using only five books. This is Walt Whitman - one of America's greatest and most written-about poets. Have you checked out Emily Dickinson? That is a recent FA on another famous nineteenth-century American poet. Awadewit (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I hear ya. Though the article's main references come from five books there are several other sources scattered throughout. If I can get my hands on another book or two I'll get them represented too. I also see your point about the poetry but it seems to me his poetry (excuse me, his one poem, considering that's ultimately all he is known for, more or less :) ) is discussed throughout his bio, in his poetic theory section, and under legacy. If we can expand on it, we'll do our best. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not that the article needs more biographies (of course, that would be nice). The issue is that the article has no substantial references to literary criticism on Whitman. Also, it doesn't matter that Whitman is popularly known for Leaves of Grass - he did write other things, as mentioned in the article. These texts need to be discussed. (I'm currently working on Mary Shelley - she is popularly known for Frankenstein, but wrote much more. This can be discovered by reading the literary criticism.) Much more importantly, his poetry needs to be discussed as poetry - the style of it, its themes, etc. These points are only glancingly touched on in the article (and the same information is repeated in several places - not expanded upon). To research these topics, I suggest you begin with The Cambridge Companion to Walt Whitman, which also has a "List of Suggested Readings" in the back. That should guide you to more books on Whitman's writings. Unfortunately, I am going to have to oppose this article as it stands because it is not comprehensive. An author biography that lacks a sustained discussion of that author's works cannot be considered comprehensive. Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What I meant in saying that Whitman is known for one poem is that all of Whitman's poetry is Leaves of Grass - all his poetry is really that one, long, book-length poem (usually without separate titles or headings). The "other stuff" he wrote was his journalism (which is covered in the bio part). I see your point, though so, if nothing else, I'll try to incorporate some info from the Leaves of Grass article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Procedural issue—This is the second current nomination by the same user. I think it's inadmissable, and should be withdrawn (by the nominator or the Director) until the earlier nomination is resolved. TONY (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with having more than one nomination that I'm watching. See Talk:Walt Whitman and you'll also notice that, soon enough, there will be up to three other editors taking part in this nomination. So, it's not a self-nom but a group-nom. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'm going to have to agree with Awadewit on this one; the article simply isn't comprehensive enough. So much emphasis is put upon Whitman's life and eccentricities, but I do not see any lit crit. The "legacy" section attempts to do what such a section would do, but without it fleshed out, a fantastic quote such as "You cannot really understand America without Walt Whitman, without Leaves of Grass... He has expressed that civilization, 'up to date,' as he would say, and no student of the philosophy of history can do without him" makes little sense. Whitman is considered one of America's Top Five poets, so it seems a disservice, really, to not discuss his trailblazing style and/or common critical resentment of his major work. It's touched upon in the "Leaves of Grass" section, but most of it is "in-universe", as it were. There's not even a sample of this work. In short, I don't think the article is ready yet. More research needs to be done outside of five biographies; there are 231 books with Whitman as the subject in my library, so there's not a shortage of material. :) I trust that this article can do much better, but for now I must reluctantly oppose. María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, I see the point here. It's funny, a certain other article I put up for FA was heavily criticized for not focusing on biography enough and talking too much about literary stuff. Ah well. Will do what I can. Hopefully the other Whitman editors will be able to help there too. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now sorry. I so want to see this one as an FA, but sadly, it's not ready yet. The big problem is that the reader will have to look elsewhere to discover why his poetry was among the greatest of Whitman's and all time. The article is not comphrehensive. To add to my disapointment, there are numerous examples of sloppy prose. In the Lead- "His work was also very controversial in its time", why the "also". Later, "After a stroke towards the end of his life, he moved to Camden, New Jersey while his health further declined", should be "where his health". Further one, "The oldest was named Jesse and another boy died unnamed after six months", is not clear. Presumably the boy was six months old when he died. There is more, "He left the job in 1859, though it is unclear if he was fired or left on his own", of his own free will? Later again, "to serve as his housekeeper in exchange for free rent" is sloppy. There are many more examples. Walt Whitman deserves better. The article needs a thorough clean-up, (copy edit) and a substantial new section on his poetry. GrahamColmTalk 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out those errors; we'll continue working on the prose. I'm glad the article is getting serious attention anyway. Before we got to it, it was a pile of original research and the victim of lots (and I mean lots) of heavy vandalism. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know, I'll chip in where I can, but I can't help with any critical analysis. GrahamColmTalk 18:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:02, 9 April 2008.

[edit] Rail transport

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is a very important subject aroud the World. Actually I am translating the article Rail transport in India (that is already Featured) for pt.wiki, and I thought this deserves too as the main article of the subject. A very complete article, many images, etc. Danilo P (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danilo P (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I note that according to article stats Danilo hasn't been a major contributor to the article. I also note that are large sections of the article unreferenced, the See also section is huge, the references (what there are) are a mess (What ref is Awdry? Lewin? Robertson? etc.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, article's talk page has a long "to do" list, showing that its main editors are aware it is not ready for FA.--Grahame (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- Danilo has correctly identified that this ought to be a Featured Article. I identified much the same last year, although I suggested we should aim for GA first! The ToDo list was drawn-up at this time, and several editors did put some work into it. The collaborative effort died-away after a few days, presumably as editors worked on more tightly-defined pages. (I include myself among their number, unfortunately, partly because I felt I was working alone.) I think a major problem is that this article needs some substantial restructuring, especially as it main-links to several more articles that are nearly as important and are in a similar state! This restructuring requires a high-level view of the topic, and I think we are all guilty of being interested in areas of the topic rather than the topic as a whole. Ideas for how we move this forward would be welcome! -- EdJogg (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:Major part of the content lacks in-line citation, hence fails 2c. of WP:FACr - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Not yet ready. --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Omits any mention of rails with trails or links to Wikipedia articles about them. Also omits the very relevant and important topic of trans-shipment, the linkages between railways and ships and trucks. I suggest that the nominator withdraw the nomination, fix the issues already identified in this FAC, and help to get this article through the GA process and/or peer review before its next FAC nomination. --Una Smith (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:02, 9 April 2008.

[edit] S Club

Self-nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel I have worked extremely hard at providing Wikipedians a detailed history of the UK pop band S Club. We were successful first time at reaching GA status, and had a positive peer review. Everything is neatly referenced and I'm hoping we could see the S Club article on the main page sometime in the future. - ǀ Mikay ǀ 15:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.discogs.com/home says on the home page "Welcome to Discogs, a community-built database of music information." What makes this reliable? Granted, the information it's referencing isn't exactly something that is likely to be highly challenged, but it would be better sourced to the promo single or to a commercial site like Amazon, etc.
  • http://www.spotlight.com/interactive/cv/1/M90794.html says the information is provided by the subject. Might try to find a better source.
All the links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
First, I don't mind interspersed comments, but Sandy might. Second, I've struck out the ones that are resolved, but now...

I'm not sure if it's common practise to reply to each of your points above, but I have anyway. There's a couple I'm going to come back to in a second.. - ǀ Mikay ǀ 15:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just re-read the bits above, and it told me to not break up commenters thoughts, so I'll list them below as per the points above:
  1. I went for substance over reliability I think when I chose this reference. Obviously, it's a well respected fan site (which means nothing, I know) but I couldn't decide upon a reliable source to use for the summary, and it would count as original research (I think?) if I didn't use one. I have the movie on DVD somewhere, I guess I can cite straight from the film? Edit: Done this for Back to the '50s, Boyfriends & Birthdays and S Club 7 Go Wild! - thus eliminating all VivaSClub.com references
  2. I'm having trouble with this one. I know there's an Industry website that is searchable by song (I visited after the whole Ronnie Hazlehurst thing) but I cannot seem to find it at the moment, which is a pain. But I'll keep on it.
  3. Will dig out my CD in a second.. Edit: Done.
  4. Digital Spy is one of the recognised Entertainment websites in the United Kingdom. I'm not sure in terms of Wikipedia if that makes it reliable, but I know it is certainly well respected within the industry.
  5. Fair enough, but if it's the official site of his agent, does that not make it reliable? Or does it make it less reliable because information can be skewed (even though it's only a CV..)
  6. I think the site is just down. I will check back soon, and if it isn't back up, will look for another source. Edit: This source is now back and fully working
  7. Fixed that :)

- ǀ Mikay ǀ 18:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I had began a readthrough of the article, but I've only gotten past the first paragraph. Anyway, I'm a bit worried the last sentence of "Formation" would be considered OR or trivia unless someone else thought it was noteworthy enough. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose: Could have done with another peer review and a copy-edit.
  • Prose
  • Plenty of one-two sentence stubby paragraphs throughout the article - almost always an indicator that the prose isn't upto standard. "After the group split up...disbanded in 2004.", "Of course, throughout their releases..."Say Goodbye"." and "In September 2002...Jon and Jo take lead vocals." - Combine these ideas with adjacent paragraphs, and rewrite.
  • Plenty of unencyclopedic language throughout: "Of course", "disappointingly", "This is certainly the case"
  • For some reason, band members are referred to by their first names.
  • "It featured the ballad, co-written by Cathy Dennis, "Two in a Million" and retro-styled, uptempo "You're My Number One"." "From their "disco-influenced", "Don't Stop Movin'" to their "R&B ballad", "Show Me Your Colours", the album marked a more mature approach for the band." Eh what? You've put commas and quotations in all the wrong/unnecessary places and the resulting sentences are utterly incomprehensible.
  • Plenty of POV too; the lead sentence is "S Club...were a BRIT Award-winning British pop group". You wouldn't say "Carmen Electra is a Razzie award-winning actress" would you? The first sentence is supposed to be general and neutral.
  • The writing is very ambiguous at times; what is a "strong nineties pop sound"? "the group became very quiet" - like how people are quiet in a library? "Their first singles focussed on sharing the lyrics around the group" - again, huh?
  • Too much reptition of phrases in nearby sentences, a sign of redundancy and inefficient wording; FA-standard prose requires variety: "marked a more mature direction for the group whilst still retaining their pop sensibilities. Their next single continued in this mature direction." "split. However, on 21 April 2003, S Club announced live on stage that they were to split up." (the last two sentences of the lead could be combined to form a better one)
  • Fair-use images so many fair-use violations...help
  • There are five TV/movie/video screenshots used in the article. To qualify for fair-use in Wikipedia, the prose must discuss in detail what is happening in those screenshots. Clearly, that is not the case here, as the images serve the purpose of identifying the band members, completely unacceptable per Wiki rules. It is reasonable to expect that free images of living persons can be obtained. As for that infobox lead pic, since they have disbanded, it would be under fair-use to include a promo pic, but not a screenshot.
  • A look at Rachel Stevens article shows there are a number of music video pics there too. Can you say "copyright infringement"?
  • MoS
  • Review WP:DASH. The second sentence in the lead has hyphens instead of the correct emdashes. Same mistake throughout.
  • Apart from the two times in the lead, Simon Fuller is linked throughout the article. So are the band members; totally unnecessary, after the first linked mention; refer to them only by last name. Seeing Double is linked twice in the same paragraph.
  • Other miscelleanous errors: singles in quotes not italics please. Celebrity Big Brother or Celebrity Big Brother?
  • number one or #1? Review WP:MOS regarding numbers, the article is full of errors and inconsistencies.
  • Content
  • The article seems to be nothing more than a collection of what album was recorded, what single released, the chart positions, what movie they starred in and so on... Where is the story? What were the band going through and what did the media think of them? Its really boring as of now.
  • That "After S Club 7" section seems more suited to the "Where are they now" segment of a Vh1 documentary rather than a serious encyclopedia. It should be cut down to about one paragraph length if it is need at all (I don't think so). I think its funny how the section as of now lists every movie the members acted in and their co-stars in that movie.
  • ZERO criticism of the band. I can't imagine how a manufactured pop band could escape the wrath of the press for being fake and untalented.
  • The lead needs a rewrite. As of now it tells me 1) the names of band members and their manager, 2) they were popular, and that 3)they broke up.
  • See [[Blur (band)|], Oasis or any band FA regarding the discography section. Names of studio albums and release year in brackets only please. For chart details and the rest the reader can go to the discography article.
  • The band template at the bottom is weird. You should probably bring it up to standard.
The problems I've listed are hardly exhaustive but only representative, so please don't address them individually. Like I said, this article needs a fresh pair of eyes or seven. indopug (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: "Coincidentally, 'S' is the 19th letter in the English alphabet and 19 is Simon Fuller's company." - this uncited sentence sucks on so many levels that I think it deserves special mention.

Wow, well.. thank you! Every bullet point made my heart sink further, but criticism can only be taken in a positive way. I totally agree that we need fresh sets of eyes, but unfortunately there isn't as many fans willing to write comprehensively (I know you'll contest about usage of that word ;)) about the subject. I'll take it all into account (generally) and work hard on it over the coming weeks (months?). The only thing I have to disagree on is the use of a criticism paragraph. We came to the conclusion in the peer review that there shouldn't be a dissection of manufactured pop as a whole, as it's simply not the place for it. I'll still take that into considering when rethinking ideas for the article. Any more comments? - ǀ Mikay ǀ 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Indopug. Some random examples of issues:
    • "The group - consisting of Tina..." Hyphens should not be employed for disjunction. Remember the rules for commas for nonessential elements of a sentence.
    • "and had at least one number one single in four different countries" Ambiguous "at least".
    • Be careful of overlinking; for example, "Simon Fuller" is linked five times in the article.
    • "Their television show also lasted four series..." What's the purpose "also" here?
    • "...became popular in 100 different countries" You sure that it became popular in all 100? Or was it just shown in 100 countries?
    • "In 2002, Paul..." In formal. encyclopedic prose, refer to people with their last names, not their first.
    • "the concept of 'S Club 7'" Why the single quotation marks here?
    • "who didn't audition to get into the group." Informality abound.
    • "Coincidentally, 'S' is the 19th letter in the English alphabet and 19 is Simon Fuller's company." As Indopug stated, this merits special recognition. I actually guffawed out loud when I read that while reviewing the article. BuddingJournalist 23:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose As well as agreeing with many of the points raised above, at the very least please fix the article to refer to the band members by surname, rather than first name, as appropriate for an encyclopedia article. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:02, 9 April 2008.

[edit] Crawley

Self-nominated by Hassocks5489. I have collaborated with User:Tafkam since August 2007 on this article, building it up from a listy, start-class effort to a much more comprehensive and better-referenced piece. I'm a bit concerned it may be a bit too long, although I did the "raw prose text" measurement thing and found it came to about 43KB of raw text. The article complies with the guidelines for writing about UK settlements; I have checked all links and references; I think all Manual of Style breaches have been removed; and a Peer Review has recently been provided. For info: the rewrite took place on my user subpage here, and the full edit history is preserved there. As can be seen, Tafkam and I have contributed approximately equally to the changes since August. Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Double check the link tool above .. a couple of the pages redirected and gave other errors.
→ For the BGS link, which is an interactive, searchable geological map and which came up with an error message on the link tool, I have provided a supplementary link to a static map. It's a .jpg on a university academic's web page hosted by his university; I hope that will be considered suitable, even though it was published under his own name. I have left the BGS link in as well anyway. The Property News one seems to take ages on some attempts and be OK on others. The Sussex Police one appears to be behaving correctly when it is clicked, although the link tool picks up a Soft 404. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
→ Update: (a) BGS link removed. (b) I have found the direct link to the page referring to the three neighbourhood policing areas, but it is still producing a Soft 404 on the link tool, even though clicking on the link (or going to it manually in a different browser window) produces no errors or redirects. Not sure what more can be done there. (c) Although the Thames Water map comes up with an "Invalid type for .swf file" message, it gives an "OK" code on the link checker and always comes up correctly when navigated to; do I need to do anything with that one? Hassocks5489 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the redirects ws for the council website where they seem to be using some sort of content management system. I'm slightly concerned that by giving the "final" url we're actually doing the equivalent of linking to an oldid in wikipedia - i.e. goign to a single fixed version of the page, wehreas goign to the base url htttp://www.crawley.gov.uk is perhaps more likely to always give us the current version of the site. David Underdown (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd be more comfortable if sections of the history weren't sourced to the Borough Council website.
→ I should be able to supersede them all using a recently obtained book. I will remove the links to the website once the new sources (under the name Gwynne) go in. May take a little while to eliminate all. Hassocks5489 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise the sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Oppose—1a and 2a. Here are mere examples.

  • "The town comprises 13 planned "neighbourhoods" (residential areas), separated by main roads and railway lines, and based around the core of the old market town." Most neighbourhoods are planned in some way; I'd drop that epithet here and explain the issue in the necessary detail further down. Solves the repetition problem of "planned" in the last sentence. Why is "neighbourhoods" in quotes? You may have reasons, but they're not sufficiently obvious. "The town comprises 13 residential neighbourhoods based around the core of the old market town, and separated by main roads and railway lines." Yes?
→ Looks better. The (probably subconscious) reasoning behind the quotes is that Crawley has unusually tightly planned and closely defined neighbourhoods: unlike most British towns, it has not really grown organically; also, it's fairly unusual for the term "neighbourhood" to be used in a British urban context, whereas it is the standard term in respect of Crawley (for example, the council uses the term consistently). I think the "Divisions and suburbs" subsection (which I'm going to rename) provides enough context, although a reference to the council's use of the term may help. Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead is inadequate in scope and length.
→ I have attempted to rewrite; comments on the revised version would be welcome, in particular as to whether it is focused enough and whether I have improved the scope of coverage enough. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The whole text needs sifting for ungainly repetitions: "The earliest known evidence of human activity in what is now Crawley is evidenced by prehistoric finds that imply habitation at around 5000 BC.[2] Evidence of ...". There's yet a fourth "evidence" in the subsequent sentence, and a fifth in the sentence after that. Remove "known". Recast and change "finds" into "evidence"? Unsure.
→ This will be an ongoing process, but I have made a start tonight; again, your comments would be helpful as a guide to progress. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
→ Sections up to and including "Transport" have been attempted so far. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
→ The whole article has now been given one dose of the blue-pencil treatment. Again, I would welcome any comments or guidance on where I need to edit further. Hassocks5489 (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • MOS breach: St Mary's caption is just a nominal group, so no period. The wording could be neater, too.
→ Have simplified it in line with the caption on the picture above it. Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "15" but "fourteenth"?
→ Corrected this discrepancy. Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

TONY (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you find a collaborator first, before looking further. TONY (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody here for their comments so far! They have been very useful. My next changes will now be made at some point tomorrow, including those I have mentioned in response to ElCobbola. Hassocks5489 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments.
    • It'd be nice if the lede could be three paragraphs, just because they're all somewhat short (merging first and second would be 7 lines, or merging the second and third would be 8 lines)
      • → Have merged the second and third; they form the most logical continuation. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Double check your Wikilinks. Several redirect to other places, so you should fix it so the Wikilink goes directly to the article.
    • The image in the top-right just says "Queen's Square looking east-northeast". However, I have no context of what that means. Is Queen's Square the most part of town? It'd be nice if that could be put into a bit more context, though not too much.
      • → Changed; new caption is more informative. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I see two references in the lede. Are both of those facts mentioned in the article? If not, they should be; if not, then the references aren't needed, though you don't have to get rid of them.
      • → I have added a couple of sentences to ensure that ref 1 is used in the article and back up the equivalent assertions in the lede. The lede sentence with ref 2 is expanded upon in the very last sentence of the History subsection. I'll leave the refs in the lede. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • In the lede, As at 2008 - should that be As of 2008?
      • → Yes, goood catch: I think I introduced that error recently! Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Crawley grew slowly in importance over the next few centuries, but was boosted in the 18th century by the increasing popularity of Brighton - so just checking. Was its population increased by the development of Brighton? I'm a tad confused at that, since there's no other mention of Brighton.
      • → I have clarified this by way of mentioning the London-Brighton turnpike, which had a significant impact. (I had intended to refer to the turnpike anyway, so this was a good opportunity.) Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Be sure to add non-breaking spaces
    • The first paragraph of Governance isn't sourced
    • Same with Geography
    • The second paragraph in Shopping and retail should have a reference at the end of the last sentence. As a rule of thumb, every paragraph should have a reference at the end of it
    • The sections on Road and Rail each should be better referenced.
      • → Rail is done now. Road is proving surprisingly difficult (and frustrating!) to source. This website covers just about everything in terms of road numbers and where they go; its status as a suitable source by Wikipedia standards is marginal, I admit, but it has been accepted on the Featured Article M62 motorway. Before I add it, would you consider it suitable in the context of this article? If not, I'll have to continue diffing around (or recast that paragraph). Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I am concerned about that source, in regards to the disclaimer. While I make every effort to keep the information on CBRD accurate and up to date, I make no guarantees as to the validity of any information on this website. Anyone acting on this information does so at their own risk and I can accept no liability or responsibility for the results. CBRD does not represent (or claim to represent) the road maintenance or construction industries, and unless stated otherwise, the information on it is not officially sourced or endorsed. On the other hand, it's already used on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • → The same questions apply to the SABRE website (A23 page shown here as an example) and The Motorway Archive. If these are considered suitable as sources, so much the better; if not, it's not the end of the world, but some guidance would be appreciated before I insert them. Thanks. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Same situation as above. I tend to think these are more suitable. It is much more desirable to get a more official source. The SABRE site mentions a list by the British Department of Transportation. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I presume the Manor Royal street signs are printed in white ink to show against a black background? --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The signs actually look a bit like this:
ASHDOWN ROAD
TILGATE
FLEMING WAY
INDUSTRIAL
That is, a white upper part of the background with black lettering for the street name, and a coloured band below it with the neighbourhood name in white lettering. In the case of Manor Royal, the work "INDUSTRIAL" is used instead. I had a short explanation to that effect (without the graphics!) in the Neighbourhoods and Areas section, but I stripped it out at Peer Review after it was described as unnecessary. Do you think it should go back in, for clarity? Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think a mention of white ink would suffice. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
→Added. Hassocks5489 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Support: Only some minor issues need to be addressed. This article clearly satisfies the FA criteria. It is a brilliant piece of work. Needs to be featured.KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 06:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:02, 9 April 2008.

