Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] February 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 17:25, 29 February 2008.

[edit] List of counties in Delaware

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because having I believe it is of sufficently standard. It is Well-written, comprehensive (covering all relavent topics), factually accurate (and suitably references), neutral (hard to be biased in this subject, and stable (minor edits only of late). It includes apropriate images and I think the length is right for the subject (any longer would just be woffle). Tompw (talk) (review) 15:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is this an FAC and not an FLC? It is quite clearly a list article. -- Scorpion0422 15:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair question... see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of counties in Delaware. The consensus was that three items was too few for a list. You'll note it's a GA, and lists are inelgiable for GA status, so it's not a list. The name should arguably be Counties of Delaware, there's a need for consistenty with the other 49 state county lists. Tompw (talk) (review) 15:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, it quite clearly is a list because it links together a series of existing articles in a table format, and almost 1/3 of the page is the table. Yes, it's a small list, but it is a list. The consensus is that three items is too small for a Featured list. If it's too small to be an FL, why should it be an FA? -- Scorpion0422 16:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
(I thought I might have this difficulty...) Because I'm not nominating it as list, I'm nominating it as an article. It is an article, so whether or not it's a list is a moot point. If it meets the FA criteria, then (presumably) it will get promoted. Yes, there's a table, because that's the best way of presenting the information in question. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as a featured article. The lead is far too short. There are two citations needed, which is a big no no for an FA. Additionally, the writing is not quite professional; for example, there are too many passive phrases (was governed, was left). Reference 4 doesn't seem like a reliable source, and reference 5 doesn't list any information. It looks more appropriate for FL, but there are still things to be done. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Picking up refences first... The URL for #5 seems to have become outdated, and has now been corrected - thanks for spotting that. I am puzzled that you don't consider The Historical Society of Delaware (i.e. ref #4) reliable... I felt I had something cast iron solid there. With regard to the passive voice... I cannot honestly see how to rephrase something like "After this division, Lewes became the county seat of Deale, which was later renamed Sussex County". If you have a better way of phraseing it, please, go and ahead say so. I agree the lead could be longer... what would you suggest be included? Thanks for your comments Tompw (talk) (review) 22:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as a WP:FA. If you ever renominate it at WP:FLC, I would support. The article is too short to have the breadth of scope required at WP:FA, IMO. I do think given the more recent county promotions to WP:FL a renomination might be considered. I have seen articles promoted from GA to FL before. If not, there is nothing wrong with being a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying the article doesn't meet criteria 1b ("Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.)? If so, what major facts and details have been omitted? Tompw (talk) (review)
  • Oppose. This should be renominated at FLC, as it is a list and not an article. If it were an article, I would label it non-comprehensive, as it provides no more than an incredibly brief overview. I have concerns as well that there are external links in the body of the article, the sources are not formatted properly (no publisher on some), and some of the sources do not appear reliable (Click and Learn?). Karanacs (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    A list is an article: anything in mainspace is an article. I have already given the reasons why I haven't nominated it at FLC. With regard to comprehensiveness, what material do you think should be included/expanded? Thanks for your comments about publishers - I've corrected it now. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I read your previous FLC nomination and you had one support, one neutral, and one oppose. I don't understand why you didn't renominate it there - that's a pretty decent distribution, and it may just need a different set of eyes (or, more likely, more eyes). If this were going to be an article, the number one change would be the name of the article. For this to be a comprehensive article, I would expect to more detailed information about what the counties have historically been responsible for and how that responsibility has changed over time; how the structure of county government has changed over time and what it actually looks like; how county officials are chosen; a deeper analysis of why Delaware's county system is different from that of other states and how this evolved; and, ideally, a comparison of the different counties - are there major differences in topography, in economies, in culture, and why is the population so different in one of them. Please also take a look at the sources that are used, as pointed out above.Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose on procedural grounds, as this is clearly as list. The name is, after all, "List of counties in Delaware". Even if refocused and renamed, I don’t know that this could stand as an article. With each of only three counties having an article, would it really be necessary to have a fourth article summarizing the three? Wouldn't that article just be Delaware itself? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
See my comments above - no point in repeating myself :-) . I shall just add a question: where in the Featued Article criteria/nomaintion proceedures does it say lists are ineligable? Tompw (talk) (review) 19:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The existence of WP:FA and WP:FL (and their relative counterparts, WP:FAC and WP:FLC) and the separation of the two in the content list on Template:FAC-instructions implicitly indicate that lists and articles are to be evaluated separately. WP:FAC is simply not the appropriate place and, to inject my own OR, I suspect you know that, as this was brought to WP:FLC first. After some cleanup, I could support this as an FL, but the GA status should probably be revisited. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, as I stated at the top of this page, it was brought to FLC first (by me). FLC is for lists, FAC for articles, but to quote the second sentence of WP:LIST "Lists may be found within the body of a prosaic article, or as a stand-alone article" - hence it's both an article and a list. I'm nominating it as an article, so merely ask that it be judged against the FA criteria. Those comments that been made so far about its quality as an article have been very useful, and I await further such comments with interest.
I’d argue that’s a mischaracterization of a style guideline. Specifically speaking, this is an issue about whether it’s a standalone list or an embedded list. Obviously, this is one of those articles on the line; I suppose I’ll buy that it’s embedded, but, if that’s the case, the title is inappropriate (something like “Delaware counties” would be better). In any case, featured content is featured content regardless of categorization. Featured articles and lists have different criteria pertaining to content. As identified by the concerns mentioned by Karanacs, going the "embedding route" has profound content ramifications. Also, to give you some 1A concerns from just the lead: 1) First mention of U.S. should not be abbreviated, 2) lead does not adequately summarize article, per WP:LEAD and 3) grammar (number agreement), “The origin … go back to” ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a list. The title contains the word list for goodness sake. Buc (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
(This is clearly my day of edit conflicts). See comments above. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I read that and I disagree with you. It's not up to you to say what is and isn't a list. Buc (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Move to Wikipedia:Featured list candidate/List of counties in Delaware, however it doesn't respect the criteria of a featured list. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 13:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read my comments above about why I nominated it for Featured Article rather than Featured List. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, everybody say that you must move this page to a featured list candidate... MOJSKA 666 (msg) 21:06, 27 February 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 17:25, 29 February 2008.

[edit] Milton Friedman

I believe this article meets the WP:FA criteria. Gary King (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Abstain: Note: at least 3 editors have pledged their help to get this article up to standard, so my vote isn't set in stone. My comments are addressed, but new findings about neutrality, raised by Septentrionalis, force me to abstain. PeterSymonds | talk 12:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Addressed comments by PeterSymonds

PeterSymonds | talk 12:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Symonds capped his comments as addressed, leaving nothing actionable on which the Oppose is based. Please clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So far unaddessed comments (the article has been listed at LOCE, so feel free to archive the message once the copyedit request has been carried out:

  • The images [[Image:Capitalism and Freedom.jpg]], [[Image:Milton-hand.jpg]] and [[Image:Free to Choose.jpg]] don't have a fair use rationale.
  • This article could do with a copyedit. There are MOS issues with full stops, for example after the quote "black tiger", a small addition to the sentence, the full stop is before the punctuation.

Comment - I had many of the same thoughts as Peter so I won't repeat them.