[edit] Weather front

previous FAC (12 February 2008)

Ok, I did a good amount of work to this already-good article, and nominated it around two months ago. There were some good points raised, and it did not manage to be promoted. Since then, I believe I have addressed everybody's concerns, and I now fail to see what prevents this from being close to perfect; I think this is very worthy of being featured. I'l gladly fix any issues, and I appreciate any suggestions. Thanks, Juliancolton The storm still blows... 19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please close and archive the peer review, per instructions at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm so sorry about that, I thought the PR was already closed. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 20:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • The Roth reference needs a publisher.
Tool linkie thing checks out. Otherwise looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It's fixed, and everything else looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a worthy nomination that I hope passes. However, the prose needs polishing first. See if you can find someone new to sift through it. Here are random examples.

  • Opening sentence: "significant weather"—I'm struggling with the concept. Significant water.
  • Done
  • Repeated links (such as "weather")—why?
  • Done
  • "ground based"—what's missing? And I think the link to "sea level pressure" needs to be piped to "sea-level pressure". This applies even to good AmEng.
  • Done
  • "A cold front's location is at the leading edge of the temperature drop off, which in an isotherm analysis would show up as the leading edge of the isotherm gradient, and it normally lies within a sharp surface trough." Rather than the ungainly possessive apostrophe, why not "A cold front is located at ..."? Can we change the conditional to indicative: "shows up as"?
  • Done
  • And down the bottom: "Fronts are generally guided by winds aloft, but they normally move at lesser speeds." or "move more slowly? Although that might give wrong emphasis; at least "do not move as fast".
  • Done
  • Refs—pity there aren't more authors stated. For example, who wrote UNH's lessons? TONY (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, I got most of those, and I hope it addressed most of your main concerns. The only thing which may be impossible is the authors in the refs. I double checked for authors, and any ref that doesn't have an author stated does not have an author. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some copyedit notes:

  • "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomenon." - this needs pluralization (of meteorological phenomena).
  • While it makes sense to mention both shearline and shear line once, after that, please pick one and use it consistently throughout.
  • For the caption starting " A guide to the symbols for weather fronts that may be found on a weather map", I would reduce the explanatory caption text to 'Weather map symbols:'. Please add nonbreaking spaces between each number and the first word of the following text; unfortunate line breaks make it difficult to read this.
  • The section header 'Types of front' is awkward; suggest 'Front types'.
  • "A similar phenomenon to a frontal zone is the dry line" - can a 'frontal zone' be more explicitly defined prior to this?
  • The image captions "Tropical wave formation." and "Convective precipitation." should not have a full stop.
  • Please add context for 'haboob'; a few words would preclude the need to click a link to figure out what it is.
  • "showers, thundershowers and related unstable weather" - elsewhere you have used serial commas
  • "and the presence of a jet max" - a what?
  • "Although, not all fronts produce precipitation or even clouds; moisture must be present in the air mass which is being lifted." - this is awkward; can you rework it into a single flowing sentence?
  • "Fronts are generally guided by winds aloft, but do not move as fast." - as quickly
  • Please add publishers to all references.
  • Image placement needs review: the images in 'Warm front' and 'Precipitation produced' should be right-aligned so as not to affect the section headers above and below them.

Maralia (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the comments, I'll get right no those. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 12:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've fixed everything except for the references. You see, the majority of the references do not have a way to find out the actual author, so as it usually is done around these type of articles, the publisher is used as the author. I know it sounds strange, but if you look at many of the other weather-related articles, it will likely have a similar issue. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 12:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments as a mostly lay reader (realizing that all undergrad meteorology knowledge has evaporated)
    • The pictures are really nice and attractive !
    • Would like to see more of the terminology covered - see [14]
    • The origins of fronts are covered in some types of fronts but not others.
    • Some unlinked technical terminology - "lee troughs"
    • Article structure, would be good to have this starting from the origins of fronts, going on to the classification based on origin and behaviour - and then to the interpretation of field signs and map symbols.

Shyamal (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment beautifully illustrated. I'm bothered by some readability issues around looong sentences and jargon. For example, this cracker: "Organized areas of thunderstorm activity not only reinforce pre-existing frontal zones, but can outrun cold fronts in a pattern where the upper level jet splits apart into two streams, with the resultant Mesoscale Convective System (MCS) forming at the point of the upper level split in the wind pattern running southeast into the warm sector parallel to low-level thickness lines." --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Oppose for now.
    • The article seems to jump into a section without really describing what a front is (I know it's in the lead, but the first section in the article body just doesn't really fit). I realize that it needs to go first so that people can make sense of the subsequent illustrations, but maybe there is a way to redo the first sentence to make it focus more on weather front again?
    • It might be good to have an introductory paragraph at the beginning of the front types section, that, in 2-4 sentences, discusses briefly the types of fronts. That way it isn't as jarring to get into a list of the front types.
    • I know very little about weather, and it was difficult for me to follow some of the section because there was so much jargon. The article is fairly short, and I think it should be expanded a bit to briefly explain some of the terminology so that lay people will understand it a bit better.

Karanacs (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:02, 9 April 2008.

[edit] Jack Kemp

I'm nominating this article for featured article because. I have spent the last month and a half cleaning up the article (that looked like this) by reading all 368 articles that show in the Time magazine search for Jack Kemp and the first 130 articles in the New York Times search. I have attempted to be as neutral as these sources are by including both the positives and negatives from these sources. Two lingering issues remain from the WP:GA promotion process:

  1. There is some concern about the article's length, but I noted in the WP:GAC nomination page that a WP:FA could be written about either his football or his political career. Thus, a single unified biography will be lenghty. I also compared the article to several other by starting at the top and hitting page down until I got to the footnotes. On my current screen it took seven times for Kemp. This is shorter than several other important national figures: Featured article Reagan -10 although the article still needs a large template added for his cabinet, Good articleClinton, H. -10, Good articleBush, G.W. -11, Good articleClinton, B. -10, Good articleStephen Harper -9, Good articleRice, C. -12, Good articleMcCain -8, Featured articleGrover Cleveland (Buffalo's most important politician)-9, Featured articleFord -10, Featured articleEmma Goldman (random person of lesser importance from WP:CHICAGO that I follow closely) -10, Featured article Roosevelt, F. -13, Featured articleRoosevelt, T. -15.
  2. There is an issue on where the opinions on Soccer belong. I initial had this as a separate section. To pass GA I moved it. An uninvolved editor stated that he felt the original placement was better.

I think the article is extensive. I have not exhausted good neutral sources of information if more detail is desired. His Newsweek search has 111 results and I have only used one. His New York Times search had thousands of articles and I only used the first 130. However, all articles are works in progress and I think I have done enough that it should be considered fairly complete. However, part of the reason his article is shorter than others is his article is sparse on images. I do think this article is ready for review. However, as with all important politicians it is impossible to make everyone happy as far as Neutrality goes. I welcome stylistic suggestions and stand ready to respond to all commentary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that for the football section, I went to the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library and found a few Buffalo Bills Books and American Football League books that are not likely to be found in too many Libraries outside of Western New York.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Question it gives the dates he was "in office" as the 1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee - is the position generally regarded as an office? Guest9999 (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    Reply I think you are really asking does this belong in an infobox rather than is it an office. It is not an office as I understand it. However, I am not sure what is proper for the infobox. It is the highest position he held. I have noticed templates and succession boxes for the position. I do not know whether it is Kosher to include it in an infobox of a WP:FA. Guidance is appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, looking at the succession boxes for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford it is an office.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "He championed several Chicago school and supply side economics issues: economic growth, free markets, free trade, tax simplification and lower tax rates on both work and investment. " is sourced to http://www.kemppartners.com/principals-jk1.htm, which is Kemp's consulting firm. Would be better sourced to a third-party source
    With so many articles in that paragraph summarizing his positions, I doubt anyone would really question if these are his positions who even reads only that paragraph. If you feel that particular sentence needs to have a backup citation from a WP:RS, I will reread the refs for the rest of the paragraph and find one. Do you think that is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave this up for other folks to weigh in on. I lean towards it being an okay source, but borderline. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 76 needs a page number and publisher information (Jack Kemp An American Renaissance) and so does current ref 77 (Robert Bartley The Seven Fat Years)
    These refs predate my involvement in the article. They would be more useful with page numbers, but I last saw the American Renaissance book when I was in Buffalo and did not read it. I could probably get my hands on the book in Chicago, but then I would have to read the whole thing until I came up with a page. I know nothing about the other book. Let me know how essential the page numbers are in this context.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Page numbers are really not negotiable. They are part of WP:V and WP:CITE. Since this is a BLP and a political figure, we need to be especially careful with sources and citing things. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's put this in context. I came to a 12.1KB article that had four help needed banners on it and that was lightly cited. I beefed it up to a 121 KB article that has citations everywhere. The 10% that I did not write has a couple of citations that are inline, but to whole books not pages. I have been on your side of this debate in the past (See Edward Teller's WP:FAR). On my 90% you can fairly hold me to new WP:FAC standards, but on the 10% that is not mine I think the slightly lower WP:FAR standards on extant text may apply. This is where we call on User:SandyGeorgia and other experts. In general, it is always significantly harder to properly cite another authors work than your own. Put a {{fact}} tag on anything I added and I think it would be fair for me to undertake citing it. However, the other stuff just comes along for the ride, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
These are sourcing this statement "These tax cuts have been attributed for the economic growth from 1983 to 1990, the then largest peacetime expansion of the United States GDP.", they are both on that one sentence. Any chance there is some article out there on the web that covers this? I can see where you are coming from, I've been there in the past, but on the other hand, it is a statement that is likely to be challenged, and it should be verifiable, which means page numbers. I'll leave this discussion up here for others to judge for themselves, or help out as the case may be. Myself, I'm willing to defer to someone else's judgement on this one. (Give me a bishop any day!) Ealdgyth - Talk 04:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I am about to pop my DVD in before I call it a day. However, you did call my attention to some shoddy grammar. S/B either
  • These tax cuts have been credited for the economic growth from 1983 to 1990,. . .
  • or The economic growth from 1983 to 1990 is attributed to these tax cuts,. . .
Since the latter would require reconstruction of the rest of the sentence and the former would only need a little tinkering with the rest of the sentence I went with the former.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I added one ref. I am not sure if this is enought for you. Let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm still a bit uncomfortable with two books without page numbers referencing "the then largest peacetime expansion of the United States GDP." I'll leave it up for other folks to decide on, how's that? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Double check the web link tool and fix the ones that are deadlinked. Otherwise everything looks pretty good as far as sourcing and links. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from User:JKBrooks85
  • Support. I rearranged the early life section slightly in order to get the athletics and academics sections together. You probably don't need to consult the link checker all the time — I had just noticed that there was a missing link in there that hadn't been addressed before. Good stuff all around. It's a coherent, understandable, and complete article. There are ample citations, and as far as I can tell, it seems to be a good biography article worthy of being featured. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Can I get an opinion on whether NFL fan club team history websites count as WP:RS for WP. In particular can I use http://www.billsbackers.com/JackKemp.htm and http://www.billsbackers.com/CookieGilchrist.htm ?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I imagine the main thing to be cautious about is the fact that the site seems to be asking for articles and that the guy who wrote that article in particular doesn't claim any qualifications beyond being a lifelong Bills fan. I don't think that's bad ... just that it probably doesn't stand on its own because of that. If you could find a source that backs up the source, it might work, but I'm not entirely sure how the red tape surrounding WP:RS works. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - wonderful improvement; this is what we want to see in a political biography. Amply referenced, clear, coherent, interesting. Biruitorul (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I am glad to get some political support after getting responses from two editors that I know do a lot of sports related work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—The prose is full of bizarre, awkward, unexplained structures and wordings. Can't possibly be promoted at present.

  • "Travelled"? US spelling, please.
  • "elective politics"—sounds like surgery. "Public life" would be better, if true. Otherwise, a different epithet.
  • "Kemp is the third of four sons to a father who was a trucking company owner." Um ... "born"? The rest of the sentence isn't the most elegant I've seen.
  • "the entrepreneurial outgrowth of a motorcycle messenger service."—Sounds like a tumour.
  • "His parents, Paul and Frances Kemp,[4] raised their sons in the Wilshire district of Los Angeles,[5] which was a heavily Jewish section of West Los Angeles.[4] He was raised in the Church of Christ, Scientist faith" Now we learn the names of the parents, after that clumsy first sentence in the "Youth" section. The readers will wonder why these two religions are foregrounded? Very abstruse.
    • These religions are foregrounded four reasons noted over the next five paragraphs and then a later political controversy. Keep reading. Usually a reviewer would say, the biography might be improved if you can add breadth like his religion and marital status. He married a woman who brogght him into another faith. This information should be in his personal section, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Boasting an alumni of notable actors, athletes, and musicians, Fairfax is noted by celebrity-seeking guides." Bizarre wording. And the school seems to have become the them, not the person.
    • I am describing an unusual element of his background that I interpret to mean that he went to the type of high school that had tourist buses driving by with the guide pointing out the window saying that so and so went to high school here and such and such happened while Kemp was inside trying to learn about Thoreau. It is in fact the school I am describing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "The school is located on Melrose Avenue and its alumni include Herb Alpert, David Arquette, Lenny Kravitz, Ricardo Montalban, David Janssen, Timothy Hutton and Mickey Rooney.[8][9] Nonetheless, Kemp worked with his brothers at his father's trucking company in downtown Los Angeles where he learned to embrace diversity and hard work." Logical connection in "Nonetheless" eludes me completely. Seemingly unrelated ideas are jammed together into the one sentence. TONY (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I am painting a picture that this guy 1)lived with rich Jewish kids, 2)went to school with rich Jewish Kids, many of whom became celebirities, and 3) somehow managed to maintain a very down to earth demeanor which placed value on hard work and social responsibility. We are looking at the formative years of a person who nearly achieved the highest offices in our country. To understand how he got so close you must understand his background. I will reconsider my statement to see if I am putting two and two together in ways that are beyond the purpose of WP, but I think I am serving the reader well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose way too much passive voice ... e.g. "considered a social moderate" by whom? writing is generally choppy. needs a review for neutral phrasing ... e.g. "roadblocks in Congress". basically needs a thorough copyediting job before promotion to featured. Jpmonroe (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • O.K. Choppiness and passive voice are actionable things I can address. I will give it my best over the next day or two. I apologize for the chopiness, but the Time magazine/New York Times research method has me read each article and add a sentence or two with a citation. Unfortunately, most sentences have been simple sentences. I will try to revise for flow in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment WRT, social moderate, the lead is written in the uncited form where the important facts are cited in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Criterion three concerns. Certain FU images appear to have been added in response to a GA review that requested more images (which are not necessary for either GA or FA). The implication seems be that the author didn't really feel the images necessary to begin with and/or non-free inclusion criteria weren't fully considered.
    • Image:Jackkemp1988brochure.gif, Image:Dolekemp1996.gif and Image:Dole Kemp Time Magazine cover.jpg appear to be used solely as eye candy. Why are these necessary (WP:NFCC#3A) to facilitate our understanding? What is their significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8) of the campaigns? How does the Time cover “show [a] near miss”? It shows, perhaps, the outcome after a near miss; why would prose alone not be sufficent? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Near miss (Image:Dole Kemp Time Magazine cover.jpg) explanation: the text describes how the cover nearly went to the story of life on Mars. Having an inset on the cover of another stroy was unusual in those days. The fact that a second story was inset on the cover means they nearly missed being the cover story. I will clarify the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I actually do feel that in the case of a contemporary figure with an encyclopedic biography of this length adding a few relevant fair use covers helps the reader maintain image and helps break up the monotony of lengthy text. Image:Jackkemp1988brochure.gif and Image:Dolekemp1996.gif improve the quality of the article in this regard, IMO. Unless they are determined to be images that should be deleted, they belong here. They only thing that would cause me to change my mind other than being told that they should be deleted would be someone who expands either of these sections to full articles as either a Jack Kemp's 1988 Republican Nomination campaign or a Dole-Kemp 1996 Republican Nominees campaign] article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I was not quite sure what to do about User:Tony1's April 6th complaint that the article was troubled by "bizarre, awkward, unexplained structures and wordings" because the complaint did not give me much actionable guidance. User:elcobbola's subsequent April 8th complaint of choppiness and passive voice gave me grammatical changes to look for. I spent the whole day attempting to address the latter concerns in this regard and hope this might be what was necessary to converted both parties.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:02, 9 April 2008.

[edit] Émile Lemoine

Originally this was up for WikiProject A-class, but to paraphrase Giano, if it's good enough for that (well, he was talking about something else, but...), it's good enough to come here, and I'll get more feedback even if it doesn't pass. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(Tony's comments start here)

  • Rather short; is it comprehensive, as required? And the prose needs a spruce up, preferably by someone else.
    • I double checked against three of my sourced and it contains all the information fit for an encyclopedia in them.
  • "During this period of time, he published an article in the local journal Nouvellee Annales de Mathkmatiques discussing properties of the triangle." Remove "of time". *I presume the "k" is not a typo; commas either side of the title, then "which discussed the properties ...".
  • Comma after "tutor".
  • "In 1870, a laryngeal disease forced him to discontinue his teaching. Instead, he turned to publishing his mathematical research. He also participated and founded several mathematical societies and journals, such as ..."—the disease seems to be the theme of this paragraph, but that sits awkwardly with the subsequent ideas.
    • The theme of a paragraph is his turning to mathematical research, actually. Do you have an idea for a better topic sentence? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "best-known" is hyphenated further down; why not at the top?
  • "results within the paper"—just "in".

And more ... TONY (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

comment "see also" in alphabetical order? Jimfbleak (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Done Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What about my "And more"? TONY (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    I gave it a quick copyedit. I'll request a friend of mine to copyedit it too. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks to Epr and WBOSITG for the copyedit. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Image:Lemoine.jpg may have licensing issues. The tag sets forth that the author is an “anonymous photographer”, yet the licensing tag is using the “life of the author plus 70 years” criterion (i.e. if the author is anonymous, how do we know when (s)he died?). Given time frames, this is likely indeed true; however, in France, when the work is anonymous, the criterion roles over to 70 years after the work was first published (not counting extensions for the world wars). Coming into existence and being published are different things; given that this is from a website, if this was scanned from a private collection and uploaded, the publishing date could be as recent as the 1990s (i.e. it would not be PD). Do we have more information about this photo and/or its source to make a proper determination? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, I've scoured the internet and I can't find anything else about this anonymous photographer. If worst comes to worst, I suppose it could be transferred from Commons to the English Wikipedia. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 15:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, it's much better. Ref 11—the link won't open. TONY (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should more adequately summarize the article. It's very short now.
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations of less than 4 lines should not be offset; they should be inline.
    • "in January 1984." - is that supposed to be 1894? I didn't want to fix it in case it was a typo of a later year.
    • "following year, he retired from mathematical research, but continued to support the subject" - the year following the journal's initial publication or the year following his resigning as editor?
    • Clarified. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no pubisher listed for the David Eugene Smith reference, or the F.C. Gentry, or J.L. Coolidge, or the Eric Weinstein source
    • Are these reliable sources?

Karanacs (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:02, 9 April 2008.

[edit] Rongorongo

previous FAC (22:01, 22 January 2008)

Self nomination. I had nominated this article prematurely. It has now gone through peer review, and several editors (including the other principal contributor to the article) have suggested it may now be ready for FA. —kwami (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Other links check out fine. I do note that large sections of the article are lacking inline citations, at least to page numbers of the various sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I can Wayback the first link. I don't know what happened to the other; it was up a week ago. — kwami (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, got a Google cache. No images, but they're not as important as the text. — kwami (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: the appendices do not conform to WP:GTL, and the article uses mixed reference sytles (both inline and cite.php, see WP:WIAFA, crit 2c regarding consistent reference formatting). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
With the appendices, did you mean they're in the wrong order? I just moved External Links down.
Now corrected, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
As for mixing reference styles, I ran this by WP:CITE, and was told that the article is "well within accepted practice" for FA, with Pericles given as an example of a similar setup.[15] All the citations but one were inline, and I'm remedying that one. Or did you mean something else? — kwami (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Pericles does not mix Harvard inline citations with cite.php; it separates footnotes and citations, using the same style (superscripted notes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That's why I ran it by WP:CITE for their approval. The FA requirements do not state that notes and citations need to have the same format, only that citations need to be consistent among themselves ("consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing"). The citations in rongorongo are all Harvard style, and so meet FA requirements. Also, Wikipedia isn't equipped to handle notes and citations in the same format: The notes in Pericles needed to be manually numbered, and any additions or deletions will require manually renumbering all the notes. People have complained about this, but supposedly it's due to a fundamental defect in the Wikipedia code and can't be easily corrected. I'd be happy to change the setup if the Wikipedia code were corrected, but otherwise maintaining the article in proper form after it achieved FA would be an undue chore—unless it doesn't matter if they're numbered sequentially? — kwami (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the above link WP:CITE wasn't addressed, I'll repeat it here:
"I think this is fine. Many articles use different systems for explanatory footnotes and citation. Often, the cite.php system is used for citation and the ref/note template system for explanatory footnotes. For instance, see the FA Pericles. Your system is somewhat different, but serves a similar purpose of differentiating content footnotes from citations alone. This isn't to say that someone won't complain at FAC, but I think your method is well within accepted practice." Christopher Parham (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the diff you posted, you got one response at WP:CITE, WP:CITE is not WP:FAC, and that response was from Parham. The criteria says, "consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing": you've used both, mixed them, Pericles does not do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That was the first response. There were four altogether, two in direct support, and two who chimed in about wiki coding being problematic for what you want, without contradicting the first two. The other supporting opinion was,
"Parenthesised in-text citations in combination with numbered content footnotes would be consistent with (for example) APA style, so I don't think there should be any problems." [16][17] --SallyScot (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Where better to ask about citations, than at WP:CITE?
As I've said, I'd be happy to change the formatting, if you can come up with a viable alternative. At WP:CITE they were not able to.
And no, I have not mixed citation formatting. All citations are Harvard. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

1a—The writing could do with a careful polish by someone new to the text. Fascinating subject!

  • "The objects are mostly tablets made from irregular pieces of wood, sometimes driftwood, but also include a chieftain's staff, a bird-man statuette, and two reimiro ornaments." The "but" and the "also" don't work, and we're left assuming that the named objects are not of wood. Recast.
  • "There are also ..." Remove "also".
  • "the writing may have been considered sacred."—But above it says "If rongorongo does prove to be writing", which is uncomfortable. Can you get the tone even?

And just at random I saw: "the fact that the islanders were reduced to inscribing driftwood, and were extremely economical in their use of wood, may have consequences for the structure of the script"—"may have had"? TONY (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Yes, I'm too close to it to see it clearly anymore! — kwami (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There are external jumps throughout the text (external links belong in citations or external links, see WP:EL) and the article needs attention to dashes. There is uncited text everywhere, sample: Of the twenty-six commonly accepted texts that survive, only half are in good condition and authentic beyond doubt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Will take care of the external links and take a look at the dashes. [Done]
I thought we only needed to cite claims that might be challenged. That's what the MOS says. If we list 26 tablets, and describe their condition and provenance, a statement like that is not likely to be challenged. Or do we need to give generic cites for every statement? — kwami (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a fair point isn't it? Same principle as not citing the lead because its content is given in greater detail and cited later on. It might be a problem if the example given were drawing complicated conclusions from the facts, but in this case it's just a mechanical summary of information covered in more detail later. 4u1e (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've listed a number of sentences below that I think need citing. It's so easy for a vandal or a well-intentioned editor who is unfamiliar with the topic to insert incorrect information. Without citations for others to use to verify the text, it's impossible to know if the text is accurate. For a featured article (esp. one about a somewhat obscure topic), that should be unacceptable. Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't want this to turn into a big argument, so if Kwami can easily find a cite then maybe that's the best way forward. But I don't agree that a simple summation of information referenced elsewhere requires its own citation. Adding one won't make any difference to the likelihood of someone spotting the kind of changes you suggest (imho!) :) 4u1e (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The info is summarized in Fischer's appendices, so I added that as a ref. kwami (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
True, the article is a rather long, but when I've suggested cutting things under peer review, people preferred I didn't. I did move the old calendar and the individual texts to separate articles, and cut the section on modern manuscripts out completely, as I did three additional decipherers (with dozens of references) who have sections in the Spanish article but who I didn't feel were noteworthy.
I think 32 references is plenty, even if it doesn't approach the 75 at Pericles. There isn't all that much material about rongorongo, except in obscure non-peer reviewed journals. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(Note: I make it more like 68kb of text, once the pics, tables and refs are stripped out. I believe this is the appropriate measure. Sandy? 4u1e (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC))
According to Drpda, 60KB prose, 10KB refs, but since some of the refs are Harvard inline, they don't get counted as refs. (I don't understand ref counting.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd peer-reviewed this just before its FAC nomination, and the minor points I raised at the time have been satisfactorily addressed. Overall, this is a highly readable and engaging account, compiled with detail and care, attractively presented and appropriately referenced. I think it easily measures up to existing FAs in a similar topical vein. One could probably go on dotting i's, crossing t's and tweaking words, but I can't see any jarring nonconformities or missing points that would prevent this becoming a deserved FA. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, primarily on citation issues and length.
    • There are a mix of citation styles - footnotes and Harvard references. Please pick one. I saw the discussion above, but there definitely IS a mixture here. Footnote 1 is referencing the translation and providing extra information all at the same time.
Other FA articles place citations within footnotes, and all citations are Harvard (except in the cases where they are spelled out), so I don't see why this should be a problem. I think I see what you mean. Should be okay now.
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations of less than 4 lines should not be offset; they should be inline.
Done.
    • The two images at the top of Form and Construction section should not be right on top of each other - on my computer this leaves several blank lines before the beginning of the Writing media section
On your computer. But if I change it, it will mess up on someone else's computer. I've juggled the images around quite a bit to get them to display nicely on both IE and FF. After a certain point, we have to accept that different browsers display things differently.
    • For quotes that are offset, use <blockquote> </blockquote>
Per MOS, both formats are acceptable. It was a peer reviewer who put them in this format in the first place.
    • For the long quotes that should be offset, there is often no transition from the paragraph to the quote.
    • I think there are too many long quotations; some of these should be paraphrased instead
I hesitate to do that. The historical accounts of RR are already dubious. Paraphrasing them would make them even less reliable.
    • I see a few instance like this, where there is a statement and a citation, and then a clause explaining it that has no citation. "while others were carved on a fallen mo‘ai topknot,[7] suggesting they were carved after the mo‘ai was knocked down." I think that needs to be cited or it is on the line of original research. There are multiple other instances in the article.
    • I don't like the fact that the history section is divided up by sections named after people. The sections should instead have names descriptive of the history of the writing so that readers who haven't heard of these people can still follow.
Done. This was also the choice of a peer reviewer.
    • Month-day combinations should be wikilinked
Why? Aren't dates overlinked on wikipedia as it is?
    • Need citation for "It is not clear whether he observed islanders writing on tablets or if he was merely told that the tablets were engraved with "sharp stones"."
Deleted.
    • Need citation for the first paragraph of Florentin-Etienne Jaussen section.
    • Need citation for "Of the twenty-six commonly accepted texts that survive, only half are in good condition and authentic beyond doubt."
As stated above, that is like asking for citations in the lede. I should be able to find something, though.
    • Need citations for Corpus section first paragraph
    • Need citation for "However, despite its shortcomings, Barthel's is the only effective system ever proposed to categorize rongorongo glyphs."
    • Need citation for "The evidence was never published, but similar figures have been obtained by other scholars, such as Pozdniakov."
This is linked to a source below. Done.
    • Need citation for "Barthel's line drawings were not produced free-hand, but copied from careful rubbings, whence their faithfulness to the originals."
    • Need citation for "This may be due to an error in the inking, since there is a blank space in its place. The corpus is thus tainted with quite some uncertainty. It has never been properly checked, for want of high-quality photographs."
Done.
    • Need citations for much of what is in the first paragraph of Decipherment section
    • Need citation for "during which time he made an impressive number of observations, including some which are of interest for the decipherment of the rongorongo."
Done.
    • Is there any other information on what Thomson observed?
There was a lot of ethnographic observation, which can be read at the linked website. However, these were the two points most relevant for RR.
    • Don't use ibid in citations, because someone could come along later and insert another citation between that one and the one it references (the joys of a wiki)
Removed.
    • Need a conversion for distances (such as 19,000 km)
Conversion to what? Miles? No, we don't need that. People can do it themselves. We should stick to international standards.
The MoS says we should, bearing in mind that we're a general purpose encyclopedia and miles (for example) are widely used even in notionally metric countries (like the UK!). 4u1e (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Done.
    • I think the article may be too long. I think that "Decipherment" could be split into another article and summarized here.
That's a good idea.
Done: Decipherment of rongorongo. Can we consider both articles, then, since both halves have gone through the same peer review? Though the lede needs some fixing up.
    • In your footnotes, publishers need to be listed for things like 13 (Relibility of Barthel's reproductions) and 14 (see the Jaussen list online)
Done.
    • I am sure there are more areas that need citations, but I stopped reading the article partway through Decipherment.

Karanacs (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being specific on where I need additional citations. Not sure I'll be able to get to them soon, as I'm busy with other things now. kwami (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose 60kb is way way too long--there should be ways to condense this or break it into subarticles with summary style. Most readers won't be able to get nearly halfway through this. Encyclopedia articles are not intended to be treatises but instead give a concise overview of the subject. Mangostar (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I guess you're referring to the fourth FA criterion: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." Could you identify which of the details are unnecessary to the topic? 4u1e (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Done: Decipherment of rongorongo. Can we consider both articles, then, since both halves have gone through the same peer review? Though the lede needs some fixing up. kwami (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:55, 6 April 2008.

[edit] Triple H

Self-nominator Overall, this article is pretty well written, a fair well amount to the lead section, informing readers about this wrestlers history. I believe this article meets the FA criteria. It also includes a fair amount of images, with good quality to improve the article otherwise. This article stays on the main detail on the wrestler without going into anything else, thats not related to the wrestler. In short, I think this might make a good future-FA. RkORToN 03:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is http://www.otherarena.com/htm/main.shtml generally considered a reliable site for biographies?
    • The website seems to sum up the overall career of any superstar's background. Past and present. Zenlax T C S 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It is only used to cite facts that are hardly controversial (i.e. results, ring names, etc). I know other people consider it very reliable, but if consensus here is that it isn't, those sorts of facts con be cited with information elsewhere. Nikki311 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Who is behind http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/ and what sort of fact checking do they do on submitted articles?
    • Online World of Wrestling has a staff of writers who record the results (wins and losses) of shows and pay-per-views. Their results are 100% accurate. They also accept commentary/editorial like articles from outside writers, but if they are full of inaccuracies, etc. they are not accepted. Nikki311 19:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It was previously known as Obsessed With Wrestling for many years, and has only changed in name and some graphics. While OWW (whichever interpretation) is not a reference for EVERY match result in history, the ones they list are accurate, especially those from the more recent era. AKKIfokkusuTaLk —Preceding comment was added at 05:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.wrestling-titles.com/home.html is a reliable site for this information? (The fact that it overrode my no popups isn't endearing me to the site)
    • Pop-up issues aside, the information on the site is accurate. The site lists sources, contributors, and fact checkers]. Nikki311 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.angelfire.com/wrestling/cawthon777/challenge.htm looks like a personal site to me, not Online World of Wrestling which is listed as the publisher in the citation.
    • I fixed the publisher information. If you look on the main page, there are testimonials from some very well respected people in the wrestling and wrestling journalism business. Also, there is a list of people and publications that are used as sources. Nikki311 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes this site a reliable site http://www.pwwew.net/index2.htm?
    • Just like Online World of Wrestling, they have a staff of writers to record the results of shows and pay-per-views. They accept columns from outside writers, but in this case, the site is only used to cite results, which are hardly controversial, as millions of people saw them and would write in to correct them if they posted anything wrong. Nikki311 20:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes http://www.lordsofpain.net/ a reliable site? ( I couldn't investigate it well as it was loading really slowly for me)
    • Honestly, it depends on what they are saying...news vs. rumors. In this case, it is only used to cite the fact the Triple H was in a commercial for Wendy's. I'm not sure if that even needs a citation...as anybody can watch the commercial on youtube if they wanted...the commercial does exist. I just did a quick google search, though, and couldn't find any other cites (other than a cite like youtube or aol video) that mentions the commercial. Nikki311 19:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
All links check out with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking the time to check the sources and comment. :) All the problems have been fixed or the reliability of the cites explained. Any further comments would be wonderful. Thanks. Nikki311 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Struck through and hid resolved issues. I'm leaving the above up so others can judge the sources and responses for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I find the prose lumpy and indigestible (1a). Issues with refs (1c)

  • MOS says don't make time-dependent statements like: "He is starring in the upcoming" (needs "due for release in 2009", or something like that).
    • Fixed Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "After graduating high school"—Formal US English requires "from"? I'm unsure, but I'd thought so.
    • Fixed Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Title: "Professional wrestling career"—remove "career", esp. as occurs in the previous one.
    • Fixed Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "televised"—US spelling, please. Check through the whole article.
    • I'm pretty sure "televised" is the correct US spelling. "Televized" doesn't seem to be a word, and I don't know how else to spell it. Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Levesque's request to be pushed as a singles competitor"—If "pushed" is jargon (it's linked as such), it should be explicated on the spot. Cater for more than experts, please. And why is "pushed" used and again linked to the same place in the very next para? And again later. Don't repeat-link like this, please.
    • I've removed the overlinking for now, but have yet to think of a good way to reword. Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "However, in the video, many people often mistake Garner for Shawn Michaels, or a younger Jeff Hardy." Says who? Citation?
    • I removed that. I it reads like unsourcable OR to me. Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • " had dubbed himself "The Game," implying that he was at the top of the wrestling world, and was dubbed "The Cerebral Assassin"". Dubbed repetition.
    • Fixed Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Explain your use of the word "storyline" on its first occurrence.
    • Fixed Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Are the refs all OK? I looked at Ref 53 and found a copyright name at the bottom of the web site that's not specified in the list.
  • Ref 5: I see the authors are "John Milner and Jason Clevett", but this appears nowhere in the Note. Refs need a thorough audit.
    • Added the authors and checked all the other refs to make sure there wasn't the same problem. Nikki311 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
TONY (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:55, 6 April 2008.

[edit] Bill Gates

I'm nominating this article for featured article. Gary King (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a drive-by nom, Gary has only edited there for one day. -Ravedave (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I never said it was a self-nom. I have read the article multiple times over the past year and think that it is WP:FA-worthy. Gary King (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry we've seen alot of drive by nom's lately. So you plan on handling and fixing anything that comes up then? -Ravedave (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. Looking at my user page you can at least see I am somewhat dedicated. Gary King (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Gary King, did you follow the FAC instructions, and post a notice at the article talk page or consult with Everyking prior to nomination?
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Was not aware of this. I'll keep it in mind. Everyking (talk · contribs) has not edited the article in two years. Gary King (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, when you say "I'll keep it in mind", does that mean you'll report back here on their reaction? TONY (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already contacted them and am waiting for a reply, but the article has not had any major edits in the past few months besides those made by Gazpacho (talk · contribs), who is blocked indefinitely. Gary King (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
If I may, one issue with "drive bys" was the nominators failing to return to address reviewer comments. Gary is obviously responsive and, if he feels he has adequate understanding of the material and sources, I don’t know that this is something about which we need to kibitz. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
So is it standing or is it being withdrawn? I haven't yet dug into the sourcing... been putting it off in case it gets withdrawn... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I can't believe there is no separate section on the article about the person who was/is the wealthiest persn in the world for a decade. The article might not be comprehensive enough for a FA. Nergaal (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is Bill_Gates#Wealth_and_investments. Not much else needs to be said about it, considering it's just a status symbol more than anything else - it's what he does with his money that is worth mentioning. Gary King (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Wealth and investments seems to cover it. I would mention that the foundation is "*the* largest transparently operated[2] charitable foundation in the world..." -Ravedave (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point - added. Gary King (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Also he was well into his forties when the foundation was founded. I will try to find a source. -Susanlesch (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise the sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I hid most of these, left the bug one up mainly so that maybe one of our science gurus can find a better source citation for the information. Given what its sourcing, it isn't a huge worry, but it would be nice to source it to something a bit more reliable. (i.e. upgrade it from "acceptable source" to "great source") Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tentative support. The article and Gary Kings's edits both here and elsewhere convince me this can be featured. Windows needs to be mentioned somewhere though. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning behind this opinion, but on the other hand, Bill Gates had no direct involvement in Windows besides being the company's founder and CEO at the time. I don't think he wrote any of the code in it, either, except for the predecessors of the operating system that are already mentioned in the article. Windows mentions are better suited to Microsoft, whereas Bill Gates is best for his life, how he started Microsoft, and his philanthropic efforts. Gary King (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Microsoft Office needs to be here, too. In his professional life, Mr. Gates has credentials in both software engineering (and its architecture) and in business (as both a saleperson and CEO). Why not show how Mr. Gates and Microsoft scrambled at COMDEX to sell Windows. They were late to market (Xerox had Star personal computers running long before, Apple was up and running). Surely Triumph of the Nerds could be mentioned. Why not show his strategy shortly thereafter: they were selling software for five operating systems. He wanted Windows to succeed. Why not say that some 88% (didn't look that up but trust Mr. Ballmer has made the number public many times over time) of the world's data is encapsulated in a proprietary data format thanks to the success of Windows. I mean it's like a biography of a Time Life books salesman that doesn't mention his product and why his actions succeeded. Just my thoughts. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Gary that this belongs (and is already included) in Microsoft and Microsoft Office. If we start adding "just this one thing" (or a couple), the article will quickly become as bloated as a Microsoft product, and the info is already there. (Note also the "criticism" sections listed in the Microsoft article.) Isaacsf (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
OK gentlemen. Must be sunspots. Mr. Gates is mentioned in Microsoft but not in Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office and only a bit in Criticism of Microsoft. I'll think about it. It is not a deal breaker for me at this time, only a peculiar omission. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Striking tentative support in favor of oppose because omissions and deletions tell me so. I find Gary King's deletion that Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett have been bridge partners since the 1990s as peculiar as not mentioning Windows. Sorry I wasn't able help you out here. The article has some strong points and I wish you luck with it. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This point was mentioned below by another reviewer, and I agree with that person because I don't think that mentioning Gates' personal interests and hobbies such as Bridge is as important as notable as his philanthropy efforts and founding Microsoft. Gary King (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well to be fair, I did suggest that you could keep the mentioning of this (but lose the mentioning of the nicknames—that was trivial) and just merge it into the philanthropy section, since the sentence mentioned their donations. However, an omission of his personal hobby of bridge is certainly not as striking as an omission of his involvement in the creation of Windows or his later work at Microsoft. BuddingJournalist 17:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Although there are things that could be added, this is a good, well-rounded article. Two things I'd like to suggest adding:

  • Mention of Pirates of Silicon Valley and/or Steve Jobs. I would not like to see such mentions in the context of trivia or "in popular culture." I think it can be argued that the interaction of the two companies was partially personal between the two men, as demonstrated in the movie and elsewhere (such as when Microsoft invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Apple way-back-when.
    • This is better suited for Microsoft, since the 'rivalry' between Gates and Jobs may have been exaggerated in that film. Gary King (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm ok with that. I'm not being argumentative, but here is a relatively current link: [18]
  • Gates is credited with a style of philanthropy which is unusual, in that he generally doesn't just give a pile of money. I've read (but of course can't source off the top of my head) that his style includes challenge grants, so that if a government will commit a certain amount of its resources, then he will match to some degree. This has the benefit of giving the recipient some "ownership" in whatever the task is - and its outcome. I've read over the years that this has been an effective use - and leverage - of money.
    • I'm not too familiar with this but if you can give me a reference then I'll be happy to add it in where appropriate. Gary King (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Here's some info: [19]
      • And: "Unlike the Wellcome Trust, a research-funding charity which was established in 1936 following the death of Sir Henry Wellcome, the foundation's set-up enables its benefactor to oversee how his money is being spent."[2]

Obviously, I could find refs and put this info in myself; I'll try to do so but thought I'd make the suggestion here. I generally can't stand Microsoft's "contributions" to computing, but I can support the article itself. Isaacsf (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that some people might have grudges against Gates, but that should be directed towards Microsoft more since at least Gates is quite active in philanthropy :) Gary King (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well...I haven't seen a dime :-) Isaacsf (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not comprehensive, among other issues.
Issues resolved, BuddingJournalist 16:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "used proceeds from Lakeside's rummage sale to buy..." For the school? For the club?
    • done Gary King (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • No, it's still ambiguous. "for the school" seems to be modifying "rummage sale". BuddingJournalist 05:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've skimmed over the rest of the article, and it seems to skip over large parts of his life. Goes from 1980 to 1998 to 2006 with no real mention of what was going on in between. Surely there can be much more written about his life during those years. For example, what was the extent of his involvement in the creation of Windows?