  • One addition, I think the criticism section should be folded into the article when discussing the particular policies held by Friedman (See WP:CRITICISM and {{Criticism-section}}).
  • Also, we have a mix of ref formats in this article that should be made uniform - some use footnote citation that show up under the references section (which you may want to rename to "Notes" - see WP:GTL) and some use embedded links - convert them all to footnotes (see WP:FOOT). Consider using the citation templates to make the references uniform (for example, all web links should have a last access date) - see Wikipedia:Citation templates.
  • Either expand the "Works" section to include a summary of that article, or just make it a wikilink in the main content and See also. I don't care for the empty section.

I plan to work on this article to try and improve it before FAC close, so I'm going to reserve my vote until after this week. Morphh (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Serious criterion 3 problems:
    • WP:NFCC#1: “Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available”. Image:Milton-hand.jpg cannot be used given the existence of Image:MiltonFriedman2.JPG‎. Though a moot point, this image is also not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and does not have an explicit fair use rationale with all elements, as described in WP:RAT.
    • Image:Capitalism and Freedom.jpg and Image:Free to Choose.jpg do not have fair use rationales (explicitly required by criterion three and NFCC#10A and C). Further, fair use of book covers is allowed only to “illustrate an article discussing the book in question”. Although the images are appropriate for Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose, respectively, this is a Milton Friedman article. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The article does seem to discuss the book in question, since Friedman authored the books - it talks about the book and the views represented in the book. The article itself is not entirely about the book but I still think this use would fall under the fair use of the book cover. I do agree that they need the fair use rationale. Morphh (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The brief discussion of the book(s) does not meet the threshold of critical commentary or significant contribution to our understanding. Do we have a significantly better understanding of Friedman (the NFCC#8 requirement) by seeing the book covers? Conversely, would their exclusion be a detriment to our understanding? No. As he is the author, only the book’s content would provide such insight. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) has been contacted, who specialises in the inclusion of fair use images. He/she will tell you what is permissable. PeterSymonds | talk 21:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please alphabetize your categories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Done Gary King (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • TonyTheTiger, can you please point out that guideline? I can't find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I asked you the same question long ago Sandy! You weren't able to find it; I don't think there is one. I'm glad; categories should be ordered from most fundamental to least. –Outriggr § 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Right. I seem to remember that the notion came from the peer review script, which either still does or used to ask that categories be ordered alphabetically, but we could never figure out where that come from. There is a guideline (somewhere) that interwikis should be alphabetical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Alphabetizing them can avoid overlapping cats; like many of our recommendations, a good idea, but should not be a requirement here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think a truly excellent job has been done with this article so far, but I'm a little bit concerned that this article may be substantially shy of "the relevant body of published knowledge". The article is missing the academic perspective of his life, and I believe this is the most important component of it. Just this past year, a biography of Friedman by Alan Ebenstein was published (as I recall it was favorably reviewed by Foreign Affairs) -- and a number of academic works have been published about his thought and contextualizing his academic contributions.
  • After all, Friedman is perhaps the second most important economists of the 20th century (after only Keynes, and some would probably dispute even that!), this is the most important part of his life, yet it's reduced to six paragraphs of the article. I think this needs to be clearer and fuller. His importance as a leader of the Chicago School of Economics (the school of thought, not the grad program), is almost completely glossed over. How he departed from Keynes is not really examined. The details of his economic philosophies are sparse. There's a short paragraph on statistics, yet an entire book (Hirsch and de Marchi, 1990, Milton Friedman: Economics in Theory and Practice.) has been devoted to the subject.
  • Meanwhile, the section on Estonia is longer than this. The section on Estonia is true enough, but Friedman has had this same influence on dozens of world leaders! Surely that he similarly influenced the economic policies of Reagan is substantially more important to the global economy, yet Estonia seems to have a section because he received an award from the country. This distorts the importance of Friedman in Estonia. It is Friedman himself who conceived this whole modern notion of the flat tax (in Capitalism and Freedom I think) and this is otherwise unmentioned in the article, yet this is one of his most important contributions to not only economic though, but indeed the world!
  • I think a trip to the library will be needed to fill these gaps, and some substantial reading will be needed. I could outline the gaps in further detail if needed, but a better way to address it would be to read Ebenstein and I'm sure the missing elements will jump out at us. Please don't be discouraged, this is one of the hardest articles on Wikipedia to get right, because economics is an esoteric subject (I think it's almost easier to explain quantum physics), and Friedman was one of the most wide-ranging and important thinkers in the topic. --JayHenry (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Could you please check that each web reference includes the author and publishing date if known. Epbr123 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Done I have laboriously gone through every reference and greatly improved on the details for each one. I have also merged duplicate references together so that they point to the same item in the Notes section. Gary King (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note. Please do not cap off comments made by reviewers.[1] If a reviewer is satisified and chooses to cap their comments, they should/can do so over their signature, so I know that they are satisfied and thaty they've capped the comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I second JayHenry. I was surprised that there was no "references" section. The citations suggest that almost the whole article was written using web sources, which is problematic for such a major biography. I hope the nominator can address this because the FA is a worthwhile goal. –Outriggr § 03:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The section 'Scholarly contributions' is particularly short and devoid of references. I realise how much work it is to write these, but I don't feel like it gives enough detail about his theories, and why they are important. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fundamentally, the sourcing is hopelessly inadequate. The sources referenced, aside from news articles, are Friedman's autobiography and a popular book by Bernanke, who supports him on many issues. This article is inadequate on what Friedman has actually done because it's not in the sources, and it is not neutral because they are almost uniformly friendly. In particular:
    • We should not include the obituary prose by Greenspan and the Economist in the lead; it does not summarize the article. It is doubtful we should include it at all.
    • According to his critics, Friedman did not criticize Pinochet's dictatorship at the time,... Whether he did or not is a question of fact; does anyone say that he did criticize Chile at the time? If not, we should not be weaselwording. That this is followed by an entire paragraph of justification makes it worse; this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of speeches for the defense.
As Mill long ago advised, read both sides, even if you know in advance which you believe; you will learn much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment suggest that if there's such a strength of POV-ism this article be withdrawn (or speedy failed). I've noted that the article has just been tagged and clearly until this is resolved, an FA pass is not going to happen. I would usually recommend a peer review for this kind of thing (and note that the article didn't have one) so the FAC doesn't dissolve into a pseudo-PR, with the worst case scenario now being acted out. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The tag is essentially my comment above, combined with the many complaints of bias on the talk page. They may all have been dealt with, but it doesn't look like it. Given the way FA works now, the three editors mentioned at the beginning are unlikely to finish in a reasonable time for a candidacy; let them rewrite it and bring it back here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 22 February 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 17:25, 29 February 2008.

[edit] Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards

In a spur of the moment, I started working on this book. I think the background, reception and plot details all are reasonably long and complete the article's scope. --David Fuchs (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment "somewhat-fictionalized yet true story" - is it possible to be both? Epbr123 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Reworded. David Fuchs (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Rational detailed and specific article added to rationale. David Fuchs (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Although it's not actually low resolution. I'll tag it for reduction. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "had taken no license with the characters" - you mean that he portrayed them strictly realistically right? However, that sentence reads very ambiguously right now (it could mean he didn't take a copyright license on them or something). indopug (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've clarified. David Fuchs (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought fixing would have been to remove the word "license" - "creative license" once again there is the "creative commons license" and thus I believe the ambiguity remains.--Kiyarrllston 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I think it is a well-written article, but since I have very limited experience working with articles on fictional works, I don't feel qualified to judge whether it meets all the plot guidelines, etc. Karanacs (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

*Comment.