BuddingJournalist 03:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Update I'm still an oppose with respect to the criteria:
    • 1a: Still many glitches, minor grammatical errors, awkward wording, and sentences that don't give enough context throughout the article. For example (and these are just examples...please don't fix only these):
      • "William H. Gates, Jr." Is it Jr. or Sr.? The text says Jr. but the link goes to Sr.
      • "...he commented that "There was..." Please remember the rules for transitioning to quotations.
      • "Gates also wrote a computer program for his school which scheduled students in classes, after his administrators became aware of his programming abilities." Think about how to rearrange this (it's a simple fix) so that it's less awkward. There is also a simpler and less wordy way to express "a computer program for his school which scheduled students in classes".
        • should be better now Gary King (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • "...and collaborated a paper about algorithms with him."
      • "After Intel released the Intel 8080 CPU, Gates knew that this was the only chance he would get to take advantage of the timing," Doesn't explain to those uninitiated why the release of that specific CPU would be perfect timing for them to start a company.
        • should be better now Gary King (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • "...which announced that the OS/2 partnership was over, and to focus energy on developing the Windows NT kernel." Lacking parallelism.
    • 1b: The "Early life" section is now looking more comprehensive (and flows better as a result). The article now gives more insight on his introduction to programming (great anecdote about his modification to the class schedule program!) and his decision to leave college. Unfortunately, the Microsoft section is far from adequate. Just a sampling of questions that are unanswered: How did he deal with the growth of the company? What were his goals for Microsoft at the start? How about the Internet age: what were his thoughts during the mid-90s when the Internet/WWW were rising in importance, and how did he position Microsoft to respond? What was his involvement with the creation of Office? The addition of Windows is scant on any info about Gates' involvement. Surely he had some say in its development, and the decision to "go GUI". There's also been much written about Gates' contributions to the souring of relationships between Apple and Microsoft; surely, some words can be devoted to his involvement in one of the biggest technological rivalries in the world. The article also puts too much emphasis on his personal management style and not enough on what he actually did at Microsoft. BuddingJournalist 17:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's OK only. I won't oppose, but it's a pity to find glitches still. How about another run-through by a word-nerd? Shouldn't take too long.

  • "During his career at Microsoft Gates"—Can we please have a comma after "Microsoft"? Otherwise, it looks like a new title for his company. Missing commas need an audit throoughout; like this one in the first para too: "... and remains the largest individual shareholder with more than 9 percent of the common stock." Comma required, and changes the meaning to what was intended (not "the largest of the individual shareholders who have more than 9 percent of the common stock".
  • Clunky sentence: "Gates denied the trust fund story in a 1994 interview,[13] and indirectly in his 1995 book The Road Ahead." So the interview contained a direct denial, do we need to work out in reverse. Interviews can yield indirect denials, too.
  • Rather grand to talk of excelling in "the sciences" at grade school.
  • Do we have to hit the link to learn what "SAT" means?
  • Do we need the second "Microsoft's" here? "From Microsoft's founding in 1975 until 2006, Gates had primary responsibility for Microsoft's product strategy."
  • "USD US$30.8 million"—oh dear. And why the "US" again and again in other dollar amounts? MOS says drop it in US-related articles.
  • "third richest man"—missing something? TONY (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • All of the above MOS issues have been addressed. Gary King (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rejoinder—I provided examples of why the whole text needs to be polished up. Only MOS issues specified have been fixed? TONY (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:55, 6 April 2008.

[edit] The Orange Box

Self-nomination: The article passed through good article status recently, I put it through a quick automated peer review for last minute checks and I now believe its worth a shot at featured status. -- Sabre (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Restarted by Raul, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • 1st sentence is in present and past tense
  • "major characters move away from City 17" - wlink the city the first time you mention it, rather than here Fixed --Gazimoff (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Gabe Newell explained, "I think..." - you can just refer to him by surname
  • "the Xbox 360 version.[54] ↑" - random arrow lying around? Fixed --Gazimoff (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you move the soundtrack cover art up a bit so it doesn't overlap with the reflist?
  • Not really. however there is a show/hide toggle for the track listing. If the track listing is shown, the soundtrack cover doesn't collide with the reflist. --Gazimoff (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I added a float clear ({{-}}) at the end of the section - Ref section won't start until the picture is done, so this prevents the overlap.
  • Why is overlap a problem? It's one single picture. If there's one thing I hate its big white spaces, like that. It makes the presentation of the article absolutely horrible. -- Sabre (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There's nothing stated in the style guideline, but if there was no clear there before the references, then when this is printed to standard paper form (as opposed to a widescreen monitor), the references would be all bunched up, making a ton more whitespace below the picture to the right of the reference list. Having whitespace before the references to allow the refs to be given as wide a space to print at minimal cost of white space in the preceeding section. If we had something for "See Also" which would go before refs, that would help cut out some of that white space (the clear trick going after anything in See Also). However, again, that's presently a matter of opinion, and trivial to add or remove relative to other issues). --MASEM 14:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Overall, the prose is really good. Not much I could see, anyway. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Article appears to satisfy criteria 1b really well! Please add a little more wikilinking to terms such as Xbox 360, at least once every couple of paragraphs (but I was looking at the overview section particularly in making this note). I think prose is generally well written mostly, but some parts I think don't maintain the professional standard. I'm sure a better word can be used instead of 'tying'! Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose a few issues I mentioned in the previous nom have yet to be addressed.--Otterathome (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you bring through what you still see as outstanding? I know I replied to a few of your points requesting some clarification here and there, so it would be great to get your thoughts. --Gazimoff (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Steam forum source and clan site to start with. See previous nom for details.--Otterathome (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, I have this link from IMDB about Kelly Bailey and this link from MobyGames about Mike Morasky. They've both been used as reliable sources before in other articles but these links are literally one line mentions. If you're happy, I'll include these, otherwise I'll suggest we just change it to Valve Employees (which is what the CD booklet says). What are your thoughts here? --Gazimoff (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I have removed the composer details and replaced with "Valave employees", as this is what the CD inlay states. --Gazimoff (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • As far as the note on Regional Differences (Team Fortress 2) citing a clan site, it doesn't look like any of the major game news outlets picked up on this, so I've removed the content for now. If we can find sources it can always be readded at a later date. --Gazimoff (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry, why was this restarted? · AndonicO Hail! 12:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe all outstanding issues have now been dealt with as requested. Any more for any more? If not, I think we can wrap this one up. --Gazimoff (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:55, 6 April 2008.

[edit] Kannada literature

Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because Kannada language and its literature are one of the oldest in India. It has a literary tradition spanning 1500 years. Kannada writers have made invaluable contributions to Indian literature, both classical and modern. Hence I feel this article is important. The article is well referenced and cited. It has been copyedited a couple of times. Please provide constructive feedback which would help to make this a FA.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Restarted by Raul, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Removed posts copied from old FAC; this is a new FAC; new opposes should be actionable and current. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The composition needs more cohesion, integration, internal logic, and clarity. I have provided on the talk page examples from a single paragraph in the lead to illustrate some outstanding problems. The independent copy-editor who next edits the article will need to pay especial attention to these issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Per criteria 1a, and 4. Also per above. Examples of failing 1a can be seen in many areas of the article, including inconsistent spellings (Kanaka dasa), inconsistent capitalizing of certain letters (carnatic, king Wodeyar) and blatant grammatical/spelling errors (though instead of 'through'). However, there is some improvement since the last nom in at least removing some of the POV type statements. Examples of 4 was already discussed in the old nom, as these unnnecessary details make this article a list of mini-biographies of authors of Kannada literature, which as such, would probably be more appropriate as a FL than an FA. There are various ways to maintain a similar structure, but this is not possible without trimming down on the unnecessary details, with the exception of those details directly relevant to the bodies of literature that are being talked about. (Note: the editor's refusal to address this point in the previous nom does not equate to this criteria being satisfied as there are other editors of the broad Wikipedia community who feel similarly). In addition to the above, the Vaishnava section sees some inaccuracies (a kirthana is not necessarily devotional in nature, nor is it necessarily in praise of god - it refers to a particular structure of a composition, that can be of a devotional nature in praise of god - very different!) This definition and mention of kirthana should be omitted, as the spread of krithis as known currently, really only came after it was standardized by the Trinity. Devaranamas on the other hand, may fit such a definition. There may be other issues regarding factual accuracy, neutrality and reliability of sources in certain other areas, but it will not form the basis for this oppose currently due to time constraints. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Dk Reply Some of your objects are still unclear and nebulous. Regarding your complaint about "too much details on some poets", there have been other reviewers who have lauded it. So I cant really accept your words alone as expert comments. These are individual reviewer tastes. So there is no question of reducing it. I will surely look into spelling inconsistency, capitalization, prose and such. It would greatly help reduce my time looking for them, if you can pin-point it. This way you also play a role in improving the article.
Regarding technical erros w.r.t "Kirthans", "Devaranamas" etc, I realise you may have more knowledge in these areas then I do. So please feel free to indicate how exactly it needs to be corrected and I will be glad to make the correction, just as I did with your suggestion regarding the singing poet Purandaradasa.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
<comments moved to talk page; pls focus on actionable opposes per WP:WIAFA > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose It doesn't fully satisfy criteria 1a; It also doesn't fully satisfy criteria 4 ;too. much emphasis on authors and unnecessary details.KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 11:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Without examples, this is not an actionable oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Support A fascinating subject and page. This page can only continue to grow and enhance Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose for the same motivations in the previous FAC not corrected + quoting the other opposes. -- MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 05:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Finally a Dravidian language ‘s full length literary output has been highlighted as best as it can be. It can only get better. Taprobanus (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of my oppose above: The article is also poorly sourced. For example, 34 footnotes refer to an author, Narasimhacharya, whose book was published in 1934, but it is cited as being published in 1988 (which is the date of the facsimile reprint). See here for the original reference. I have since corrected the main references, but the error continues in the footnotes. A citation in a footnote (Sangave V. A, pp. 187–188) doesn't show up anywhere in full form in the references. A total of 80 footnotes cite references published more than fifty years ago. Two modern articles on Kannada literature (Pollock, Sheldon (1998) and Nagaraj, D. R. (2003)) are conspicuous by their absence. Well, actually, the latter is cited, but incorrectly, in a footnote for the sentence: "It (Kavirajamarga) also refers to compositions that were peculiar to Kannada: the chattana and the bedande (poems comprising several stanzas that were meant to be sung with the optional use of a musical instrument)" (the citation given is: Nagaraja, 2003, p. 332). However, page 332 of the cited text shows no such mention. I have left comments and the full citations to the two modern references on the article talk page here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply
  • I own the book by Narasimhacharya the date of which is 1988. I will check the book and see if it carries the original publication date (1934). If it does I will change it. If not, the 1988 stays as is. I dont know anything about facsimile reprints. In addition, there could be page number differences between early and later editions and could introduce inaccuracies.
DK reply My book says Reprint (1988) but does not give the original year of publication. So this is the reason I felt its better to keep it at that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I will remove the citation (Sangave V. A, pp. 187–188) which was not added by me but by another user (User:Sarvagnya) during his copy edits.
  • The books by Sheldon Pollack and Nagaraj, both of which I have read are very general books which really dont go into any details about Kannada writings, authors, kingdoms, socio-religious movements, details of great classics, as the other books I have referenced do. So this is an invalid oppose.
  • you wrote A total of 80 footnotes cite references published more than fifty years ago is an invalid oppose. There is no rule that only modern books need to be referenced in majority. However, majority, if not all the 80 citations you mention (but have not pointed out) can be replaced by modern books that I own. That is the level of confidence I have in the work I have put in. As such, the older writers : Naraimhacharya, B.L. Rice, E.P. Rice etc. are considered authorities on Kannada literature and culture in general. Benjamin L. Rice did to Kannada literature, what Henry Heras did to Indus Valley seals/research. However, unless you can prove to me that such a rule exists, regarding the usage of older verses newer books, no changes will be made and your oppose considered invalid.
  • Regarding The citation given is: Nagaraja, 2003, p. 332 comment, I will check this. Things tend to move around during copy edits. But as always, my citations will be corrected and in place by tonight.thank you for working so hard on this FAC.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

    • DK reply This another invalid oppose. Pages 13, 17 of Narasimhacharya which is also cited explains clearly chattana and the bedande (poems comprising several stanzas that were meant to be sung with the optional use of a musical instrument. The book by Sheldon had its citation off by "one page". Page 333 not 332. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply by F&f:

  • You might own it, but here the British Academic and National Library Catalogue. It says, that your book is a reprint of a 1940 edition, which as far as I can tell, was a reprint of the 1934 edition, since the author died in 1936; but, even so, you can't cite it to be later than 1940.
  • The references Nagaraja 2003 and Pollock 1998 are not books, but articles. Here are the citations:
  • Your claim that, "The books by Sheldon Pollack and Nagaraj, both of which I have read are very general books which really dont go into any details about Kannada writings, authors, kingdoms, socio-religious movements, details of great classics ...," doesn't jibe with the actual content of the articles. Nagaraja spends the entire article (all 60 pages) discussing the nitty-gritty of the history of Kannada literature (especially issues of antiquity and the nature of the early literature); Pollock spends a full third of the article (pp. 15-24, 26-27). Any history of Kannada literature will need to pay attention to these important modern references. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
DK Reply I have paid attention to twenty books, ranging from 1900-2006. The article is well referenced already. I have no more to say regarding the matter. thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Nagaraja spends the entire article (all 60 pages) discussing the nitty-gritty of the history of Kannada literature (especially issues of antiquity and the nature of the early literature) - Yes. And the "nitty-gritties" are out of the scope of this article. They will be taken up when we move to Kannada language, Kavirajamarga, Vachana, Literary criticism in Kannada etc.,. This is a WP:SS article about "Kannada literature" and the sources cited in the article are way more than enough and infact are citedfar more often than Nagraj or Pollock. Nagraj and Pollock themselves cite these scholars and this oppose about the sources being very old is invalid. As long as the sources satisfy WP:RS, they are fine. On the other hand, if you can show that any info in the article is dated, obsolete, falsifiable, wrong etc., I urge you to come forward with a list. I do not see any part of the article that has any obsolete info. The very fact that a 30s book should be in print in 1988 should say something about it. Sarvagnya 03:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Well, the article has just got bettered from the time it is first nominated. This article, by all means, should have got promoted before the restart of this FAC. With more copy-editing, more fine tuning, it is just more polished now. It is well-written, thanks to the sustained improvement through copyedits by Dinesh, User:Michael Devore and User:Sarvagnya; Comprehensive – Probably the best coverage to the balanced handling of "we need more details on this" vs "too many details on this". As I mentioned in previous FAC, the more detailed materials have been distributed to child articles, maintaining this article's summary style. Very well sourced, especially providing multiple references for significant claims, in neutral manner, from a wide variety of authors and publications. Precise lead, consistent formatting of headings and footnotes/ references. Ample images illustrating the text covered. I do not see anything that is failing per criteria, or anything which is actionable objection. - KNM Talk 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
DK Reply The fair use rationale already exists for these images. The total number of such images is perhaps 6 out of 18 as a whole. I have commented out one image if that helps.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
DK Reply I have replaced one more if the images you complained about. So that makes it 4 images out of 17.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read my comments critically; I never claimed FURs were missing. You have not addressed or responded to my concerns. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Dk Reply Sorry, but I dont understand. Can you please explain me what sort of images will help you better understand the literature? Your arguements could be applied to just about any image on this article.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No, my concerns are based on the criteria for inclusion of non-free content policy; this policy (and, consequently, my "arguments") does not apply to free or "free enough" images (i.e. the article's other images). I lack knowledge or information sufficient to indicate what alternative images would be a contribution to my understanding; I suspect none are necessary. I do have information and belief, however, that the aforementioned fair use images, among other concerns, do not significantly contribute to my/our understanding and are, therefore, in violation of FU policy. I’m asking you to, among other things, explain and articulate why each of these images is necessary and the significant contribution each image makes to our understanding of this body of literature. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Many of the writers depicted in the article are dead and it will be impossible to get a new photograph of them. As such, they are fair use for use in their own articles and in Kannada literature. This is by no means stretching the FU policy. Sarvagnya 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There are 10 criteria (more if you count sub-criteria), all of which must be satisfied; replaeability is but one. Use in other articles is not being discussed here. Please read WP:NFCC. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
'Dk Reply I have commented out the images you pointed out. The **Image:Purandara.jpg image is now fixed.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of my oppose (sources) (Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)) I'm afraid my oppose is very valid. Not only is the Nagaraja (2003) article not "out of the scope of this article," (as suggested by user:Sarvagnya) but it is also, as its own title ("Critical tensions in the history of Kannada literature") suggests, imminently about the history of Kannada literature; in fact it is the most up-to-date critical synopsis of that history. As for user:Sarvagnya's claim that these authors (Nagaraja or Pollock) themselves cite the somewhat outdated secondary sources used in the Kannada literature article, nothing could be farther from the truth. To be sure, some sources do make their appearance in the odd footnote or two, but always as examples of earlier historical writing or in acknowledgment as translations, not as authoritative sources themselves.

So, for example, a literary anthology edited by Kittel (1875), unreferenced here, is mentioned when an example from it is presented. Similarly, E. P. Rice—cited numerous times in this article—is mentioned only in passing in Nagaraja ("Rice's dating of 800CE is not reliable.") Only one source (Nilakanta Sastry (1955))—cited 16 times in this article—is in the bibliographies of either article, and appears as the following footnote: "See Nilakanta Sastry (1955) and Venkata Ramanaya (1935), two texts that were major influences on the writings of Karnataka histories until recently. Now the work of Stein, Ludden and Karashima, among others, has replaced that of the Indian scholars. (Nagaraja (2003), p. 342)" Unfortunately, none of the books of Burt Stein (Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India, (Oxford, 1980), Vijayanagara (Cambridge, 1989)), or David Ludden (Peasant History in South India (Princeton), 1990; Early Capitalism and Local History in South India (Oxford-India), 2005), or Noburu Karashima (South Indian History and Society (Oxford-India, 1984), are cited anywhere in the article as historical references.

Neither are even more recent works like, William Jackson's Vijayanagara Voices:Exploring South Indian History and Hindu Literature (Ashgate, 2005). Instead, the histories cited, when they are not pre-1955, are by local historians, not internationally known, like S. U. Kamath —whose book, originally published in Kannada in 1973, thereafter translated into English in 1980, and reprinted in 2001, is nevertheless cited as Kamath (2001), instead of Kamath (1980). I note too that Narasimhacharya (1934) continues to appear in the footnotes as Narasimhacharya (1988) in spite of my bringing up the issue both on the talk page and here. As for user:Sarvagnya's remark that facsimile reprints would not have been made were the book not considered important, all I can say is that facsimile reprints of thousands, perhaps millions, of books are being made these days in many areas of scholarship, not because the sources themselves are considered authoritative today, but because they provide examples of earlier scholarship, which are important in such fields such as historiography and criticism.

The article remains very unreliably sourced. I fear—as far as the quality of the sources is concerned—it is in much worse shape than I originally thought it was in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I am sure the FAC director has taken note of your objections. I have no more to say on the issue of sources and references. Thanks Fowler.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As for user:Sarvagnya's remark that facsimile reprints would not have been made were the book not considered important, all I can say is that facsimile reprints of thousands, perhaps millions, of books are being made these days in many areas of scholarship, not because the sources themselves are considered authoritative today, but because they provide examples of earlier scholarship, which are important in such fields such as historiography and criticism.
bah! Enough with the straw man ridden pussyfooting. It is unbridled speculation on your part that RN's book, for example, is being reprinted only out of academic interest and not because he is considered authoritative. When I said that Pollock and Nagraj also cite RN et al., I only meant to point out that RN et al. continue to be cited by the scholarly world in peer reviewed literature. I didnt expect you to go hunting for them in the footnotes of the two works you cited.
So now, dont beat around the bush. Are you suggesting that the sources used in the article are not RS? If yes, then say so and demonstrate that they are not RS. If that is not what you're saying, then your grumbling is baseless. Grumbling the use of RN, Kittel, BLR, EPR et al., on Kannada literature is like whining against the use of Monier-Williams or Macdonell on Sanskrit or Indo-Aryan languages or something like that. Just because an author died a long time ago doesnt invalidate his or her scholarship.
Nagaraj's work, for all its merits and your sales pitch, is not explicitly about Kannada literature. It is about some of the nitty-gritties of Kannada's literary history (laced with generous amounts of editorialising) and parts of it are even about the development of Kannada language as a literary medium. As such, it is an important work, but no more important than the works that have been cited in the article. I do not see anything in Nagraj's work which is at odds with what is written in the article or vice versa. I could practically throw in a ref to Pollock on Nagaraj on every second line in the article because they dont seem to disagree about anything that the article says. If you think they do, point out how and where or your oppose is as inactionable as it is invalid. Sarvagnya 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This article does not meet FA criteria 1d, Ic and 4. I fully agree with the comments and concerns of Fowler&fowler. The article is not neutral (will provide examples later.) About FA 1c), I should point out that WP:RS guidelines are not really followed in many places. RS clearly states, Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is significant. WP:RS further states about scholarship, Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered reliable, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. The key words in this context are "usually", and "scientists, scholars and researchers". Outdated unproven claims are presented here, and some of the books published and cited are not necessarily known for fact-checking and accuracy. (examples of where some of this is failing in the article will be elaborated later). FA citeria 4 is not followed. I have already pointed out in the talk pages. The chief concern I have is, in many places the article merely lists names of authors adding little else about the literary work or its highlight or criticisms (sort of FA 4). Just an example: See Kannada_literature#Hoysala_period, where the lead para of this section devotes 4 lines but only one of those lines pretends to talk about Kannada literature, though it is again a vain list of names with no content. In many sections there is more talk of dynasties, rather than the literary accomplishment or a flavor of it. In general, excepting the modern era, discussion or description of "Kannada Literature" is extremely lacking. This is definitely not meeting FA on multiple counts. while I oppose FA category for this article on genuine grounds (from my reading), I wish to record my sincere appreciation and thanks to DK and his team.--Aadal (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I am sure the FAC director has taken note of your objections too. Thanks you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of my oppose (prose) (Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)) After I left my comments on the prose in paragraph 2 of the lead (see link up top), some effort has been made to improve the lead. In particular, user:Michael Devore has made a sincere effort to say things carefully and without hype. However, others seem to have jumped in and added new material that has all the clumsiness of the previous writing. So, for example, someone has added, "In terms of literary character, it (Kannada literature) is rationalised under the Jain, Veerashaiva and Vaishnava heads - reflective of the three dominant faiths which informed and fostered Kannada literature until the advent of the modern era." Although "character" can mean "characteristics" or "features" ("Literary character" usually means something else), "rationalise" can mean "organize," (but usually when talking of scientific systems, businesses, or economies), "heads" can mean "categories," "reflective" can mean "a reflection of" (e.g. "A man's times are reflective of the man, as well as a man of the times."), and "inform" can mean "inspire" or "animate," in the right contexts, all together—as in the sentence—they sound very quaint and uninformative, hardly something a new reader wants to puzzle over in the third sentence of the lead. The article needs to be copy-edited by one person. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond just nitpicking now. This is trolling. Once again, fwiw, your oppose on prose grounds is invalid. I am sure nobody else is having trouble comprehending it and you seem to go to great lengths to try and NOT understand something. So you can continue to pound away here, but I will not be dignifying it with responses anymore. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Final partContinuation of my oppose (hyperbole) (Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)) Both Nagaraja (2003) and Pollock (1998) regard the inscriptions (that preceded the first extant work, Kavirajamarga (KRM) (850 CE)) to be "public narratives," or public "literary activity," but not "literature." Neither would endorse the second sentence of the lead that the literature is 1500 years old. Similarly, the vanished works and authors cited in KRM speak to earlier literary practice but not "literature." Neither Nagaraja nor Pollock would endorse another sentence in the lead that it is "widely acknowledged" that prior to KRM (850 CE), "a fully cultivated literary tradition must have existed going back a few centuries." (where two of the three citations are dated 1897 and 1921). Pollock, for example, when speaking of KRM, says, "The first extant text in Kannada describes how difficult a task it is for the author to identify literary models for the prescriptive project before him: he is forced to "hunt for scraps" of Kannada literature like a mendicant ..." Pollock goes on to say, "Kannada literature (in the sense I have been using the term throughout) was a recent invention, of perhaps the eighth century, ..." The reason why my oppose is actionable is that the lead has at least two examples of hyperbole; those can certainly be done away with. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead says that the history of KL "spans" 1500 years - which is as reasonable as it can get. The lead, in the very second paragraph also makes it clear that extant works start with the KRM c. 850. The early attestations section was renamed from "Early/extinct literature" to "attestations" to make this even more clear. There is no hyperbole in the article unless deludes oneself to see it. Inactionable. Are you done? Sarvagnya 00:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I see little difference between "the literature is 1500 years old" and the "history of the literature spans 1500 years." In any case, I don't see either D. R. Nagaraj (2003) or Sheldon Pollock (1998) endorsing the second version either. I certainly don't see them endorsing the existence of a "fully cultivated literary tradition a few centuries" before 850 CE. Those two sentences will need to go or be replaced by more nuanced statements. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Final part of my oppose (lacks critical perspectives or analysis, violation of 1(b)). (Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)) The article is not comprehensive. It packs a chronology, for sure, but it has no systematic analysis, no socio-historical world view, and no critical perspectives, whether historical or literary, in the entire article. Nowhere is it said, for example, that the emergence of literature in Kannada was a part of the broad "vernacularization" of South and Southeast Asia towards the end of the first millennium; writers not only of Kannada, but also those of other local languages like Telegu, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya and even faraway Khmer emerged from under the shadow of the trans-local languages, Sanskrit or Tamil, to compose their own literary works. The one or two places where I could find any remarks that might qualify as "perspective," they seemed superficial and simplistic ("The 14th century saw major upheavals in geo-politics of southern India with Muslim empires invading from the north. The Vijayanagara Empire stood as a bulwark against these invasions and ensured an atmosphere conducive to the fine arts.")

(No examples) Furthermore, no examples of the literature are presented. Although meters are faithfully enumerated in abstract ("These included the tripadi (three-line verse, in use from 7th century), one of the oldest native metres; the shatpadi (six-line verse, in use from 1165), of which six types exist; the ragale (lyrical narrative compositions, in use from 1160); the sangatya (compositions meant to be sung with a musical instrument, in use from 1232) and the akkara"), the reader emerges with no real feeling for the poetic diction of Kannada poetry nor the rhetorical devices of Kannada prose.

(No narrative) Enumeration, in fact, seems to be the modus operandi of the article; little attempt is made to develop a narrative. Examples like, "various literary genres such as romance, fiction, erotica, satire, folk songs, fables and parables, musical treatises and musical compositions were popular. A wealth of literature dealing in subjects such as mathematics, sciences such as astronomy, meteorology, veterinary science and medicine, astrology, grammar, logic, philosophy, poetry, prosody, drama, rhetoric, chronicles, biography, history, and cuisine, as well as dictionaries and encyclopedias are available." in the "Contents and genre" section are, alas, all too frequent. In the end, the article is little more than a vast chronology.

(No criticism or critical perspectives) Almost nothing critical is said either about the events or the works. The description of the "works" sometimes seems to mimic the glorified language of the "works" themselves ("To this period belonged Kumara Vyasa (the pen name of Naranappa), a doyen of medieval epic poets and one the most influential Vaishnava poets of the time. He was particularly known for his sophisticated use of metaphors and had even earned the title Rupaka Samrajya Chakravarti ("Emperor of the land of Metaphors")."

I feel that (i) unprofessional prose (violation 1(a)), (ii) lack of any systematic analysis, world view, or critical perspectives (violation 1(b)), (iii) unreliable sourcing (violation 1(c)), and (iv) hyperbole and lack of neutrality (violation 1(d)) plague not just the lead, but the entire article. A good copy-edit will certainly help, but I'm not sure how much. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Final part of my oppose: I was going to add some examples as I said yesterday, but seeing that Fowler&fowler had so well articulated some of the same things, however, much better than I could have done, I conclude my oppose here by fully concurring with the observations of Fowler&fowler.--Aadal (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on prose issues. I'll outline some examples from the lede and number my comments for easy referencing:
    • 1. "Kannada literature is the body of literature written in Kannada: a language ..., and written using the Kannada script." The colon is the incorrect punctuation (replace with comma) and the dual use of the word "written" is confusing.
    • 2. "In terms of literary character, it is rationalised under ...". Do you mean classified or categorized ? Also is the "it" supposed to refer to "Kannada literature, or "History of Kannada literature" (as it does now) ?
    • 3. "the three dominant faiths which informed and fostered" which -> that
    • 4. "Consequently, the bulk of the literature in the pre-modern era was religious and didactic in theme, though a good number of secular works were also written." The second part ("though a good number ...") is redundant, besides being a bit colloquial. Also "Consequently" is incorrect, since as presently structured, the sentences imply that the dominant theme is religious and didactic because the "literary character is rationalised under the Jain, Veerashaiva and Vaishnava heads"!
    • 5. "Starting with the Kavirajamarga (c. 850), until the middle of the 12th century, literature in Kannada was almost exclusively written by the Jains who also found eager patrons in the Chalukya, Ganga, Rashtrakuta and Hoysala kings." Somewhat stilted writing (I know this is a judgment call); and why "also" ? Who were the other patrons ?
    • 6. It would be better to switch the order of the two sentences in the second paragraph (after some minor rephrasing), i.e., talk about pre-Kavirajamarga, before talking about Kavirajamarga-12th century.
    • 7. "spawned a new stream of literature which flourished..." Mixed metaphors ?
    • 8. "during the reign of the Vijayanagara empire" I think the reign of is redundant (not sure)
    • 9. "A decline in Jain influence and writings during the reign of the Vijayanagara empire in the 14th century was followed by vigorous growth" Vigorous growth of what; do you mean Jain writing was reinvigorated, as the sentence currently implies ?
    • 10. I assume that the literature of Haridasa saints is classified as Vaishnava. This may not be clear to the reader, who may wonder what the category, mentioned in the first paragraph, contains. Similarly, does the ancient category, refer to pre-Kavirajamarga era, pre-Veerashaiva literature, or something else altogether ?
    • 11. "After the decline" -> "Following the decline" to indicate that they this is a causal relationship and not simply coincidental.
    • 12. "the seat of patronage shifted to the Mysore court" From ?
    • 13. "era of modern literature which saw" Need a comma before which.
    • 14. "Contemporary Kannada literature remains the most decorated" sounds somewhat peacock-y to me. Also, remains -> is, since most decorated wouldn't make sense in the pre-modern era.
Please note that I have no personal knowledge of the subject other than what I learned from the article (which was a lot!), so I cannot judge its content, quality of references, or organization. With that caveat, the article content does appear encyclopedic to me and I would love to see this article be an FA eventually, but I don't think the prose is up to the standard yet. Abecedare (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
DK Reply I will take a close look at all your issues today. Also, the article is now undergoing thorough copy edits. These issues will be ironed out shortly. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
DK Reply I have specifically tried to tweak the lead per your suggestions, but await fully blown copy edits any moment now from an different pair of eyes.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Postscript to my oppose (hyperbole, violation 1 (d) (user:Fowler&fowler). I have added recent publicly accessible evidence against some exaggerated claims in the lead on the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply It may seem exaggerated to you, but not to the dozen or so scholars whose names I have provided on the same talk page. Sorry, no changes.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing note: this nomination has been up for a month, but there are still ongoing, fundamental copyedit issues. Sorting out ce issues before nomination will help the article succeed at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:47, 5 April 2008.

[edit] The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

Self-Nominated by Limetolime

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have worked very hard and I am sure that the article meets FA status. After working solely on the article for a very long time, I have brung it from a stub to GA class article. Although the article may seen short, it should be seen as A LOT, since telefilms usually don't have as much info about them on the internet as feature films do. The article meets all of the criteria and I have worked the article to the best of my ability. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Personal preference, but can we arrange the references into two columns?
  • -CANNOT - I have found no way to do so.
If you use the {{reflist}} template at the bottom to generate your references list, you can use {{reflist|2}} to sort it into two columns. Replace 2 with 3 and you get three columns, but three is usually too many for small monitors. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • -REMOVED
  • -RELIABLE - It is being used by many major sites as a reliable source, so it can be used on Wikipedia.
  • -RELIABLE - Tough Pigs is licensed to use these images.
  • Current ref 17 has formatting issues.
  • -FIXED
  • -RELIABLE - It gets its statements from reliable areas, there just all collected here.
  • -RELIABLE
  • -GOOD - The site can be referenced either way.
  • -RELIABLE - It has been recognized everywhere, INCLUDING Wikipedia, as it has its own page (see below).
  • -RELIABLE
  • -RELIABLE - True, but it takes its sources from referenced sites.
Links (except for the one above) checked out. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Several of the sources highlighted above don't appear, on the surface, to be reliable, and the nominator hasn't explained (in terms of WP:V and WP:SELFPUB) what makes them reliable. Please don't ask us to just take your word for it; we need reasoning per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB. That another article uses them isn't a valid determinant of reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Did the film have a producer? Because one isn't mentioned in the infobox.
      • -DONE
    • Tom Martin should be linked in the lead as well.
      • -DONE
    • As you have a cast section, there is no need to include who played which role in the plot.
      • -DONE
    • Per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, usually a box of ratings for a film is not included, unless they were a matter of significant controversy or interest. In this case they do not appear to be, so I suggest removing it.
      • -KEEP, I would like to keep this, as having a sourced, complete ratings box should be of help to people.
    • In Production, link Digital Spy.
      • -DONE
    • Image:DorothyOz.jpg and Image:CowardlyLion.jpg don't seem to give much critical commentary and only appear to serve as decoration, thus not complying with fair use policies. Both characters are shown in the poster, so they are not really needed. Perhaps you could use the free-use image of Ashanti?
      • -FIXED
    • Some overlinking in the cast section: Miss Piggy is linked four times, only the first link is needed. Wizard of Oz is linked three times. Wicked Witch of the West is linked twice, as is Extended version.
      • -DONE
    • More overlinking in the soundtrack section: Kermit is linked four times, Ashanti is linked three times. The Muppets is linked twice, as is Miss Piggy.
      • -DONE
    • In Reception, Michael Giacchino needs to be linked.
      • -DONE

Aside from these things, for a tele-film it's a really good page. Well done so far. Gran2 15:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed everything to bring this article to FA status.Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 18:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The decorative character images are still there. I think you may have misunderstood what I said, whatever rationale you give them, the images do not satisfy fair use laws because they do not provide any critical commentary. Both characters are shown in the poster and do not need to be shown again later on. A free-use image of Ashanti will work just as well. And the ratings box is just indiscriminate information as there was nothing notable about the film's ratings. Gran2 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the character images, but I would still like to keep the ratings box. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 00:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Thanks for fixing my concerns. However, further inspection of the article and other users comments mean I'm going to oppose for now. Don't get disheartened, the current article is still good, but it does need a good copy-edit. Also I'm concerned about some of the references. The professional review you use for the soundtrack is from Answers.com, a mirror site which copies content from other sites, mainly from here. If you look at the bottom of the linked page it's just a copy of the All Music Guide page, so you should use the link from them instead. Ref 47 is the Imdb user comments; I do not think that this can be counted as a reliable source. They may still be others as well. Keep up the good work though, but like I say, I have to oppose for now. Gran2 07:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have time to give a another full review, but you need to correct all of the source titles (as someone else has said I think). For example: ref 47 is not titled "Keith Allen review" as the article currently states, it is actually titled "The Muppets' Wizard of Oz (2005)". You need to go through and check/change every ref to make sure that the title used in the article is actually the one used in the source. Also, "Michael Giacchino, an Academy Award-nominated composer known for his work on a previous Muppet production" - this is probably just me being picky, but Michael Giacchino is probably best known for his work with Brad Bird and J.J. Abrams and not for a Muppets score. I would change "known for his work" to something like "who had worked". Anyway, I'll try and get some more stuff later. Gran2 10:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The prose is poor, below are some of many examples:
    • first aired occurs four times in one paragraph. How about "broadcast" or even "shown".?
      • -FIXED
    • and both are swept with the tornado across a vast distance - by the tornado?
      • -FIXED
    • When Dorothy gets out of the wreckage in the trailer ?
      • -FIXED
    • The group goes through a lot of difficulties along the yellow brick road, but they do reach the Emerald City - They encounter many problems on the yellow brick road before reaching the Emerald City?
      • -FIXED
    • After meeting the Wizard separately ??
      • -FIXED
    • While her friends assume this will result in the granting of their wishes, and so does Dorothy. ???
      • -FIXED
    • But after her wish is granted, she realizes what she really wanted in the Land of Oz, to go back home. - ? "realizes that" - "was to return home"?
      • -FIXED
    • She does this, and reconciles with her family. - and is reconciled with her family?
      • -FIXED
    • in hopes for a successful turn in the ratings - hoping for?
      • -FIXED
    • Many other reviewers felt that trying to appeal the film to a wider audience .. -??
      • -FIXED
    • Users, on the other hand - ? Users ??
      • -FIXED

And, many more examples. I would not like to see this article anywhere near the Main Page. How on earth did it achieve GA? GrahamColmTalk 22:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • PS. These are just some examples; there are more. Please ask someone new to the article to review it. GrahamColmTalk 22:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have re-read the whole article and have fixed it to the best of my ability. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 00:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has changed significantly since GA status. The article evolving is a good thing, but many of the issues brought up above were either brought up in the GA review, or have occurred since the GA review. Somno (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed all that was stated above, please leave more examples to help make the article better. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 00:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, prose is rather ordinary, but my major concern is its comprehensiveness, looks like it could use more "reception" info. Also, plot summary needs more cleanup, should be split into multiple paragraphs (at least two) and you have Wicked Witch of the East linked twice in the same paragraph. The plot section I think has the biggest prose problems. The Dominator (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

FIXED: Plot clean-up, section split, unlinking. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I still have to oppose. The "reception" section needs major expansion and the prose just isn't featured quality yet, examples:
    • "At the film's Rotten Tomatoes listing, 29% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on seven reviews." Doesn't make sense, gave reviews based on the reviews themselves???
      • -Fixed - I changed the sentense to "..gave the film positive response, based on seven reviews."
    • "In many ways, The Muppets' Wizard of Oz follows more closely to the original book than the 1939 film." follows more closely?
      • -Fixed - Changed to "In many ways, elements from The Muppets' Wizard of Oz follow closer to the original book than elements of the 1939 film."
    • "A Kansas teenager looking to leave her home in search of becoming a star." Real clumsy sentence.
      • -Fixed - Chnaged to "A Kansas teenager dreaming of leaving her home and becoming a singer."
    • "After a small discussion", perhaps a short discussion is better?
      • -Fixed - Changed to "After a short discussion".
    • Also, the last paragraph of the lead has no refs, which is OK since the lead doesn't need to be reffed if something reappears later, this creates inconsistency. I would suggest not referencing the lead at all, instead save the refs for later in the article.
      • -Will keep, thanks.
There are other issues and I still think the article needs some expansion, defintely GA not yet a FA. The Dominator (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • This article is in need of a thorough copy-edit. Just to take one example, in the third paragraph of the lead section, the film is broadcast at the film festival, yet shown on ABC. Perhaps I don't understand the nature of that particular film festival, but shouldn't those verbs be reversed? There are many more example of wording being imprecise, unclear or unusual. The article could benefit from some fresh eyes (from a native speaker of English, perhaps?).
    • FIXED
      • That one specific sentence is fixed. I would suggest that you get someone who hasn't worked on the article to copy-edit it. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be both an introduction and a concise overview of the article. The lead of this article is more of an intro, omitting any mention, for example, of the critical reception. Also, if it's typical of a Muppet film production, music is an important part, yet that this film is a musical (right?) is never mentioned.
    • FIXED
  • As briefly addressed by a previous reviewer, there's quite a lot of over linking. The lead in particular suffers because of it.
    • FIXED
  • Comprehensiveness concerns:
    • "Production" section: A comparative look at several other film FAs shows a pretty typical level of coverage that this article lacks. Sections typically included like "Writing", "Direction", and "Music" are missing and the article suffers from it. A "Music" section in particular—beyond just a soundtrack listing—ought to be included for a Muppet movie.
      • ADDED
    • Cast section: No mention of the voice actors in the film?
      • ADDED
    • Reception: The number of viewers is mentioned, but no rating (i.e. Neilsen) info? Did it win its time slot? Was it in the top ten shows? Was it dead last?
      • ADDED
    • Distribution: Was it shown in theaters anywhere else worldwide? Was it shown or released simultaneously worldwide? Any home video sales or rental ranking info?
      • ADDED
  • There are significant problems with the referencing. I found it absolutely amazing that so many references were entitled either "The Muppets' Wizard of Oz (insert some characteristic)" or "(characteristic of) The Muppets' Wizard of Oz". A spot check of the first four shows that none of the titles provided in the references match the titles on the pages that load. Further, three of the four provide a clearly identifiable publish date which is not provided in the reference listing in the article. These problems are in addition to the reliability issues brought up by a previous reviewer.
    • FIXED
      • Not "FIXED" at all, really. For the specific examples I mentioned, there are still no publication dates, and they appear to be the only ones changed at all. A spot check of others suggests that perhaps most, if not all, of the references are misnamed. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I must agree with the previous reviewer's comments about the list on the film's ratings. Other feature film articles that I looked at do not contain any ratings information. Here they seem to be indiscriminate info. In a similar vein, the price of the merchandising tie in is superfluous unless it was a source of controversy or unusual in some way (which it does not appear from the article).
  • REMOVED