    • Some people don't read the lead, they dive straight into the article. To help them, when a person is first mentioned in the main part of the article, use their full name and wikilink if neccessary. In the same vein, the lead refers to "Cope and Marsh" - can we get their full names/wikilinks please?
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, don't use callout quotes (with the funky quotation marks), use blockquote instead

Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I linked out the scientists names and used blockquotes instead., Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:48, 28 February 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 16:00, 27 February 2008.

[edit] Economy of Ohio

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it meets the featured article criteria. It is well-written, well-reviewed, comprehensive, filled with verifiable claims with reliable sources, covers both the good and bad aspects of the economy, stable, styled, has images with appropriate captions, including graphs, and is of good length. Although the history log shows that I have made many changes, which I have, most of these are minor edits, and I do not have any intentions to make any major changes, except in response to this process. Regards, Jd027chat 01:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Can we get the list of footnotes condensed? A large number of them are repeats, they should be using <ref name> so we don't have a lot of repetition. Also, your footnotes go after the punctuation. This was just a quick look, I can't do a long review as I'm leaving town for a week shortly, and won't be available to respond to anything past Wed. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I started the process. If anyone could chip in, that would be great, as it's very time-consuming. ^demon[omg plz] 03:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Done - not so bad if you have Dr PDA's reference editing thing installed. You might want to check I got them right - I used the PDF document number as a clue. Article is half the size it was, as a result. Carré (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Very nice improvement to all who did it. Congrats! Ealdgyth | Talk 19:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, footnotes come after punctuation, not before. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speakly, that's not quite accurate per the current guidelines. In Wikipedia:Citing sources, the content states "Some editors prefer the style of journals such as Nature, which place references before punctuation. If an article has evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement, the whole article should conform to that style unless there is a consensus to change it." If references are now required to go after punctuation for quality articles, the guideline content should probably be changed to reflect that status. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It also says they should normally follow punct, per Chicago MOS. Besides coming before punct looks yucky. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Footnotes do indeed look yucky that way, but an argument from yuck is of uncertain authority. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose—1a, 2a et al. Way below standard, I'm afraid. The first long, winding snake of a sentence gives reason to doubt. "The economy of Ohio, with Ohio being situated in the United States' Corn Belt and near the East Coast and being 600 miles within 60% of the US' and Canada's populations[1] make it an economic powerhouse in various industries, most notably the agriculture and food processing industries, while many historically strong industries, such as motor vehicle manufacturing, are steadily declining in favor of new and emerging sectors." There's that old "with" as a connector—rather clumsy. So is "being", twice. "Make" is ungrammatical. "Various" is barely encyclopedic (think why ...). US' is a very strange possessive form. And does it mean within 60% of Canadians and 60% of Americans, or some kind of conglomerated population? Industries ... industries. Caption: so about half of employment is by the government, are we to assume? Soviet Russia meets 21st-century America. MOS breaches abound. Sloppy expressions like "regions of Ohio greatly affect incomes". Hello? Tony (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I was able to address the lead section, and the sloppy expression mentioned. I'll try right now to address some of the MOS issues addressed. Jd027chat 23:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I was able to do some more reformatting and to rephrase some awkward phrasing, and some MOS problems. Jd027chat 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"US'", while considered a bit odd, is correct, as words or abbreviations with more than one syllables and ending in 's' generally end in only an apostrophe, though I'd be glad to change it if it is established otherwise. Jd027chat 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
of automobile production in the United States would be better; simple US as an attributive might do; there's no need to be odd. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed a few days ago, but I'm noting here now. Jd027chat 16:35, 26 February 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 16:00, 27 February 2008.

[edit] Randall Flagg

Self-nomination. I have worked hard on this article, and believe it qualifies for FA. I have already successfully nominated it a Good Article. This article, in addition to coverage of all of Flagg's appearances, includes commentary by Stephen King as well as some critical analysis. Unless Flagg is to appear in another work of fiction, I don't see what else could be added to the article in terms of content.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I admire the editors' desire to improve this article throughout the nomination process and their efforts to track down research, this article is clearly still in the development stage.
  • 1a) The article is not yet well-written. For example, the lead is poorly organized. It goes from the specific to the general - it would be better to list Flagg's names and general appearances and then his specific goals in each of King's works. However, the most serious organizational problem relates to the "literary analysis and criticism" section. This section is, at present, mostly a prose list of quotations. The material from this section should be integrated into the article. The article is, currently, almost entirely plot summary. The balance needs to shift from plot summary to explication of the secondary sources. The first two sections ("Concept and creation" and "Names and appearance") are a good start but the they would be better followed by sections such as "Anti-hero".
  • [copied from previous nom] Every once in a while, the language of the article starts to reflect the language of King himself. Be careful to keep the language encyclopedic. For example: In the 1969 issue of Ubris a poem was published by Stephen King called "The Dark Man". The poem tells of a man who wanders the country, riding the rails and observing everything around him. The poem turns sinister - "riding the rails" and "sinister" may not the be the most appropriate diction
  • 1b) This article focuses predominantly on plot summary. The editors, while recently adding some material from literary scholars during the previous nomination, have only begun this process. It takes time to do research. I myself looked over several of the books on Stephen King available in my library - some that the editors have used - and there is much more information available on Flagg. One of the article's problems is that it is relying so heavily on quotation, instead of paraphrase, in the literary criticism section.
  • 1c) I would say that this article does not yet "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" on Randall Flagg. I have every confidence that the editors are working towards that and can achieve that end in a few months, but at this time they have not yet.
  • 3) While I know less about non-free images than other editors, eight non-free images does seem excessive. I see that the editors have chosen one image from each major work, in addition to derivative works. However, as this article is not about the artists, I'm wondering if that justification will hold, particularly as the article does not discuss the artworks in any depth. I believe with non-free content that images have to have a purpose that is beyond illustrative. Note, for example, that at Wikipedia:Non-free content it says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I'm not sure if all of these images do that yet. I think perhaps they could if more commentary were added about them, however. Awadewit | talk 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 4) The plot summary should be much shorter and the explication of the reliable sources - the foundation of all wikipedia articles - should be much longer. That is the most important change that needs to take place in this article. Once the editors have completed their research, this change can be made.

I look forward to seeing this article at FAC again, when the editors have finished their research and reorganized the article. Awadewit | talk 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I concur with Awadewit. I was supporting previously, but she has brought me around to her point about sourcing. The concern is serious and I don't think the article will be ready until some significant academic research takes place. This is actually part of a larger problem - there are other FA candidates posted even now that have completely unsourced plot sections because it has become acceptable to use the author's interpretation from primary sources.--Laser brain (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Some comments
    • 1. Flagg has appeared in ten novels, one movie and one (out of a future seven in total) comicbook miniseries. There is bound to be a bit more plot summary than, say, a character who has only appeared in one novel. I've seen overlong plot summaries in which every minute detail is written verbatim. This is hardly the case here. As it is now, the only really long section is The Dark Tower and thats because it encompasses seven novels. Even then, one of the more lengthier parts (Flagg's death) focuses more on the critical and fan reaction than the actual event. And the majority of the film section is conception and response to Flagg's portrayal and barely any plot summary at all.
    • 2. I've attempted to paraphrase more and quote less in the analysis section. Short of paying 20 dollars for individual books in hope that there might be a paragraph or two for use or traveling to different states to use their libraries, I've pretty much exhausted most of the potential resources. I've read pretty much most of the Stephen King books available to order from my library system. Laser brain was also kind enough to get a hold of the one single article available in the MLA for me. Right now there are seven different sources, and there will be eight once I add the final essay. The section's already pretty lengthy as it is. How much more are you expecting, exactly?
    • 3. I still don't know why an online chat that Stephen King himself participated in wouldn't be considered reliable, especially since the person who published that transcript has personally interviewed Stephen King twice. Carnivale, a featured article, has sourced a number of facts from messageboard postings by the show's main writer.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:56, 23 February 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 00:38, 27 February 2008.

[edit] National Treasure: Book of Secrets

Nominator
It includes a lot of Wikipedia's Style Guidelines. It has internal links as well as external. There are images related to the article itself. It also contains references and citations. Connorjack (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Not totally comprehensive yet. Very small reception section with no individual reviews. No production information, except for a list of locations. The clues and meanings section seems pretty trivial, and a minor point, remove the second Jon Turteltaub link from the infobox. On the plus side, the plot looks pretty good. But this needs some work before it reaches FA standard. May I suggest that you try and get it to good article status first, and then get some comments at a peer review. The WP:FILMS Spotlight and Style guidelines may be able to provide you with some further ideas. Good luck, Gran2 19:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gran2. This needs to be significantly expanded. For starters, there are no sections on production, soundtrack, promotion or the film's release. The "Historical locations" section needs to be fleshed out. Explain what purpose historical site had in the movie's plot. See other film FAs for guidance: V for Vendetta, Casino Royale, 300. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too long "plot" section vs. rest of the article, no note on production of film, the lead does not speak of the plot.--Kiyarrllston 22:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Object per above. Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the aforementioned comprehensiveness concerns. Kudos, however, on full compliance with criterion three – something oh so rare on “media” candidates. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:16, 25 February 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 00:38, 27 February 2008.

[edit] Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because its been a GA for a while and been peer reviewed. I'm quite confident this article will make it. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for 1a. This article really needs a grammar check, a spell check, a punctuation check, and a copy-edit. The following are examples only:

  • "Subsequently, the instruments play they are mentioned,[12] preceding Jay-Z utterance, "uh"." – what does this mean?
  • "In bars seven and eight, the bass glides up for a Meshell-like vibrato-rich fill, giving way to Jay-Z's first rendition of a rap.[1] Beyoncé started the verse, backed with a repeating groove.[1] The pre-chorus follows, ..." – present tense, then past, then present again.
  • "The pattern is repeated reaching to the bridge. The bridge applies for a more emotional and melodic part to play more singing.[12][1] The bridge comes from Jerkins's idea to have the bridge changes on top, with Webb's main groove on the bottom." – "the bridge", four times in three sentences.
  • The "Release and reception" section seems to be just a gathering place for quotes from reviewers.
  • "On 28 August, the single surged up at number one, replacing" – "surged up to number one", although the hyperbole isn't necessary.
  • "Across Oceania, "Déjà Vu" had a mediocre success reaching under the top ten." – ", never reaching the top ten" would be better.
  • "When she started the second verse, Beyoncé introduces the swamps, wearing subsequent two red dresses." – different tenses in the same sentence this time. Wearing subsequent?

These are simply examples – fixing only these won't fix the article. Copy-edit needed, preferably by a native English speaker. Carré (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Efe (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't strike out my comments. I've now highlighted the important bit that hasn't been done. More examples?
  • "Ryan Dombal of Pitchfork was equally unimpressed comparing to Beyoncé's former hit single "Crazy in Love" that "this time [she] out-bolds the beat"."
  • "The Village Voice's Tom Breihan compared that "Déjà Vu" reminds of "Ain't No Other Man" Christina Aguilera's single."
  • ""Déjà Vu" stayed the summit for one week ..."
  • ""Déjà Vu" was the ninety-eight best-selling"
  • "She close the video under the trees, utilizing an on-and-off light system and wears a totally shiny black dress." (aside from the other problems, anything wrong with using the word "using"?)
Again, fixing these few examples and coming back saying "done" won't fix the article. Carré (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Im doing what I am supposed to do; Im tryng to copyedit it well. Do not say fixing wont fix the article. What are you trying to say, crap this one? Copyediting or merely fixing will definitely fix this one. =) --Efe (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, sorry for crashing out your comments. Will not do it again. --Efe (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've copyedited the article. It was copyedited by two users before. --Efe (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose There are many problems with the article, here are some examples:
"was the subject for a re-shoot petition."
What's a re-shoot petition?
  • Of course, a petition to re-shoot the video.
"record what he did"
Do you mean "record what he had done"
  • Fixed.
"prior to its physical release"
before it's release?
  • Yah. Isnt that clear? I have to say physical because there are some digital releases.
""Déjà Vu" had a mediocre success for never reaching the top ten"
Can success be mediocre? If so, was it mediocre because the record did not reach the top ten?
  • Fixed. Music-related FAs do use that word.
"The shooting wrapped up at 1:00 p.m., and proceeded for the swamp scenes"
So the shooting carried on then?
  • Yah. I made it clear now.
"using an on-and-off light system and wears a totally shiny black dress"
totally shiny?
  • Fixed.

Also the word "debuted" is used throughout; should this be "made its debut"? And the strange verb "demoed" links to a noun.

Fixed to "played the demo..." What's shorter? "Debuted" or "made its debut"? I thought we aimed for brief and compact sentences here. --Efe (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In short, I wouldn't like to see this article on the Main Page--GrahamColmTalk 14:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've re-copyedited everything. --Efe (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment This article does indeed have significant prose problems, but I've already begun a copy-edit and expect to be done in a couple of days. It should have no prose-related problems then. indopug (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Indopug commented on my talk page to fix the second paragraph of the Music video section. I completely removed it; anyway, there was no much information to say. No storyline. Just mere dancing and lots of dresses. These are already mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Everything, I think, is going OK. Indopug just edited the article yesterday. Thanks Indopug! --Efe (talk) 05:57, 25 February 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 00:38, 27 February 2008.