I'm not averse to reviewing the article again after significant changes. — Bellhalla (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, after all of these comments, it's hard to satisfy everyone's wishes all at the same time. I'll try my best, but some extra help could GREATLY help me. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 12:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose: Image:Ozcd.jpg violates WP:NFCC#3A, as it is identical in all material ways to Image:Woz-poster001sm.png. Now a moot point, but several of the assertions in the FUR are patently false, as this image is not low resolution (also required per NFCC#3B), the image is not used “in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art” (article’s meager “soundtrack” prose does not constitute “critical commentary”) and the image is not “placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work”. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not fixed. I apologize for not being more clear. Regardless of rationale, Image:Ozcd.jpg cannot be used in the presence of Image:Woz-poster001sm.png, as it is, for all meaningful purposes, the same image. This is not allowed per WP:NFCC#3A. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed to oppose. Image:Ozcd.jpg and Image:Tv the muppet show bein green gone.png both violate WP:NFCC#3A, which states “Multiple [FU images] are not used if one will suffice”. The former is materially identical to the poster and the latter merely depicts Kermit, a character clearly visible on the poster and not necessary to facilitate understanding. Additional, now moot issues, offered to articulate totality of issues include: CD image is not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and does not have a complete rationale (WP:RAT). Kermit image does not have a rationale for this article (NFCC#10C). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

List of changes necessary to The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

  • Major expansion on "Reception"
    • -DOING
  • More info on production and release
    • -DOING - Will try and find more info.
  • As it is a musical, more info on the music would be desirable
    • -DOING
  • Cast section doesn't cite sources and seems to talk about mostly characters rather than casting as the name suggests
  • "In many ways, elements from The Muppets' Wizard of Oz follow closer to the original book than elements of the 1939 film." Says who? Is this original research? Also, the wording is still strange. Perhaps "follow the book more closely" is better?
  • Copyedit badly needed. The Dominator (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Pursue" was misspelled in the article multiple times, this suggests that the article has not received thorough review previous to the nomination, try at least running it through a basic spellcheck.
      • DONE! - I run the whole article through a spellcheck and found a lot of misspellings in the intro and cast section. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 15:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • In the production section the words "the film" are repeated, I suggest using "movie" or a pronoun once in a while otherwise reword it sounds very repetitive
        • -DOING
      • Same in "Distribution". The Dominator (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • -DOING
  • Oppose, sorry. These sources do not seem to meet the standards of WP:RS and WP:V: muppetcentral.com, toughpigs.com, ultimatedisney.com, moviemusic.com, thefutoncritic.com, muppetnewsflash.com, 7mpictures.com, and imdb.com. Also, "Ashanti: answers critics & doubters" is from Ebony, not FindArticles; the latter simply hosts a copy of it. The reference should reflect this. — Dulcem (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Limetolime's statement

After all of the work that I have done to the article and I'm STILL only geting opposes, I'm writing out everything I have to say about each section: Intro: The intro DOES meet all of the Wikipedia standards, as it gives a summarized view of EVRYTHING that is in the article, including cast and crew, production, release, music, and reception. Plot: I don't understand what all of the fuss is about. I have run this thorugh a spell check and tried my best to re-write it and split it into multiple parts. But I STILL get complaints that it doesn't follow Wikipedia's prose standards. How? It's well written, has no spelling mistakes, and gives a full summarized view of the film. Production" I am always being told that this section needs to be expanded. How can I? It is a telefilm, and telefilms do not have as many production statements about them as feature films do. I have put as much info as I could about the film here, and I'm sorry, but I don't know how I can expand it. Music: Yes, the film IS a musical and I am working on this section as you read this. But, there aren't many statements out there about the film's music history, and what I have there is pretty much it. Cast & characters: This section is supposed to describe the characters and what they do in the film, and it does this well. The section is spellchecked and everything, and very extensive. How am I supposed to cite sources here? I would have to find the script and cite every sentence in that section. Distribution: I am not as angry here as I thought I would be, but again, this is a telefilm, and we're lucky it had any distribution at all. Reception: This section CANNOT be expanded any more, as I have stated everything in review as I can, unless you want me to go international. References: SIGH. Everyone is saying that there are many problems with this section, regarding WP:RS and WP:V, which I understand. But, how is Tough Pigs a bad source? It shows screenshots of videos and television shows, and I mean come on, it's not like these images are doctored. As I have stated above, the Muppet websites are simply compliation sites, where statements from PRESS RELEASES are gathered in a trusty, reliable place. The other sites are pretty much the same thing, just in different places. How can they be wrong? For example, the soundtrack sites. These statements are TAKEN directly from the album, so how are they unreliable?

Whew. I feel better, know that I got all of that out. Please give me DIRECT examples of problems in the future, so they will be easier to do. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, cast section doesn't need sources because it only says what happens in the film so you're technically citing that. Small issues there "Jeffrey Tambor as The Wizard: The Wizard of Oz." Begging for more info, all of the other ones have at least something. Also the bit about Tarantino, it isn't clear what character he's playing, it sounds like he played himself from the context, needs to be clarified. I still think that Reception needs expansion, I understand completely that it is a TV movie and I never expect it to have as much info as a regular movie, but did you ever see a film FA, their Reception sections are as large as this entire article, so it needs some more info, I'm sure more people reviewed it. The Dominator (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure about the policy but I'm pretty sure you can't cite "received public praise" with IMDb. In fact, you should avoid citing IMDb at all unless you are citing a claim about IMDb or I also use it to ref that a film exists (even then you can cite the film itself). I suggest getting a copy-edit and then renominating. Sorry, I can't give my support yet. The Dominator (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to explain why some of these citations are unreliable.

  • http://www.muppetcentral.com/news/2004/031604.shtml this story is from Variety. Rather than cite a third party hosting of it, go to the Variety site and get the original. The muppet central site isn't a press release, (it lacks the usual blather at the bottom), it looks more like a rephrasing of a story in Variety, but we can't be sure what might have been changed. Better to cite the original.
CHANGED - Thank you very much for posting this, it helps a ton! Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For the tough pigs stuff, you'd be better off citing the original episode, etc. than relying on a third party site.
  • http://www.muppetcentral.com/news/2005/033105.shtml is not a press release also, it's a story run by the muppet central site. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated.
  • Same deal as above for http://www.ultimatedisney.com/muppetsoz.html. You aren't just quoting this for the review (in which I probably wouldn't have questioned it) but for information like having Dorothy be African-American (this can be sourced to the film itself) and who was considered for the part of Dorothy before Ashanti was chosen. The information on stuff added to the extended DVD can be sourced to this site as well as things that reference the review scoring or that the reviewer thought that the extra scenes in the extended DVD did more harm than good.
  • With this http://www.soundtrack.net/albums/database/?id=3757 rather than use a third party site, just cite the soundtrack directly.
  • With http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a16790/kelly-osbourne-to-visit-muppets-oz.html, just because it has its own wikipedia page doesn't mean it is automatically reliable. Yes, it helps some, but just like we don't cite Wikipedia for stuff in Wikipedia, you can't rely on the fact that a site has an article in Wikipedia to make it reliable. It may have an article because it's unreliable, or it may have not been prodded yet.
  • With http://www.muppetnewsflash.com/2005/05/76-million-visit-oz-with-muppets.html .. Blogs are rarely considered reliable. The only way I'd consider it reliable is if it gave its sources.
Hopefully this helps explain a bit about why some of the sources are being questioned. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:43, 5 April 2008.

[edit] Early life and military career of John McCain

Withdraw. The re-citing/re-framing course I've embarked upon is very time-consuming, and I haven't even started on the hard sections yet (Vietnam/POW). And when that's done, the whole thing will need another copyedit/MOS/extlink sweep. Due to various reasons, I will not be able to complete this within a reasonable timeframe for this FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-nomination. No previous nomination, although a good deal of this material was present in the old, pre-split-up John McCain when it had this failed FAC a few weeks ago. I'm nominating this article for featured article because unlike that case, this time the main editor is behind the nomination, and the stability concerns regarding the presidential election that troubled that FAC are not relevant to this article's scope. Furthermore, while this is a subarticle in the WP:SUMMARY sense, I believe it is a well-defined biographical narrative with its own beginning, middle, and end, and thus is worthy of FA consideration. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - I see a minor problem with pronoun usage, i.e. not using them as often as they should be used, but that is surely no reason to object to this wonderfully written and heavily referenced article. Happyme22 (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
All links checked out fine with the tool. Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
bioguide.congress.gov seems to be down at the moment. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 00:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It was working as of a couple of days ago. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, it's back up now. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is a minor point, but the article is not consistent with regard to placing periods and commas inside or outside of quotation marks. E.g. ...earning him membership in the "Century Club". versus ...in what biographer Robert Timberg called a "manic, intuitive, highly idiosyncratic way." Similar situations with commas. According to Wikipedia, the American convention is to always put periods and commas inside quotes; the British convention is to do so only when they are intended as part of the quotation. While it doesn't matter which convention we follow, the article should be consistent one way or the other. Kier07 (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm following WP:PUNC's logical quotation system. The punctuation is not part of "Century Club", but it is part of Timberg's original sentence clause (in his case, a comma not a period, because he added another clause, but the "sense of the punctuation" per WP:PUNC is the same). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Then you are being inconsistent. "Logical punctuation" would require that, if punctuation appears inside the quotation marks, it must be exactly what appears in the original text. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends against logical punctuation, on the grounds that this degree of precision is impractical, and an American probably should not use it unless he is one of the minority to whom it comes naturally. MOS, as often, is the combined prejudices of two or three cranks, and should be ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... not sure I understand, Wasted Time R. Suppose we follow the example in Wikipedia's punctuation guide. Let's say Arthur said "The situation is deplorable." Then by your logic, could we not also write, Arthur said that the situation is "deplorable." Because the period is part of what Arthur said. But my understanding is that deplorable is a fragment, so you instead would write Arthur said that the situation is "deplorable". Similarly, "manic, intuitive, highly idiosyncratic way" is a fragment, so I'd think you'd put the period outside. Anyway... this is probably not a significant point, especially as you've already considered it; just thought I'd mention it and let you do with it what you will. Cheers! Kier07 (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've changed that instance to be period outside the quote, and another instance like it as well. I've also changed one comma-quote case that didn't meet the logical quotation bill. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments.
    • It would be nice to know if the plane survived his first crash, before 1960, since a point is made that the second plane he crashed did survive.
      I've made a change to indicate it sank to the bottom. Presumably it is still there. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • McCain had by now garnered the reputation of a serious aviator. McCain and his fellow pilots were frustrated by Rolling Thunder's infamous micromanagement from Washington. These adjectives are uncalled-for; infamous really must go. I have no doubt that it is McCain's opinion; we should not have one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      The "serious avaitor" is necessary because until then, as the article describes, he had not been very serious. As for Operation Rolling Thunder, it's just about everyone's opinion that it was a strategic failure, with interfere from Washington a key reason. Read our article on it. Heard stories about LBJ reading over maps of North Vietnam and picking out targets? That's this. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      Nevertheless, infamous is an expression of opinion. Even in Rolling Thunder, it would be better to give the evidence; here, silence and the link is better. (Churchill did similar things; but he had a better war.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Footnote 77, which is McCain's own story in two different versions, is the sole source for most of McCain's time in Hanoi. This really does require the confirmation of a secondary source, whether or not a less reputable version has one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      This is a valid concern, but one without easy answers. McCain was in either isolated interrogation settings, isolated hospitals, or solitary confinement, for much of the time the events here are described. We do have independent confirmation of some things, such as his injuries and poor medical care there (since American doctors examined him upon return), his refusal to accept out-of-order release (since the North Vietnamese mentioned it at the time to American officials in Paris) and his "confession" (since it was later broadcast). There are some memoirs by other POWs that confirm other fragments of McCain's story, and I can try to cite those more. McCain's mistreatment is consistent with the handling other POWs got; indeed, others were often treated even worse. Given all this, his biographers and mainstream journalists have accepted his account as true, and on the same basis we do as well. Thanks for your comments here. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      Yes, I realize that all that is a problem, and it is why I did not say "independent", I said "secondary". If his biographies (for this, especially hostile biographies) accept this, cite them; then it's not just our judgment.
      Journalists depend. Many news stories are not reliable sources on things like this; they haven't exercised independent judgment on McCain's background, they've looked up his autobiography (or our article, God save the mark.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      I chose to cite the U.S. News & World Report more often than Faith of My Fathers or the biographies because (a) it was freshest, being written weeks after he returned rather than decades, (b) it was unfiltered by his later political career, which might cause him to shade the account (although in practice, it doesn't), and (c) it's freely available online, which allows more readers to check it for themselves and get the more in-depth story (since, for example, I've cut the description off above the level of the different interrogators such as the Cat, the Prick, Slopehead, Soft Soap Fairy, et al). Rather than jumble the cites around, perhaps I should write a footnote explaining the situation as I did above. As for hostile biographers, there aren't any that I know of for this period (Matt Welch and, I gather, David Brock are hostile to his later "maverick" political persona). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That would make their agreement particularly valuable here; they would presumably be free of any suspicion of white-washing McCain for political purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. This article relies too heavily on McCain's autobiographies. If, as Wasted Time R states, biographers and mainstream journalists have accepted his account as true, then why not cite them rather than Faith of My Fathers and Worth the Fighting For?--Carabinieri (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    OK, I'll start work on doing so this evening. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Compelling prose and good citations (although, as Carabinieri said above, some non-autobiographical support would improve it.) This is also the most stable of the McCain series, so there shouldn't be any problem with that part of th FA criteria. Coemgenus 15:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Several people have suggested less reliance on McCain's own autobiographical statements. Maybe one way around this would be to simply attribute statements or characterizations to McCain in the text of the article, if he's the one that's cited for making them. That way, someone reading through the text of the article will easily see (without consulting the footnotes) what's from McCain and what's not.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    I strongly object to this suggestion. We have sentence-by-sentence, sometimes clause-by-clause citing in this article for a reason, so that everybody can see exactly where every statement comes from. Adding in-the-text attributions is completely redundant, clutters the article even worse, and gives undue weight to the notion that McCain is an unreliable narrator (a notion that no WP:RS supports). I'm willing to continue swapping out McCain cites for biographer/journalist cites that are really equivalent (I already screwed up one case where they weren't, and had to revert), but that's it. And there will still be a good number of McCain cites left in the article: direct quotes, representations of thought, pieces of mundane chronology that no one else supplies. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    I can understand your reluctance, but I strongly believe that negative statements in the text of the article about McCain, that were uttered by McCain himself, ought to be attributed to him IN THE TEXT (not just the footnotes). It is well known that his mouth is often considered a "WMD" (see Wasted Time R's discussion of that very point in the sub-article on McCain's image).[20] If he turns that WMD on himself, which he occasionally does, this article should say so in the text. If he says that he was a little jerk, then we should not simply make a statement like that in the text of the article as if it were an objective fact, but rather should explicitly attribute it to McCain IN THE TEXT.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. It's very well-researched and well-written, thanks to WTR's efforts. And, he has been amenable to a few tweaks here and there that I think improve it. It's not perfect, but seems to meet FA criteria.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to withdraw my support at this point, but I do disagree with some recent edits by WTR (e.g. these). I appreciate that WTR has made some other edits to the article that address some of my concerns. Also, it is possible that my disagreement with these particular edits is overblown or unjustified, in which case I hope other people will say so. The problem here, as I see it, is that information from McCain's autobiography constitutes primary source material; such material can be used in Wikipedia, but should be used with special care. See WP:PSTS. In this instance, info from the primary source was properly presented in the text of the article as McCain's own characterization, rather than as objective fact. However, the attribution to McCain has now been relegated to the footnotes. I disagree that attributing McCain's own characterizations to himself in the text somehow implies that those characterizations are dishonest; rather, it simply alerts the reader that those characterizations have not (to our knowledge) been confirmed by a reliable biographer who has consulted sources other than McCain's own autobiography. As Wasted Time R has noted in an edit summary, McCain's memory is not perfect,[21] and it is well-known that he is prone to self-deprecation,[22] as well as controversial remarks.[23] This article already attributes many things to McCain, so I do not see why the same cannot be done in the few instances in question.[24] McCain recalls that he was frequently disciplined for fighting in school; we do not know whether a biographer would say the same thing after interviewing his classmates (e.g. a biographer might find that it happened occasionally instead of frequently, or that many of the fights were started by other students, et cetera). Likewise, McCain has said that his relationship with Nancy Reagan turned cold for a while following his divorce from Carol McCain, but that eventually the friendship with Mrs. Reagan (who employed Carol) returned; we do not know whether a biographer would say the same thing after interviewing Mrs. Reagan (e.g. a biographer might find that she characterized the relationship as strained and awkward, rather than cold and unfriendly). Anyway, I will not withdraw my support at this time, because it's generally a very good article, and WTR has tried to address my other concerns.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
My responses to this are all on the talk page, I won't repeat them here. (Although I object to Ferrylodge's characterization of my edit summary — that's not what Timberg was getting at.) If I ever get past discussing this issue, I will continue my sweep through the article to eliminate McCain cites as much as possible. I also now plan to augment the footnote for each remaining McCain cite with an explanation for why it's being used. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:03, 4 April 2008.

[edit] Armenian Genocide

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it should featured on the 24th April on the main page... Self-nominator, contributor --xeryus (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

--Kakofonous (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

All other links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is "Armenian Genocide" a proper noun, or should the second word of the title be uncapitalized, i.e. "Armenian genocide"? The article is inconsistent in how the word "genocide" is capitalized. The U.S. Library of Congress Subject Heading appears to list it as a non-proper noun, "Armenian genocide", but with a redirect to the more neutral heading "Armenian massacres". When searching for the term "Armenian Genocide" in my local (Ohio) university library catalogue, this message appears: "'Armenian Genocide, 1915-1923' is not used in this library's catalog; 'Armenian massacres, 1915-1923' is used instead." This suggests that this article's title is not NPOV according to the Library of Congress. What is effectively the first major assertion of the article—that "Armenian Genocide" is a proper noun—is undocumented in the article itself, since none of the quoted material appears to use it as such. This usage should be documented (easy enough if it really is a proper noun) or the article title should be changed. —Kevin Myers 02:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: How did you get this past the Turkish editors and without a NPOV tag? Wandalstouring (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Object the refs need to be consistently formatted. Some places have "Page", others have "p" some have dots and some do not. Also, a lot of refs are not filled in fully, and also, "ibid" should not be used here on wiki, because when people wedge a new ref in betweem, it causes havoc. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:03, 4 April 2008.