[edit] Written Chinese

Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is factually accurate, stable, and well written. It is currently a Good Article. BrianTung (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: the articles can stay in the good articles, because there are semi-referenced sections. --jskellj - the nice devil 13:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify which sections you feel are semi-referenced? The Dictionary section is one I think you might mean. The issue there is that there are entire paragraphs which come from the same reference--how should I cite those without seeming repetitive? BrianTung (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've seen no further comment on this issue, so I have added some references to various sections. This includes sections of text that are already cited, but where the text is sufficiently long that a "reminder" would be useful. I have tried to keep the citations from obstructing reading flow. BrianTung (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Would it be an idea to have some small graphics showing the Chinese punctuation marks? I thought of this particularly because the Chinese almost back-to-front comma that is used to separate items in a list remains a mystery at the moment, with neither explanation nor image to help anyone unfamiliar with it. In fact, would a separate subsection dealing with punctuation marks be a good idea? This would mean one could find the information more quickly, and it would help the structure of the piece a bit more. Additionally, I have seen other kinds of quotation marks used in Chinese other than quotation marks similar to the ones used in Western, Roman script: the ones I have seen are like corner signs or 90 degree arrow heads that point north west (to open quoted text) and north-east (to close quoted text). The addition of graphics would greatly improve understanding as to whether the text currently refers to much more western kinds of quotation marks or these. References to these from some articles or books on Chinese writing might also help. If you don't have any, I may be able to find something suitable in my books on the matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
(addition to my comment) The article East Asian Punctuation may help with some of this, particularly the names of the punctuation marks. You will see the square corner quotation marks given there (though of a different style I am familiar with), and references may also be needed.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think some inclusion of the variant punctuation would be useful, although I'm not inclined to add yet another subsection in addition to the existing "layout" subsection. I think it would be worthwhile adding East Asian Punctuation as a "main article" subheading; that page is currently linked from the layout subsection, but giving it further prominence couldn't hurt. What do other folks think? BrianTung (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I still think it would be extremely useful for readers not familiar with the punctuation marks to have small graphics showing them.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will add those symbols in the next couple of days. BrianTung (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Done. BrianTung (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: In the last paragraph, the following sentence is written: '"Pīnyīn also uses some letters or digraphs, such as 'q', 'x', and 'zh', that do not correspond to spellings in other languages that are written in the Latin alphabet." I know what is meant here, but I think the wording doesn't capture it exactly at the moment. I think it would be better written as '"Pīnyīn also uses some letters or digraphs, such as 'q', 'x', and 'zh', that do not correspond to spellings of certain sounds in other languages that are written in the Latin alphabet." And I wonder if c should be added to the list here (sounding roughly like ts would be pronounced in English, except that it often occurs at the start of a word in Chinese and piīnyīn)?  DDStretch  (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the phrase is "such as 'q', 'x', and 'zh'", the list is not expected to be exhaustive, although if 'c' is the only other one...As far as the sentence structure is concerned, I agree that the original is awkward, but I have to think a little while to come up with a better phrasing--I'm not convinced that your proposed alternative is sufficiently clear either. BrianTung (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that my suggestion is also not entirely clear. Perhaps the use of phoneme and orthography somewhere in the sentence would help, though this might introduce too many technical terms? The idea is that the specific orthography used in pīnyīn to depict particular phonemes does not closely correspond to what might be expected in other languages that use the Latin alphabet.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's see now, how about the following? "Also, the pīnyīn spellings for certain sounds are markedly different from their spellings in other languages that use the Latin alphabet; for instance, pīnyīn 'q' and 'x' denote the same sounds as English 'ch' and 'sh', respectively." BrianTung (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Done (I amended the wording somewhat). BrianTung (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'd prefer the wording to be "similar sounds" instead of "the same sounds", because they are not identical. For instance, if I just use the "ch" sound for the pinyin "q" when I count up from 1 to 10 in Mandarin, during it, I end up saying "chi ba" (I have not tone-marked this pinyin) which produces sniggers from my son and embarrassed laughter from my in-laws back in China. This is because, instead of saying "7 8", during the course of the count, I have spoken a non-technical word for "penis". You can see why this is in IPA by looking at Pinyin, which is accurate here, and, furthermore, where in section 3.1 (how to pronounce the sounds), q, x, and zh are only said to be like the ch, sh, and ch sounds, respectively, not the same as them. The differences are real, very easily distinguished in native Chinese speakers of the standard Mandarin dialect (and in people who have had to suffer the polite laughter of getting them wrong as I personally know), and are crucial for correct pronunciation and accurate communication to occur (as my illustration, above, demonstrates.) Indeed, note that pinyin q and pinyin zh seem to be sound the same on the scheme (ch), but they do sound different if pronounced correctly, and as the pinyin article notes (and as the IPA representation of the sounds shows) and this difference must be noted. The same point might also occur in other places, though I haven't checked in detail. I would feel that if the article were to become a featured article, it should strive to be accurate in this respect.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I will change the wording to "similar sounds". However, I find your anecdote regarding the sound of 'q' (versus English 'ch') to be curious, because I pronounce those essentially identically. Certainly, there is no question of confusing the characters for "seven" and "penis". One is spelled qī, and the other is spelled jī; in other words, it's a matter of aspiration. The latter is not pronounced as it would be in English, since it's really unaspirated, not voiced. But English 'ch' is not only unvoiced, it's aspirated, just as pinyin 'q' is, so if someone were to pronounce "chee" in English with a level tone, I would definitely understand "seven", not "penis". Since I learned Chinese before English, it could be that my pronunciation of 'ch' is colored by my pronunciation of 'q' (rather than the other way around), but this seems rather unlikely to me.
At any rate, I will make the suggested change. BrianTung (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Done. BrianTung (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You're quite right! I got mixed up and gave a bad example. My apologies. Nevertheless, the main thrust of the point I made remained valid: the three pinyin spellings q, zh, and ch could all be rendered informally as ch in Latin spellings, but the sounds are not the same and some of the differences between them are due to aspiration. A similar point could be made about pinyin x and pinyin sh, rendered informally as sh in Latin spellings, but sounding different, and pinyin z and pinyin c may also be another such pair, though to my ear, they are less easily confusable (but some some of my English speaking colleagues, they are equally confusable) This much is consistent with what is written in, say, Pinyin#Pronunciation of initials. No matter, the article is being improved by all this, anyway.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, having thought about it, part of the problem is brought about by not using the IPA symbols for the sounds that are being discussed here. It would massively improve things if the IPA symbols were used for these sounds, rather than the informal Latin approximations to the sounds. They should be easy to add, since they can be found in Pinyin, and would help things a lot.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the distinction between the sounds, but I think this is an issue for the Chinese phonology article, not one on written Chinese. The intent here is not to precisely characterize pinyin, but simply to observe that some pinyin spellings are dramatically different from what you'd expect from a language using the Latin alphabet. This is to comply with the "summary style" element of the featured article criteria. For instance, the section on Chinese dictionaries used to have a fairly detailed example of how to look up a character in a standard Kangxi dictionary. In the GA review, it was recommended that that text be removed as it did not comply with the "summary style" criterion, and I agree with that. Introducing a more complete description of Chinese phonetics and pinyin, though interesting, would also not comply with that criterion. (The same would also hold of a section on letter/envelope format, below.)
Incidentally, 'zh' isn't informally rendered as 'ch'; that was its representation in Wade-Giles, but I don't think I'd consider that informal. At any rate, I would only describe one of those three—'q', of course—as actually sounding like English 'ch'. The other two are retroflex (or pseudo-retroflex, depending on whom you ask). BrianTung (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but 'zh' does have 'ch' attached to it in Pinyin, and, coming to it from a native English speaking background, it sounds more like "dr" at times in a range native Mandarin speakers I know from a variety of Chinese provinces. Perhaps this points out a need for some attention to be paid to the Pinyin article? All this merely illustrates to me the advisability of using IPA to avoid all confusion and biases brought about by the influence on one's perception that one's own native language can have.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "attached". I see what you are saying about it sounding a bit like 'dr', but the tongue is placed further back for pinyin 'zh', hence "retroflex". Obviously, pinyin 'zh' has no exact equivalent in the vast majority of English dialects, but as I said before, this sounds like an issue for the pinyin and Chinese phonology articles, not the written Chinese one. Since the actual sounds represented by pinyin 'q' etc. are a side issue in this article, I think introducing IPA for them here (as opposed to other articles) is unnecessary. BrianTung (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: (Sorry, almost all of these comments are coming in one at a time from me)