[edit] Nine Inch Nails live performances

After an easy GA nomination, I believe this article is ready for further scrutiny. I think it's a solid article and is thoroughly referenced. Please note that there is an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page concerning the scope of the article, as well as the implementation of the various tables and other graphical elements. Myself and the GA reviewer agreed to leave as is, but other opinions have been expressed on the talk page. So, please take a look, and let me (us) know what you think. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Burningclean [speak] 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support All of my concerns have been addressed. Burningclean [speak] 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Was there a discussion about this title? I'm inclined to think Nine Inch Nails (live band) is a better title. This is really formatted more-or-less like any other band article, so I don't see why the title should be handled differently than a band name (i.e. just use the name with the simplest disambiguator possible). Tuf-Kat (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Yes, there was a discussion about that article's name, and the consensus was that the current title was best, for a couple of reasons. Mainly because of the scope of the article being not just about the band, but also about their place in the book of NIN, various tours, also the live performances themselves. The scope of the article is fairly broad, so the title must be similarly broad. This touches upon an issue I mentioned in the nomination, that it's been discussed to adjust the scope of the article, which would obviously affect what you are pointing out. My own opinion is that it is unneccessary to split up the article (into things like Nine Inch Nails (live band), Nine Inch Nails tours, etc., etc.), since everything is very closely related and makes much more sense in the context of a fairly broad article as opposed to a bunch of smaller articles which are out of context completely without the others. 17:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the article title is fine. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I still think it would be beneficial to split the article into two pages: a biographical article about the ever-changing backing band (which the touring gorup essentially is) and a list of NIN tour performances. The latter is particularly suited for listing tour dates, which this article really doesn't need. Splitting wouldn't really harm the article; it would still be GA-worthy and I'd support it remaining at FAC. It's just as it stands it covers a large, somewhat unwieldy scope and would work best as separate articles and lists on more clearly-defined subjects. I can help our set up and rearrange the articles if you want. Also, those collapsable boxes are totally unnecessary. A few weeks back I previewed the page in the edit window with them removed, and nothing was lost information-wise. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well that pretty much summarizes the debate at hand. Wesley's suggestions aren't bad by any means, but I think splitting the article up is an unnecessary step. Are there any other opinions on the subject? Drewcifer (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • The last image caption shouldn't have a period
  • Ref authors are inconsistently formatted.
  • Logical quotation should be used, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks.
  • Left-aligned images shouldn't be placed at the start of subsections.
  • Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "24 million homes"
  • "Most" is usually better than "the majority of".
  • "Prior to" is overly formal. "Before" is better.
  • "Although" is more encyclopedic than "though".
  • "the Self-Destruct tour, circa 1994-1995" - wrong dash
  • "the September 18 show in Honolulu" - date link missing
  • Spaces are needed around ellipses, unless they're part of the original text.
  • "and lasted until mid 2000" - hyphen needed after "mid"
  • The first sentence doesn't require any bolding, as per Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title. Epbr123 (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the extremely thorough review. I believe I've taken care of all of your concerns, except for the logical quotation comment and the left-aligned image comment. For the first, I'm not really sure which quotes you are referring to, as I thought I followed that particular guideline to the T. Could you give me some specifics? As for the left-align image thing, is that actual policy? I've never seen it written as such. Drewcifer (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The image guideline is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, which states, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes." These are the quotes that need fixing:
"Nights of Nothing," - I assume the comma isn't part of the name
"My Violent Heart,"
"Head Like a Hole."
"The Beautiful People."
"other ways [to] present the material in concert." - punctuation comes outside when the quote is a sentence fragment
"stalactites or stalagmites [formations] to tie in to the album artwork." Epbr123 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Good points, yet again. Thanks for the follow up and your thoroughness. I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Let me know what else I can do. Drewcifer (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced all of these sources with more reliable ones, with the exception of the last one, which I consider reliable because the author was one of the performers. –Pomte 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. The last one was marginal on being a concern, I mainly wanted to be sure that I was understanding correctly that he was the performer being referred to. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Added with minimal detail. –Pomte 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now on 1a. The text is peppered with errors, but they should be fixable. This should have had a peer review before coming here. You obviously took some liberties with the visual presentation of this page and the collapsible tables are fine. Some issues:
    • Check throughout for stylistic but ungrammatical comma use. Don't use a comma as a "pause" in a sentence when the second clause doesn't stand on its own. These are everywhere in the article. Example: "Chris Vrenna left the band temporarily to play in Stabbing Westward, and was replaced for the remainder of the tour by drummer Jeff Ward."
Yea, I, definitely, do, like, my, commas. I'll see if Pomte can provide an extra set of eyes for this one.
    • You alternate between referring to NIN as "it" and "they". Please be consistent.
I can't find any examples of the bandbeing referred to as "it". I did a simple search for the word, and all instances were in quotes or citation titles. Is there any that I'm missing?
    • There is too much white space in the article and it is very visually distracting.
I think this might be a shortcoming of my low-res monitor: I can only see one instance of white-space, in the Early tours section. I would guess that there might be some in the Performance 2007 section though? I've made both offending images a little smaller. I'm doing it blind however, so let me know if that helps at all.
    • I'm not sure the first sentence is accurate. Suggesting that the studio musicians are a "component" of the live band implies that the studio musicians are a sub-set of the live musicians. That's not true, is it? Aren't there studio musicians that aren't in the live band?
    • Instead of "a number of tours" just say "various tours". (DONE)
    • "Nine Inch Nails live performances contrast with the recorded output of the Nine Inch Nails discography." The discography does not have an output.
    • "Reznor writes and performs most Nine Inch Nails studio material entirely by himself..." The word "entirely" is redundant. (DONE)
    • "...where the band "stole the show" from headliners Jane's Addiction despite numerous equipment problems." Ooooo. Like what? Being smashed on stage?
    • "Since their first touring in 1988, Nine Inch Nails has embarked on five major tours." Either "Since their first tour..." or "Since first touring..." please. (DONE)
    • "The first live band was assembled to support Skinny Puppy on several dates, and was composed of what a Goldmine article described as session musicians." Just say "...composed of session musicians." No need to mention Goldmine, especially since you don't have a citation and source listed. (DONE)
    • "The band was poorly received, however, and were asked..." Was asked, unless you are writing this in British English for some reason. (DONE)
    • "To replace long-time member Chris Vrenna, Reznor held open auditions to find a new drummer, eventually picking then-unknown, Jerome Dillon." No comma before Jerome. (DONE)
    • Why do some statement about band lineups have 2 or 3 citations? Only one please, unless the item is likely to be challenged. Otherwise, it just looks like source-stacking.
    • I don't think the formats Beside You in Time was released on is relevant for this article. Anyone who cares will have already clicked the wikilink.
I removed all instances of formats except for one mention in the prose of the Live releases. So I removed it from the History section and the initial list in the Live releases section. I think it's worth mentioning once, but 3 times was definately excessive. Sound like a good compromise?
    • "Freese eventually replaced Carapetis and joined the band on a more permanent basis." I'm not sure anything can be "more permanent". Permanent is an all-or-nothing word. (DONE)
    • The 2007 tour is really called "Performance 2007"? Or did you decide to call it that because it has no name?
Yep, pretty much take a look at any of the Performance 2007 citations, and you'll see what I mean. Not very creative, I know.
    • "...with much of the game revolving around a number of live performances." Again, use "various" or similar instead of "a number of". (DONE)
    • "Since first touring in 1988, no member of the Nine Inch Nails live band has remained consistent except for Reznor himself." The people themselves have been consistent; it's the lineup that's been inconsistent. See the difference?
    • Why nothing about the visual production of the shows prior to 1999?
I haven't been able to find any sources for that, unfortunately. I would also assume that their shows were pretty standard rock-show fare up until 1999, so it might not have gotten alot of press.
    • "Nine Inch Nails shows typically feature a large amount of..." Large number of. Everything you list is quantifiable. (DONE)
    • "Also used were DLP projectors displayed on a gauze screen in front of the stage." So there were pictures of DLP projectors on the screen? (DONE)
    • Image:Alessandro Cortini.jpg makes the Live Releases heading depart the left side of the screen. That's a no-no.
I right-aligned it. Not perfect, but better?
    • Again, in the Live Releases heading, lists of formats are not needed.
See above.
    • "An easter egg in the DVD version features a performance with Marilyn Manson..." The dude or the band? Because you wikilink the dude. --Laser brain (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It was indeed the dude. Drewcifer (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the comments. Drewcifer, tell me if you'd like help addressing specific ones. –Pomte 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yea, thanks so much for the thorough review thus far. I've addressed a bunch of your concerns, and responded to a few others. Still working on a couple of them. Pomte, maybe you could help out and provide an extra set of eyes for the excessive-comma thing (first comment)? Drewcifer (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:03, 4 April 2008.

[edit] Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)

I'm nominating this article for featured article. This article, possibly not taking into account the prose, is, in my opinion, better than Doomsday (Doctor Who) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (which I also wrote), which was given as a good example of an episode FA. The prose may trip up, but other than that, it's fine. Will (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fantastically written, but why is there no image in the infobox? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone moved it from the top to the criticism section (where it originally was). I originally had a caption which give equal weight to the plot and the e criticism. Will (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the angel image belongs in the criticism section, but I would still like to see a picture in the infobox since all other Doctor Who articles have one. How about a screenshot of the Titanic? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Might work. Do you reckon it'd still be minimal usage? Sceptre (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
How does it look? Sceptre (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks well written. I'll support. Meldshal42Comments and SuggestionsMy Contributions 18:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Looking nice :) A few suggestions, keeping in mind I've only ever watched about 30 seconds of a Doctor Who episode:
    • 72 minutes long and was broadcast - "was first broadcast"?
    • writing and Minogue's performance both criticised and praised - makes sense to me to put praised first, but that's probably me being OCD-ish.
    • I'm not quite sure why there are two preceding episodes in the infobox - ?
    • The News of the World initially reported... Davies initially dismissed the story - consecutive sentences both use "initially".
    • The scene aboard the Titanic required at least fifty extras - source?
    • Gardner, Collinson, and Davies all liked the design of the "strut" set, the bridge over the engine, and felt that the CGI further complemented it. - again, source, especially as there's a quote in use.
    • The high viewing figures resulted in Eastenders and "Voyage of the Damned" were the most-watched programmes of 2007, respectively - doesn't make sense. "...resulted in ... becoming" or "being named", something like that.
    • 1912 Titanic sinking, who stated it was - "that it was".
    • For the most part, The Voyage of the Damned is absolutely smashing - put episode title in 'quote within a quote' apostrophe-thingies.
    • ticks boxes in all of our main categories [gruesome, scary, self-sacrifice, tearjerking, surprising] - maybe put the categories in [(square and round brackets)] because just square implies that it is part of the actual statement... if that makes sense!
    • You may want to make some kind of distinction between the British and Australian Daily Telegraphs.
  • Otherwise, good stuff, hope that helps, and I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help with the in-universe bits - I drifted off a little there. :) —97198 talk 10:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    Done all :) Sceptre (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support A comprehensive, well referenced article. Try to keep the cite templates on one line 'cause it's easier to keep track of them. One thing I picked up: Filming took part summer of 2007... ? Filming took place? The JPStalk to me 12:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No, please do NOT try to keep cite templates on one line; they become utterly un-editable, so your statement (easier to keep track of) is quite contradictory. I have undone that portion of your formatting. And since the wikisource is unvisible to the reader, it should not bare any weight in this discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 13:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I did not intend that comment to be part of my criteria for assessing this, (although FAC does consider some formatting issues that are "unvisible" to the reader), but as a result of the tone of your reply I am withdrawing my support. The JPStalk to me 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • "Consider the content, not the person". I think you should look within yourself what your real criteria are. My apologies if I came off harch, but if someone messes up the formatting for no good reason, I tend to get a little annoyed. — Edokter • Talk • 14:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The formatting was not messed up. It was changed to a format which you don't like. Since I don't edit this article, I don't care. The cite templates are not a criteria for FA, so neither is the formatting. As I have explained, I was making a supplementary comment. I was offended by your response to my good faith comments and changes, particularly your unnecessary confrontational emboldening and capitailsation. I appreciate that FAC can be stressful, which is why I commenced my comment by commending the article. However, I thank you for your apology. The JPStalk to me 16:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments by The JPStalk to me 16:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
    Where's the objectionable caption? Sceptre (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    The second one. Epbr123 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Done. Sceptre (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Spaced en dashes should be used in the infobox, rather than em dashes.
  • "took place in Summer 2007" - capital not needed
  • Logical quotation should be used, ie:
  • "It was boring, despite the endless dashing about and CGI flimflam". - period belongs inside the quote if present in the original text
  • lamented that "the plot was a mess, consisting mostly of one hi-tech chase scene after another, and it descended into noise and bluster.". - period only needed outside the quote. Epbr123 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Done except the first; Sceptre (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    All fixed. Epbr123 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
All other links check out fine with the link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Outpost Gallifrey is a reliable source. It's been held up in many discussions. They do check their facts thoroughly or simply aggregate.
    The Mirror ref has been fixed.
    The SyFy Portal story aggregates the (reliable) Paisley Daily Express.
    The Swansea reference yields a blank page for me too. What's more frustrating that the news story has been junked, and I can't find another source. Might exist in DWC Sceptre (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Checking back in here, any progress on the Swansea ref? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. OG didn't aggregate. Sceptre (talk)

Oppose The prose isn't up to standard and I've made some suggestions. [25]. I suggest Tony's advice is followed.--GrahamColmTalk 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples of where it's bad, please? Sceptre (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Taken at random from the Lead: Another scene, filmed on a set labelled by the production team as the best set they had made, featured composer Murray Gold, conductor and orchestrator Ben Foster, and singer Yamit Mamo, three people involved in producing the music of the episode, performing "The Stowaway", a song written specially for the episode. - labelled, set, set, episode, episode.
    • Astrid, who joined to travel throughout the stars, is disappointed, because she is not given shore leave. - joined what.
    • The production team gave her a one-off companion role, before Davies had finished the script. - one-off companion role?
    • Filming was delayed in July to attend his mother's funeral ?
    • The song features everyone who was present in the studios during recording as backing vocals. - vocalists?GrahamColmTalk 16:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The first, third, and fourth have been fixed, easy enough. The problem I'm having with the second is that, in terms of Doctor Who, a companion is the second (third, or fourth) lead role, and has nothing to do with their number of appearances: Grace Holloway is officially regarded as a companion, despite only having appeared in one story (the TV movie), and so was Donna Noble before she was confirmed for the fourth series. I've reworded that sentence with a link to Companion, though. Sceptre (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, 1a. I'm a little concerned that this article is here since it was recently delisted from GA status and then got only a nominal peer review. It is an interesting article—I'll be watching the show after reading it—but the prose is not up to FA standard. Please get a thorough copyedit by an uninvolved editor. If this nomination does not pass, please get a substantive peer review. Some example problems follow:
    • "The Doctor teams up with waitress Astrid Peth to prevent the ship colliding with the Earth..." Prefer "prevent the ship from..."
      • I'm afraid the new sentence introduces another error. It can't be "prevented from a collision". --Laser brain (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "It was the second most-watched programme of 2007 in Britain, beaten only by the immediately following episode of EastEnders." Do you mean EastEnders immediately followed in the rankings or in the television schedule? As written, could be either or both.
    • "Critical reception over the episode was divided, with the writing and Minogue's performance both praised and criticised." Perhaps: "Critics' opinions on the episode were divided. Some praised the writing and Minogue's performance while others criticised them."
    • The prose in the Plot synopsis is not up to standard. There are many rambling sentences, punctuation and grammar errors, and plot elements listed without context or explanation. I've tried to call out examples below, but the section needs copyediting.
    • "The Doctor soon learns the ship is a replica of the Earth ocean liner from the planet Sto" As written, reads like the Earth ocean liner is from Sto, not the replica.
      • Still confusing. --Laser brain (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        • How does it look now?
    • "Astrid, who joined to travel throughout the stars..." If her motivation was to see planets, as suggested in the next phrase, you should state that more clearly.
      • Specific phrase was "travel through the stars", if I remember correctly.
    • "...an alien with a spiked red head called Bannakaffalatta..." named
    • "However, London was evacuated after the general populace fled in fear of an a third consecutive extra-terrestrial attack, after the events of 'The Christmas Invasion' and 'The Runaway Bride', and only a few people remain, including the Royal Family and a newspaper seller called Wilfred Mott (Bernard Cribbins)." This is too long and rambling to follow. The populace fled and then the city was evacuated?
    • "Concurrently, on the Titanic's bridge, Captain Hardaker (Geoffrey Palmer) dismisses all his officers." Why?
      • Still needs clarity. "...dismisses all his officers to commit an act of sabotage..."? --Laser brain (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        • That's the reason why. Sceptre (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Hardaker then commits an act of sabotage;" Colon, not semicolon, and capitalize next phrase.
    • "The resulting collision kills Hardaker, and most of the passengers on-board, and the Titanic's engines start to fail, drawing the ship to an extinction level collision with Earth." Stylistic but ungrammatical commas, too long. "Start to fail" is not an ideal expression.
      • Old version.
    • "The Doctor makes contact with Frame to help him stabilise the ship, and then leads a small group of survivors to reach him." Stylistic comma. (Yes I could just fix it, but I'm identifying it so you can look for the rest.)
    • "Complicating matters are the Host, information androids resembling angels, who were programmed to kill everyone on board." Passive, confusing.
    • The party is attacked.. then the party are attacked. One or the other please - you have used the British-English penchant for treating collective nouns as plurals through the rest of the article.
      • Should be plural, yes.
    • "Morvin falls into the engines, and Foon commits suicide while pulling one of the Host with her." Pulling one of the Host with her where?
    • Capricorn is the cruise line owner or the former owner? You say he was forced out.
    • "The Doctor, assuming control of the Host, uses them to make his way to the bridge." Perhaps: "The Doctor assumes control of the Host and uses them..."
    • "In mid-descent, he realises the ship is heading towards Buckingham Palace, but re-assumes control of the ship seconds before collision." I thought he already had control of the ship? When did he lose it, requiring him to "re-assume" it?
    • "Before leaving in the TARDIS, the Doctor allows him to build a new life, funded by the ship's expenses card." What ship? The TARDIS or the Titanic?
    • "Another recurring theme present in the episode is angels, which previously occurred in "Blink", where the antagonists of the episode were Weeping Angels, and in 'The Sound of Drums' and 'Last of the Time Lords', where the Master's communication network was called the 'Archangel Network'." Simply exhausting!
      • Old version.
    • "Despite angels being the antagonist in two episodes that aired close to each other, which slightly annoyed Davies when he read Steven Moffat's script for 'Blink', the Host are functionally different as subordinate 'robot butlers'." We've not mentioned Davies thus far. Full name and context needed.
    • "The production team gave her a one-off companion role, before Davies had finished the script." No comma.
    • "The scene aboard the Titanic, filmed at The Exchange in Swansea, required at least fifty extras..." Thoughts on wikilinking "extras"? Not sure everyone knows that term.
    • The Writing and filming section needs renaming and chronological organization. It talks about sets, which are not part of the writing or filming process. There are too many sentences that begin with "So-and-so liked..." Talk about writing and set-building first then filming and post-production.
      • Massive reorganisation
    • "The high viewing figures resulted in Eastenders and "Voyage of the Damned" were the most-watched programmes of 2007, respectively." Rewrite.
    • "The viewing figure is the highest for the new series, exceeding the previous record set by 'Rose', and the highest for Doctor Who overall since 1979: specifically, the final episode of 'City of Death', which aired while rival network ITV suffered programming disruptions." Way too long, colon used incorrectly.
    • "Before its broadcast, the episode was criticised by Millvina Dean..." How did she criticize it before it was broadcast?
      • The Titanic storyline was well known before the episode aired. As in, the beginning of July. I'd say it was a knee-jerk reaction on Dean's part.

--Laser brain (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

      • I've replied to concerns where it shouldn't/can't be fixed, but for the most part, done. Incidentally, you're using an old version. Besides, in the last few peer reviews I've requested, I just got the bot and no-one else. Sceptre (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • That'll teach me for clicking "Edit" and then taking three hours to type out my comments. Much improved, overall, but could use a third pair of eyes. Peer review has been vastly improved recently with the addition of the volunteer list. I've seen a list of episodes of an obscure French-Canadian television show get several substantive reviews. --Laser brain (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Incidentally, the episode and its respective Confidential episode aired earlier tonight. I missed the first 30 minutes of the episode, but I was able to record the Confidential episode to do some clarifications. Sceptre (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:24, 3 April 2008.

[edit] Tenacious D

previous FAC (18:16, 18 February 2008)

Self-nominator I have addressed all the issues in the previous FAC, as well as reorganizing the content and adding more cites. I have done a lot of research, looking at Nirvana, U2 and AC/DC in order to get this up to scratch. Thanks, Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: Please check links; one appears to be dead. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, sorted. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • http://www.virtualfestivals.com/ looks pretty good, but I'd appreciate any information that mentions the site as reliable. I see the blurbs on their about us page, just looking for some independant coverage.
The site has some media coverage on it here at bottom of page. "The Times: "Virtual Festivals is very much the complete package. Its clean online-magazine feel makes for an easy-to-use portal that provides everything from a thriving interactive festival community as well as well-informed editorial." Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, removed unnecessary sentence.Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I would argue yes. this shows why. A lot of interviews with big names, referenced in authoritative sources etc. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Added published info. Thomas Crosbie Holdings Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Changed to reliable source. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Changed cite. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
All the links checked out for me with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is currently listed at the LOCE for copyediting, still has MOS errors, and according to the list above, still uses non-reliable sources. Not sure if this one falls under April Fools? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, it's a bit raw. Can the nominator please arrange for assistance WRT to 1a and 2? Why not withdraw it and resubmit when it's properly done? TONY (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw this. I'll resubmit after a peer review and sorting cites out. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:41, 3 April 2008.