  1. In section 3.3, would there be any advantage to be gained from considering the format or layout of letters in Chinese? I mention this because the gross layout issues are mentioned (direction of writing, etc), but not some of the other differences. The reason I chose letters as an example is that one source I have—Developing writing skills in Chinese (2003) by Boping Yuan and Kan Qian—spends at least two chapters dealing with the format and layout of letters in Chinese, and the differences between their layout and the layout typically used in Western-style letters (for example, the way addresses are written on envelopes). If they cannot be dealt with in any detail, even a mention would be better than nothing.
  2. I think there needs to be at least a mention of stroke order in forming individual Chinese Characters when writing them by hand. There is already a link made to Chinese Calligraphy in section 3, but there is little or no mention of stroke order in that article, although it forms a major part of various instructional manuals of writing—for example, the following three sources all deal with stroke order as an important aspect of hand-writing Chinese characters:Reading & Writing Chinese: Simplified Character Edition (2003) by William McNaughton and Li Ying, Teach Yourself Beginner's Chinese Script (2003) by Elizabeth Scurfield, Lianyi Song, and Song Lianyi, and Learning Chinese Characters, Volume One (2007) by Alison Matthews and Laurence Matthews. It would be a good idea to mention, at least, stroke order somewhere in this section, but would probably be better to have more than just a mention. It could fit in section 2, but this is only a possibility, and there is a useful distinction that could be used to help restructure part of the article which distinguishes between the structure/stroke order of individual characters, and the structure/order/layout of groups of characters (writing direction, written letters, addressing envelopes, etc)
  3. In section 4.2, although some references are given, very few of them, if any, are of actual Chinese Dictionaries organised along the lines described in the text. I think that it would be extremely useful to have actual dictionaries referred to that use the methods of organisation described.
That's it for now.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments.
  1. I'm dubious about the need for such a section. I would not expect to see a section on envelope format in English under the article "Written English" (if such an article exists). I suppose it might be worth a mention, but I'm not convinced even there. This is not a Wiki HOW-TO on writing Chinese letters. I think a better approach would be to write an article on Chinese letter/envelope format, and then to link to that—and then it would be worth a mention.
  2. There is a mention of stroke order. It is right below the pictures of the five writing styles. Please take a look there and see if you feel that's satisfactory.
  3. The references are there to back up the descriptions of the ordering mechanisms. I'll try to hunt down dictionaries that use these mechanisms, but I only have one such type in my office.
Again, thanks—it would be nice if someone else could comment, too! BrianTung (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
(Stroke Order): Thanks, I've spotted it now. I think that's fine!  DDStretch  (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I also would like more people to comment. I feel a bit "exposed" myself being at the moment the onoly one!  DDStretch  (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Support: I'm not a specialist in this field, but this seems a well-written and comprehensive article.--Grahame (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Neutral until the problems of redundancy [2] are addressed. See examples here:[3]--GrahamColmTalk 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: One of the edits you made (on stroke order) ended up being slightly misleading, and so I've altered what you edited there. I hope I have made it clear and accurate without redundancy. I also added an internal link for people wanting to find out further information.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
GrahamColm, thanks for the look, but some of the edits you have are a little dubious. "Written Chinese are"? (Emphasis mine.) The "fact" tags you added, I don't agree with. In the lead, you have attached a "fact" tag to Sentence A in "Sentence A. Sentence B.[1]" But the cite [1] goes to both sentences. We're in the lead; I think it's perfectly reasonable not to cite every last sentence, especially when the two sentences clearly go together.
Then, too, in the "other languages" section, you attach a "fact" tag to the initial sentence about Korean and Vietnamese. That sentence does not need to be cited because the supporting evidence in the remainder of the paragraph is cited. I think the requirement to cite all facts should be considered with an understanding of the structure of the article, and not used mechanically to attach such a tag just because a non-trivial sentence lacks a citation.
I think some of the redundancies really aren't. "Written symbols" is not redundant, for instance, because there are oral symbols, too.
I don't wish to sound harsh, because I do want this article to receive attention, and I will pay careful attention to the edits you've made. But please don't be surprised if many of those edits get reverted on my next pass. "Be bold" does not mean "be careless". So far, I've found many, many sentences completely broken by the edits. BrianTung (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I've made my next copy-editing pass. Please have another look. BrianTung (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about the mess, it was getting late and I should have waited. In my defence, I called them suggestions in my edit summary. I have changed my opposition to neutral for now. Graham.--GrahamColmTalk 09:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The prose needs quite a bit of work to bring it up to "compelling" or even professional, and the organization of the article could also be improved quite a bit. Suggestions are below, but please note that the prose suggestions are only a small part of what needs to be done to bring the prose up to snuff.
    • I find the initial image a little odd for this article. I understand that it is probably supposed to represent the great amount of time that the characters have been in existence, but that's not specified in the caption (and for the purposes of this article it really isn't that important what the translation of the symbols on those pieces are). I would remove that picture and replace it with the image further down ot the traditional and simplified Chinese versions of the word Hanzi. That provides a much clearer illustration of what the article is talking about - written characters.
    • The prose could be tightened considerably to allow for better flow and less repetition.
      • Although I've been the most active editor on this article for a number of months, there have been quite a few hands in this, and it probably could use a clean pass. So as to focus my attention on where it's needed most, do you have any suggestions on which sections need particular help? BrianTung (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Is it really important to the article to define "regionalect", especially since the article won't be using this?
      • Probably not; I'll remove it. Done. BrianTung (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There are a lot of weasel words such as "many scholars", "at least one scholar" (name him/her), etc
    • "Classical Chinese gradually acquired features from various dialect" - what type of features?
    • The section "Role of Chinese Characters" doesn't seem named well, and it doesn't
      • Doesn't what? BrianTung (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, my brain apparently stalled there. It doesn't really talk about the role of the characters much, and when I read it I was a little puzzled as to why it was organized as it is.. To me, some of this looked like it could go into the Structure section, while the rest of it should could into a History or Evolution section.
    • I think you need a source immediately after "Written Chinese is the only major modern writing system not based predominantly on an alphabet or a compact syllabary.", even if it is covered by the source later in the paragraph
    • The organization of this article needs a lot of work to make it more clear.
      I think the section "Structure of Chinese characters" should come first in the article. It's important to get a good definition of what a character is before you talk about when/why you use it.
      Next, maybe the Layout section on its own.
      Then a "History" or "Evolution" section to discuss the earlier written forms and the introduction of Simplified and traditional Chinese. A "history or "evolution" section could probably incorporate everything that is in the Role of Chinese Characters section as well.
      Next, Chinese written forms.
      Lastly, the literacy section
    • Can the Chinese written forms section be taken out of a list and made into better prose?
      • I suppose; I didn't want to make the article too long. BrianTung (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you need a citation for "The need to arrange Chinese characters in order to permit efficient lookup has given rise to a considerable variety of ways to organize and index the characters."
    • The first paragraph of Transliteration and romanization section - does the citation at the end of the paranthetical sentence also apply to the rest of the paragraph? If so, it should be moved outside of the parantheses. If not, you need citations for the rest of the paragraph
      • It applies to the entire paragraph. Done. BrianTung (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Are the external links good, reliable sources? I would suggest removing all of the links unless there are official sites.
      • I hadn't felt them necessary, but had been reluctant to remove them. If others feel similarly, I'll remove them. BrianTung (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I question the need for a map of where the Henan province is. It doesn't seem that necessary in this article.
      • I agree; I'll remove it. Done. BrianTung (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; as you see, I've inserted responses. BrianTung (talk) 20:37, 25 February 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 00:58, 26 February 2008.

[edit] New Orleans, Louisiana

previous FAC

Nomination added by Samian (talk · contribs) who has never edited the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, tagged for needing clean up just this month! Poorly referenced, with whole sections having no references at all. Seemingly excessive images, many without any obvious point or need to be in this article. Also seems to be suffering from some link spam. Not close to being FA ready. Side note: seems to be an incomplete nomination, and person who nominated has never edited on that article, nor are they a particularly active editor. Not sure if this is even a legit nomination or someone messing around. Collectonian (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: like collectionain. 79.11.18.74 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lots of issues with the article. It wouldn't even pass WP:GAN.
Numerous 'citation needed' tags.
Cleanup tag at the top must be addressed.
Numerous red links.
Several manual of style violations (see also tags placed in incorrect places in the article, there's several external links within article text, not at the end under 'external links').
Poor overall organization; sections do not comply with WP:CITIES' guideline for the structure of US cities. Climate and cityscape should be combined into the geography section as subsections, not as their own main sections. Try to minimize the use of multiple subsection headers in the transportation section; write one comprehensive transportation section instead of a single large section with multiple subsections. The section is also large under-referenced.

Dr. Cash (talk) 17:45, 24 February 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 00:58, 26 February 2008.

[edit] Black Death

previous FAC

I am nominating Black Death for a Featured Article, as it has grown quite a bit since its failed FA candidacy two years ago. Good sources, good citations, and a wonderful article overall. The link to the previous FA is below. Jmlk17 22:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose
    • Plenty of sections unreferenced or largely unreferenced
    • Citation needed tags
    • MOS issues including positioning of references and date ranges.
    • References need correctly formatting. Peanut4 (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 should not be a category of an FA. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • There are three outstanding citation requests on the article.
    • Inconsistent referencing style – use cite web, cite journal, cite book templates.
    • Entire sections are unreferenced.
    • The Black Death has been covered in dozens of scholarly works, and as such, the article should be properly sourced to these works.
    • Only a few of the secondary book sources are actually used; I suggest using more of these sources.
    • MoS isues, as mentioned above. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Substantial referencing issues pertaining to sources used (WP:RS/WP:V problems – including use of a wiki), unreferenced statements/facts/sections and formatting of existing references (e.g. per WP:FN, ibid is not to be used). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. You're putting up an article that has a protection tag? Hardly stable if it needs protection. Also, way too many refs in the lead, with 11. A proper lead, as a summary, should need few if any refs; those should be in the body with the details. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The article is semi-protected. The stability criterion (1e) applies only when there are edit wars or the article is being significantly changed on a daily basis. Neither is the case, so the article is perfectly in accordance with 1e of the FA criteria. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • lots of short stubby one sentence paragraphs at the end.
    • Lots of unreferenced statements.
    • Use of "ibid" in the footnotes which means that if someone moves something around, the footnote has to be rewritten. Wikipedia:Footnotes states that ibid shouldn't be used.
    • references that are heavily used aren't listed in the secondary sources section.
    • Formatting issues with references (Economic History Review, etc.)
    • A number of the online sources are not the best (footnotes 36 is unreferenced, 35 is to a book review, 37 is to an online course assignment, those are the ones that I looked at).
    • What does footnote 44 mean? (Appleby and Stack, secondary sources) does that mean that Appleby and Stack were used or was it Appleby and Stack and others? In either case, specific citations need to be used, giving page numbers.
    • This source [4] is based on a wikipedia article.
    • Your referencing style is inconsistent... some are footnotes with full citations, some are short footnotes, and some are Harvard.
    • The other effects subsection is weirdly laid out, are the cane, gas mask and stuff meant to be further subsections?
    • Some block quotations have no source citations on them.
    • forced picture sizes on the pictures
I am on the road and didn't have a chance to do a lot of checking, but at first glance, the article needs a lot of work. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment—please withdraw the nomination and work on fixing the article based on the advice above. Maybe you could team with another editor. Although it's not ready for featured status now, it might be ready after some hard work. — Deckiller 05:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Much commendable work has gone onto this article, but it's not right for FA. It's too long, and all those lengthy quotations do not help. The article is bookish and not encyclopedic. Moreover, the references are bookish too. They will not survive any future edits because of all those ibids. If a future editor wants to insert a reference in between them, the whole system will break down. The article should be split into a medical article, an historical article, and perhaps one on the Black Death in literature.--GrahamColmTalk 18:24, 23 February 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 23:46, 23 February 2008.

[edit] The Chaser APEC pranks

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is of FA standard, and I think it is a good contender of such a position. All feedback/comments will be responded to (hopefully) <24h.  SpecialWindler talk  23:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmm...is there really no free image for the article? Something in the top right corner would be good. I'll take a look. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 05:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Flickr search for "The Chaser APEC" on free images only found nothing :( dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 05:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit hard to get a free image of a "one off" event. You can also ask Flickr members if they would change their licence.  SpecialWindler talk  06:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to expand the lead to summarise some of the pranks that took place? It talks specific facts and details about the pranks in general, but not any further than that. I also don't really see a need for the external link to the APEC 2007 website, it really doesn't contribute at all, given the fact that it only has one page that doesn't mention the pranks at all. I'll make further comments later when I get a chance to do a more thorough review. Spebi 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The lead may be expanded, if others agree to the move. The external link was removed (It was more of a See Also link)  SpecialWindler talk  09:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments: Quite a good read. I can't think of anything else to make it more comprehensive and it seems well sourced. A few writing style issues popped out at me though.
    • In the second paragraph of "Background", "fortnightly" is used. Since this is a regional term, I suggest maybe change it out with biweekly. At the very least, it should be wikilinked to fortnight.
      • It was Wikilinked by User:Jasewase, it could be changed in the future. Bi-weekly is a term not many Australians use, and seeing it is an Australian based article would be incorrect.  SpecialWindler talk  10:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree, "bi-weekly" is almost never used in Australia, and this article uses Australian English. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I noticed a good amount of acronyms used. Though most provided the full title followed by the acronym in parenthesis, "New South Wales" did not. It is wikilinked in most cases so this may not be an issue. A few other acronyms popped up that should probably have their full title listed on the first mention, like "ALP", "BBC", and "RSL". Most of these are wikilinked, so it isn't that big of an issue, but changing it would be best for a general reader.
      • Fixed all acronyms (hopefully). APEC and ABC (which are the two main ones, used more than thrice) are both done in the lead.  SpecialWindler talk  10:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The last sentence of "Show ratings" and the first sentence "Other stunts" look a little weird there by themselves. I would either add them to the paragraphs before and after them, respectively, or add more related content to flesh out a full paragraph.
    • A few references are missing some important information, like publisher, author, and date published. The ones that pop out the most are ref 22 and 41. Also, if a publisher is listed, then it is best to wikilink it, like the BBC in ref 21 and ABC News in ref 40.
    • Ref 4 and 16 looks to be not found; may have been moved. You may want to search the site for a current version or try archive.org for a dated copy.
Overall, it's a good article. I think most of these are minor issues, that shouldn't stop the article from passing FA. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Oppose, good article, but several key issues:
    • The images have problems. On, Image:Julian and Chas preparing for APEC breach.jpg, since the image is non-free it needs to use a fully and correctly completed {{Non-free use rationale}} template for the fair use rationale. Also, there is no point to including the conversation with the photographer since he didn't make it free anyway. Image:Chaser fake apec pass.jpg also needs this template. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I was unaware that the template {{Non-free use rationale}} was compulsary for FA status, and believe it's not. The iages both have fair use rationals for the articles. I will also remove the conversation on the flickr, as you said has no point.  SpecialWindler talk  08:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
        • The template is not required, but the information is. Properly completed fair use rationales are required for all images in article, not just FA. --Laser brain (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I concur with previous reviewers that the lead is quite weak. It does not summarize key events.
      • somewhat improved. Jasewase (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The Background section jumps from describing APEC to describing The Chaser to saying The Chaser were warned about pulling stunts during the APEC conference. Why were they warned? Were they targeted for some reason, or was everyone warned? I don't follow.
      • desscription of the chaser moved. Jasewase (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
        • What about my other questions? --Laser brain (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I think it might be better if the chaser descriptions stay, due to people with no context of who or what "The Chaser" is. But I agree, it probably need to be expanded and made more clear. I will soon get onto it.  SpecialWindler talk  20:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Don't worry, I notice that some context has been provided in the lead.  SpecialWindler talk  20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You provide an image of Morrow and Licciardello "preparing" for the prank, but it is just them walking down a hallway. We don't have a source stating that this is a picture of them preparing for anything.
      • Wording has been changed. Jasewase (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • For this article to be comprehensive, it needs a section about Preparations. The article jumps right from them being warned to them executing the prank. Research and write about how they conceived the prank, how they planned and coordinated it, how they built the props, etc.
    • The problem is that with The Chaser being a private group, it's not knowledge enough of what they did before the stunt. Most of what we do know is in the article such as the legal team telling the chaser they could do the stunt as long as they didn't go in.  SpecialWindler talk  20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The "Other Stunts" heading does not lend itself well to a bulleted list. Bullets should only be used for short phrases or list items. This needs to be converted to prose. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Fixed. but im not sure this looks and sounds better. i personally much prefer bulleted list. Jasewase (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Hm, maybe ask for a third opinion? I'm not crazy about the subheadings - could you just make it into paragraphs without the subheadings? --Laser brain (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Yeah, but that will make it alot of paragraphs with no real basis. That's why the bullets were probably better for this, but there may be a better solution. I don't think a whole lot of paragraphs is going to work because another FA reviewer might say "The Other stunts section needs to be better worded with paragraphs merged etc."  SpecialWindler talk  20:38, 22 February 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 23:46, 23 February 2008.