[edit] Richard Mentor Johnson

Self-nomination. Article has passed GA and has gone through one peer review that netted few comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support—It's a fine article. My one suggestion is to try adding a few more images.—RJH (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Logical quotation should be used, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks.
    • Some inconsistent number format, eg, "the state's 23 electors", "Tennessee's fifteen votes"
    • "Although" is more encyclopedic than "though".
    • There is a dead external link. Epbr123 (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I think I have addressed all of these issues. If not, please let me know. I hope you will eventually be able to support this article's nomination. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
All fixed. Epbr123 (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Is the Burke reference from an older book? I'm not sure why it should be considered a reliable source.
    • Is http://politicalgraveyard.com/index.html a reliable source? It says at the bottom of the main page that they don't guaranteed and that it should be checked against other sources.
    • the biographical directory of the US congress site needs an access date and publisher
    • I'm uncomfortable with using an 1843 book for some of the details of his life. Surely there is something more modern? While there may not be a biography of him, surely he's treated in some scholarly works on the history of the time?
    • The Starling book needs publisher information. The footnote to it also needs a page number.
    • Congressional Bio in the footnotes refers to which reference?
    • What makes http://www.americanaexchange.com/NewAE/aemonthly/printarticle.asp?from=a&id=118 a reliable source?
All other links check out okay with the link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I can tell you about the sources used:
  • As best I can gather, Henry Robert Burke wrote a column called "Window to the Past" for the Marietta Times, a newspaper in Marietta, Ohio. While I can't find a date or issue number on this particular article, a Google search for "Henry Robert Burke" and "Window to the Past" turns up similar articles with dates circa 1996.
  • Hm. This is where I get to feel really uncomforatble with the source. And I'd hate for the information to be lost though. Urf. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've asked our librarian here at the college if he knows some way to verify where/when this article was originally published. If I can confirm that it was published in the Marietta Times and provide a date of publication, will that suffice? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That will be fine if you can verify that. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I can find no provision in WP:V for calling a reference into question solely based on it's age. In fact, some might argue that, because it was published chronologically nearer the events it documents, it would be more reliable than a later source. Google Books contains almost 400 books by the same publisher, so it isn't as though it was published by some kind of fly-by-night publisher. There may be additional later works that verify these facts; then again, there may not be. They might also be spread across 20 different books. I don't believe there is reason to spend weeks looking for a later source when the present one doesn't appear to violate WP:V or WP:RS.
  • My main concern with using the work is not so much the bald biographical details but the interpretations coming from them. Such as the citation for the last paragraph of the first section of the Political career section, where it discusses Johnson's view that the denial of claims was an injustice. By using a source from 1843 (that isn't autobiographical either) the article is perhaps out of touch with current historical scholarship on the subject. Likewise with the last sentence of the first paragraph of the War of 1812 section, where it is said that the battalion's patroling of the Indian lines prevented raids. Current scholarship might have a differing view. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The only publisher listed at WorldCat is "Henderson, Kentucky." I assume the city (which is the county seat) commissioned the book. There have apparently been several re-printings. I cannot provide a page number because I am using the text from the web site linked in the References section, hence, no page numbers. Again, only one sentence is cited from this source, so if this is not sufficient and I cannot find a hard copy of the book, I will just remove the sentence. I don't believe it will affect the comprehensiveness of the article that much.
  • I'm wondering if this is one of the County Histories that were published in the second half of the 19th century. Usually they had information in the front on the state history, then more detailed information on the county history (which varied wildly in the accuracy) and then a large section of (usually paid) biographies of leading citizens of the county. Every genealogist knows about these works, and they are useful but not always reliable. Looking at the website, it looks like it's to one of the biographies, but i'm not sure if it's from the front section which would have been about political officeholders, or if its from the paid section in the back. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I can tell you that this particular detail was taken from the biography of Lazarus W. Powell, Governor of Kentucky. This seems to suggest that it would be in the front section with the biographies of political officeholders. Also, it was published 20 years after Powell's death and nearly 40 years after Johnson's, so I would think there is less chance the material was censored to avoid offending the men in question. If you really need to know before you can support the article, I can request it on interlibrary loan. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I hope this sufficiently addresses your concerns regarding the sources used in the article, and that you will eventually be able to support its nomination for FA. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have some of the same concerns that Ealdgyth raised about sourcing. I'm certain the 1843 book in question, now credited to Langworthy but then published anonymously, was written to promote Johnson's presidential ambitions. (I suspect it's simply an uncredited update of the 1833 biography by Emmons.) It can & should be used for contemporary context, but its original purpose—campaign literature—should be made clear. It's not a neutral work of history by any stretch of the imagination.

    This illustrates a pitfall of using Google Books (which is great) when writing history: one needs to consult modern scholarship too and not rely too much on old, public domain books. There appears to be just one Johnson biography published by an academic historian: the 1932 book by Meyer, which is not used as a source, presumably because it's not online. The article will certainly be stronger if that book is used, and the old, promotional biography is contextualized. And as a military history buff I'd sure like to see some use of a 1934 article by Fletcher Pratt entitled "Richard Mentor Johnson: The Father of American Cavalry".

    That being said, I don't think this article has any fatal factual or neutrality problems, even though it uses mostly tertiary sources and contemporary campaign literature, rather than academic secondary sources. Overall, this article compares favorably to Johnson's entry in the American National Biography, though it lacks the critical historical assessment of Johnson that the historian who wrote that entry provided. This is good work, if not fully engaged with the available secondary sources. —Kevin Myers 03:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin. Interestingly, I was about to ask for your input on your talk page last night, but ended up having to take my wife to the hospital with breathing trouble instead. (She's fine.) Your comments are accurate regarding why I haven't used the Meyer text. (Well, that, and I didn't realize the POV problems with the Langworthy source.) Also, I wasn't aware of the Pratt article you mention. In what publication could I find it? Fortunately, I work at a college, so getting material like this is usually easier because I have access to a decent library.
Based on what I've seen of your work, I trust your opinion implicitly. You've stated that "I don't think this article has any fatal factual or neutrality problems, even though it uses mostly tertiary sources and contemporary campaign literature, rather than academic secondary sources." Certainly, I can try to obtain the two sources you mentioned ASAP, but I wish I had them going into a weekend instead of coming out of one. Do you feel like this nomination should be withdrawn until I can add material from those sources, or could it be a situation where the article is "featured, but not finished" and I could add the material later? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 12:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Good question. Perhaps the article as is may be good enough for featured status without the biography I mentioned. Looking around at recent featured articles, I notice for example that the article on Grover Cleveland makes no mention of an important biography critical of Cleveland's policies (Merrill's Bourbon Leader), and make no serious attempt to evaluate his legacy. Like this article, the one on Cleveland is good but maybe not comprehensive. It wouldn't seem right to hold this article to a higher standard, but I'll let you and others decide when and if to promote it to featured.
As for the Pratt article, I found it mentioned in the bibliography of Johnson's entry in the American National Biography (which is always a good place to check, by the way). The article was published in Cavalry Journal 43 (May-June 1934): 5-9, which is such an obscure source that I wouldn't worry about it if it's not easily available. —Kevin Myers 04:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. I've requested the Meyer biography on interlibrary loan; hopefully, I can get it late this week or early next. It's over 500 pages, so initially, I'll probably just see if I can verify the conclusions drawn by the the Langworthy book. I've also asked our librarian to see if he can get the article from Cavalry Journal. He's surprised me before.
Thanks for your comments. I do hope others will be able to support the article as-is, and knowing that I'm doing my best to confirm the details currently in question. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It was reprinted in Pratt's collection Eleven Generals; Studies in American Command. I'll see if I can find it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The chronology of 1850 is unclear. The date of the election and the date the Legislature met would help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Sorry to chime in so late, but I find the writing fuzzy, imprecise, and ungainly. Looking at the lead, I see the following significant glitches.

  • "to fill the seat vacated by the resignation of John J. Crittenden". A person vacates a seat; a resignation doesn't vacate it.
  • "became a detriment to his political ambition"—"Detriment" is not right here. "was detrimental to" is idiomatic.
  • "The relationship contributed to his unsuccessful defense of his Senate seat"—This is fuzzy; surely you mean that it contributed to his failure to hold the seat.
  • "but his district immediately returned him to the House"—Oh, it's possible to stand for Senate and House in the same election?
    • The implication is unwarranted, but it should probably be explained whether this was a special election. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "finally succeeding in returning to the Kentucky House of Representatives"—Remove "succeeded in".
  • "where some maintain that he personally killed the Shawnee chief Tecumseh, a fact he later used to his political advantage"—Was it an allegation or a fact? Can't be both.
  • "fell just short of the needed electoral votes to secure his election"—Remove "needed".
    • Rather, move needed to after votes; fell just short of the electoral votes to secure his election. leaves to secure in mid-air, modifying nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole article needs careful copy-editing. TONY (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments: I started after the lead since Tony covered that, but I am finding issues in almost every sentence. Copyedit is needed. Some prose examples and other issues:
    • Image:Death of Tecumseh.JPG needs a source so copyright status can be verified.
      • I've asked the uploader to add the source. I also have this image, which I had first used in the article, but it was replaced by another editor. It has a source, so I can change them out if necessary. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please don't put multiple footnotes on uncontroversial statements.
      • "Uncontroversial statements" and "material that is likely to be challenged" have always been too subjective as criteria for me, so I try to cite everything. If there are two cites, it means that one source supports part of the sentence and the other source supports the other. I also try to keep them in order (i.e. the first fact mentioned is supported by the first source listed.) Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
        • You could combine the two sources into one footnote, which might alleviate the visual problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Richard Mentor Johnson was born on October 17, 1780, the fifth of eleven children born to Robert and Jemima (Suggett) Johnson on the then Virginia Frontier at "Beargrass", near present-day Louisville, Kentucky." Try rewriting to eliminate a "born".
    • "By 1784, the family had moved again..." No "had". If you don't need a word, don't use it.
      • This changes the force of the sentence; the pluperfect and the simple past are not the same. The text emphasizes that we do not know when they moved, merely that in 1784 they are attested in Scott County. If anything in the sentence is redundant, it is the next words again, this time, and that may be warranted stress. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Johnson's formal education did not begin until age fifteen; nevertheless, in 1800 he entered Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky." I don't understand the connection you are trying to make here. "Enrolled" might be a better verb than "entered" since many people enter universities for other reasons than enrolling.
      • Johnson was born in 1780; few people, although more then than now, qualify for university education after only five years of formal education. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Later, he owned a retail store, and pursued a number of business ventures with his brothers." No comma after "store".
    • "Although he was from an aristocratic background, Johnson often worked pro bono for poor people, prosecuting their cases against the rich." One isn't "from" a background. This sentence mentions that Johnson was an aristocrat but is has not been discussed yet - how is he qualified as an aristocrat? The sentence also implies that it is unconventional for rich people to work for poor people, which is a complicated assertion. Does your source back that up?
    • "White society"? I don't know. Will international readers have any idea what this means?
    • "When she ran off with another man..." "Ran off" is too colloquial. --Laser brain (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Bosh. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I don't know what that means. --Laser brain (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
          • This is largely moot, being replaced by left, but I'm not sure that's an improvement. She was his slave concubine; she did run off. What word would be sober enough to be encyclopedic? Elope is wrong; escape tendentious; should we avoid vivid and accurate language because it is vulgate? I read Samuel Johnson; but we should not copy him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I have attempted to correct the specific examples cited above, except where I (or others) have made comments. Apparently, I am either a really bad writer or I'm too close to the prose to see its flaws (since I wrote most of it.) In either case, I have requested copyediting assistance from WikiProject Kentucky, WikiProject Louisville, WikiProject Bluegrass Region. I'd also be glad for anyone reading this to lend a hand. I will also continue to try and address any other specific concerns as they are raised. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If I have time, I'll try to do a copyedit run. I make no promises though. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I want to go ahead and say this right now, you write fine. You just have the same problems I do, a tendency towards wordiness and the problem of trying to copyedit your own work (which is very difficult to do). So don't take these comments as a slight towards your writing ability.
  • Early life section, first paragraph, second sentence. It is a bit of a run on, I suggest breaking the sentence into two. Is there a reason we're capitalizing Frontier in Virginia Frontier? What is "Beargrass"? A town? village? House? It's unclear from the context.
  • Does "with Julia Chin, a family slave left to him by his father..." really need the family in there?
  • I don't object to the "law considered her a Negro" but the "prevented Johnson from marrying her." is perhaps a bit anthropologic. Try "law considered her a Negro which prevented Johnson from marrying her."?
  • Political career section, first paragraph, second sentence "He was only twenty-three at the time of his election, and although the Kentucky Constitution imposed an age requirement of twenty-four for members of the House of Representatives, Johnson was so popular that he was allowed to serve without questions being raised about his age." It's wordy. Perhaps "He was only twenty-three at the time, and although the Kentucky Constitution said members of the House had to be twenty-four, Johnson was so popular that he was allowed to serve anyway."
  • Was he elected to the KY House as a member of a party? What brought him to join the party, do we know?
  • Same section, second paragraph, the third sentence is very long and somewhat hard to follow. Consider breaking it up?
  • Same section and paragraph, the last sentence, consider rewording to something like "He continued to champion the interests of the poor as a member of the House, and he first came to national attention with his opposition to the rechartering of the First Bank of the United States."?
  • I see what you're trying to do with using Eleventh Congress in the third paragraph of Political career, but since you haven't said which congressional term was which in the paragraph above, it is jarring to the reader to suddenly see Fourteenth Congress without any dates to give context. Yes, they could click through to the article, but having to do that too much is annoying to the reader.
  • Same section, fourth paragraph. The first sentence, the last half is awkward. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say with "minor status of the claimant during the statute of limitations."
  • Same section and paragraph, fourth paragraph. Consider rewording the first part to "Johnson found this practice so unpalatable, he requested transfer from the committee." which gives you an active verb and cuts down on the wordiness.
  • War of 1812 section, second paragraph. Consider rewording to "Johnson returned to Congress in the fall of 1812, where President James Madison and Secretary of War John Armstrong consulted him about ways to defeat the British." which avoids the dreaded passive. Also, why in the world are Madison and Armstrong consulting a pretty junior Congressman? And letting him devise a war plan? This is where a modern work or two would be good to consult, as that just rings false to me here.
  • Same section, fourth paragraph. It's a bit wordy, you might cut some words here to reduce wordiness.
  • Same section, last sentence is opinion and needs a source.
  • Same section, fifth paragraph. "Shortly following the killing of Tecumseh..." is awkward. Perhaps "Shortly after the killing..." or "Shortly after the death..."?
  • Same section and paragraph, last sentence is awkward. Consider "Although he eventually recovered, save for a crippled hand, he was still suffering from his wounds when he returned to the House in February 1814."
  • Post-war career section, second paragraph. The first two sentences are awkward. Perhaps combine them in something like this "In 1817 Congress investigated General Andrew Jackson's execution of two British subjects during the First Seminole War." Also in this section, have we wikilinked Henry Clay yet?
  • Service in the Senate section, fourth paragraph, second sentence. Really wordy, consider cutting it down some? Perhaps "Near the end of his term in the Senate, petitioners asked Congress to prevent the handling and delivery of mail on Sunday because it violated biblical principles about the Sabbath."
  • Same section and paragraph, last sentence, perhaps reword to "The report was applauded as an elegant defense of the doctrine of separation of church and state, but again Johnson did not escape charges of conflict of interest due to his friends who were contracted to haul mail, and who would have suffered financially from the proposal."?
  • Election of 1836 section, last paragraph, fourth sentence is just awkward: "Regardless, the Democrats still won the canvass." You rarely see canvass used as a synonym for election nowadays, better to just use election.
  • Same section and paragraph, last sentences could probably be combined like "The voted divided strictly along party lines, with Johnson becoming vice-president with a vote of 36 to 16, with three senators absent."
I hope this helps some. It's getting there, although better copyeditors than I should probably also look at it. It's still pretty wordy, especially in the beginning. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:41, 3 April 2008.

[edit] 1988 Pacific hurricane season

Self-Nomination - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is comprehensive, has good history of the season's storms, and is other well detailed. It was a successful good article candidate in November 2007 and since been improved even further. Hello32020 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with all due respect to the main editor I don't think the substantive oppose comments were ever addressed in the old nom. I still have concerns per criterion 1b; I don't think this article has been thoroughly researched. Someone needs to expand beyond web sources and search news and periodical sources. --Laser brain (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • While any further information and research can always help, I believe the article already pases 1b and is comprehensive enough to be featured. Hello32020 (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Hello32020, I have immense respect for the work you have done thus far - it is great - but "comprehensive" is a yes or no proposition. There are no degrees. Something is either broad and complete or it's not. In this case, cursory searches on Lexis Nexis on random storms and hurricanes listed in this article reveal information you haven't covered. Therefore, the article does not meet criterion 1b. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I will try to address your comments, if possible, but I meant "more comprehensive" as being closer to perfect. I do feel it could be improved slightly, but I don't feel anything major is missing and therefore think it is comprehensive. Hello32020 (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I think you'll need to do the research or collaborate with another editor who can do the research before you'll be able to tell if anything is missing. Sometimes writing an article needs to be collaborative for this very reason. No article is perfect but they do need to be comprehensive to make FA. The tropical storms project has generated many FAs; surely someone there can point you to research resources. --Laser brain (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please make the em dashes unspaced, as per MOS. Tony (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - quoting Laser, graphic non-subdisfactory. -- MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 05:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:41, 3 April 2008.

[edit] Half-Life 2: Episode One

previous FAC

Failed previous FAC, but significant changes were made since. I believe it has been brought up to scratch and deserves another go. Qjuad (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Admittedly, I am not an expert in the Half Life series of games, so I do not know if this is exactly comprehaensive, but the prose seems passable and the referencing is strong. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, I did a tiny bit of clean-up on the prose (removed the word "that" about a dozen times) and tweaked one of the Fair Use rationales. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now:
    • Lead - perhaps expand what kind of reaction, and to what elements of the game were received positively? The reception is somewhat tucked away. Also, perhaps note that the Orange Box release of the game was after the game had shipped, since it's more of a later release thing?
    • References - {{cite web}} should be filled out completely for each ref and for consistency's sake {{cite video game}} should also be used for plot citations.
    • Reception - a reception table like {{VG Reviews}} would remove the need for a laundry list of scores.
    • Plot - most game articles have gameplay before the synopsis, although I admit other games have it differently. Also, the "Prologue" - it's necessary to set up the action from the previous games, but a summary of not only Half-Life and Half-Life 2 seems excessive. Also, it's not referenced.
    • Gameplay - a lot of unsourced statements, such as "Her character is well-armed, making her a useful ally in combat, and she often makes suggestions to aid in puzzle-solving situations"- "useful" is POV and should be sourced.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Seems far from a FA standard, consider withdrawal from FAC.--Otterathome (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please highlight any particular details you feel are sub-standard so that changes can be considered and undertaken. Thanks. Qjuad (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
All other links checked out fine with the tool.Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:45, 1 April 2008.

[edit] Tropical Storm Charley (1998)

Self-Nomination - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think its very comprehensive given the nature of the storm and its impacts, is well written, and complies with the MOS. TheNobleSith (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Good stuff. Compares well with the other tropical storm articles out there. One question, though. What effect did it have on the oil rigs and other offshore activity? That's usually a major impact of even a minor storm in the western Gulf, and I'd be interested in knowing more about that effect. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The impact on oil rigs is mentioned in the article. TheNobleSith (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Mexican impact section is too short; I am positive there is more info, and here is a useful source to start with. There's no mention of any impact in Louisiana, despite that the rainfall map clearly indicates some rains fell there. Check the Wikilinks, and make sure all of them go to where they are supposed to go; I noticed four links in the lede alone were redirects. In the lede: Charely's impacts in Texas and Mexico were relatively light - I wouldn't call 20 deaths and $50 million in damage "relatively light". The storm history is awkward in places and could be better written, such as the first two sentences. One little thing I noticed: it intensified into a tropical depression - tropical disturbances don't intensify into a tropical depression. "Intensify" implies strength, but it was the fact a closed low-level circulation developed that caused it to develop into a depression, not stronger winds. Non-breaking spaces are needed throughout the article (200 miles, not 200 miles). The writing overall doesn't seem very professional. It could use more active verbs instead of linking verbs, for example. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe I have dealt with all of your critiques. TheNobleSith (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    Not quite. The Mexican section looks awkward, and presentation is an important aspect to an FA. On a similar note, is there a reason why Louisiana is after Mexico? Non-breaking spaces are needed, and I still count several redirects. My biggest objection is the writing. I do not think this article is near FA status, and my opposition remains. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the entire storm history this evening. I honestly agree it needs it needs it. As for Louisiana coming after Mexico...I placed them in order of impacts. And yes, Mexico is awkward, will fix that. As for non-breaking spaces, I don't know how to do that. I'm using the convert template for the observations and other measurements. Where do I put non breaking spaces in for those? And what redirects do you mean?

  • I personally believe Louisiana should go before Texas (so the impact order would go counter-clockwise around the Gulf of Mexico). Please read up on WP:MOS, regarding the non-breaking spaces, as well as on other issues; there should be a non-breaking space between any number and the unit. Check the Wikilinks in the article. Some of them don't go to the right place. My biggest problem with the article is its writing, which I do not think passes FA criterion 1b. I recommend getting a copyeditor for the article, such as Tony1. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added roughly half of the non breaking spaces. Will do the rest shortly. TheNobleSith (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • Consistency with either spelling out NHC or not would be nice.
All other links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Taken care of. All now are "NHC". TheNobleSith (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.