[edit] Liviu Librescu

Appears to meet the criteria. An excellent companion article to Virginia Tech massacre. Per the discussion at Talk: Virginia Tech massacre#TFA_Proposed_Blurb, some editors feel strongly that promoting this article to featured article status would be a fitting way to feature the incident on its upcoming anniversary. Sfmammamia (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment
    • External links only belong in the extrenal links section.
      • I removed several, I think this is done but would appreciate a second check. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
    • Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date. Epbr123 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NFCC concern: Oppose Multiple concerns:
    • NFCC#3A: Why are two fair-use images of Librescu being used? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • More concerns:
      • Grammar: number agreements (e.g. “his family … were”) and punctuation (e.g. “September 1, 1985 until …”, “Merrey said that”, “his son Arieh contacted”, “On April 18, 2007 U.S. President George Bush”, etc).
        • Done. Because there is more than one son, the name is essential and therefore should not be set off by commas, otherwise these specific problems are fixed. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Prose: Consecutive sentences begin with “Speaking to” and prose not appropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g. “This is a partial list”)
      • Weasel word: “some sources”
      • Inconsistently referenced as “Librescu” and “Liviu”
      • Obvious writing: “he was fired from his job” (as opposed to being fired from a hobby?), “invited keynote lecture there”, etc.
      • Inline citations should be placed after closest punctionation.
      • Summary style: Do we need to know the number of the room in which he taught? Does listing esoteric fields of research meaningfully enhanced our knowledge of the man?
      • Peacock word: “became an accomplished scientist” - elaborate on accomplished?
        • Removed that phrase -- it didn't fit the chronology where it was placed, anyway. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • A smuggled research manuscript”; why did it have to be smuggled; what was so profound as to draw the international attention?
      • Per Nishkid64, no elaboration on work, publications, etc. as an academic. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I fixed "his family...were" but wasn't clear on the date punctuation problem. Fixed "Speaking to," but not "partial list" problem. Also fixed "some sources," but it needs expert attention; inconsistent references all changed to Librescu. Didn't get to much else. --aciel (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Commas follow full dates (e.g. "September 1, 1985 until" should be "September 1, 1985, until") and offset parenthetical phrases (e.g. "his son Arieh contacted" should be "his son, Arieh, contacted"). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
As noted above, because there are two sons, the name is essential and should not be set off by commas. Otherwise, I believe these are fixed. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read Comma (punctuation). Your comment makes no sense; grammar knows nothing of "importance". ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
From Comma (punctuation):"Information that is unnecessary to the meaning of the sentence is commonly set off and enclosed by commas. If the information is necessary, no commas should be used." Because the Librescu had more than one son, the identity of "his son" is not clear without the name, thus the name is not set off by commas. --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This is partially my own fault for pointing you to an unreliable source (WP). You’re misinterpreting “important”, which refers to the grammatical function, not the actual person. To clarify, read the sentence as “his son NOUN contacted”. The actual “important” part is “his” (Librescu). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I believe every other style reference, including AP Style and Chicago, says the same thing. In situations where there is more than one offspring or sibling who could be the subject of the sentence, the name is considered essential (not "important"; essential is the grammatical reference) and is not set off by commas. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Semantics. Can you provide published examples from respected authors not employing these commas? I'll strike if there's precedent, but it would be news to me. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Always happy to oblige: From the AP Stylebook, entry on essential and nonessential phrases, illustration of correct usage: "They ate dinner with their daughter Julie and her husband, David." (usage is correct when there is more than one daughter). From Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Ed: 5.50, page 171: "If the appositive has a restrictive function, it is not set off by commas: My son Michael was the first one to reply." (usage is correct when there is more than one son). --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping for "real world" examples (i.e. not grammar instructions), but I'll cede to the native English speaker. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support — Complete, insightful, and easy to understand, there's only a few minor stylistic things to clean up, and this article will definitely be worthy of featured status. I have no problem giving my support right now, since the comments above have no bearing on the content itself, and I'm sure they'll be fixed with due haste. Fantastic work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Librescu's fields of research are listed, but nothing about his work in these fields is detailed. As this is an article about an academic, his research and published work should be thoroughly covered. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Well cited. Basketball110 vandalise me 15:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:PROF, which it is my understanding that the notability requirement for this article is based on, it does not appear that Librescu meets any of the criteria. His notability is actually based on the fact that he was a victim of the Virginia Tech Massacre, not his academic accomplishments. If there is significant work done on his academic credentials, with LOTS more detail, I might change my position. Rooot (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC
  • Oppose. I think getting the commendation from the Romanian government probably makes him notable enough for inclusion even if he would fail WP:PROF, but the article goes into no detail at all about his academic career, so the article still fails on comprehensiveness grounds. Indrian (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing notes With ten days at FAC, the article has failed to gain significant Support. Contacting editors knowledgeable on the topic, or submitting to peer review or WP:GAC may help prepare the article for re-approaching FAC. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 23 February 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 23:46, 23 February 2008.

[edit] NoitulovE

Alrighty, let me preface this by saying that this is my first time through FAC, though I've commented once or twice on other entries. Our article on noitulovE is currently a Good Article, and has been through Peer Review (albeit without much comment, but I suppose that could be taken as a good thing). It is—bar none—the most comprehensive resource on the topic, online or offline, and is by far the best article on a television advertisement on Wikipedia (though I plan to work on that!) There're no WikiProjects or even guidelines on how to create an article on such a topic, so I've cribbed heavily from guides on writing about television episodes and films. Ok, so on with the show. Let me know if there's anything that needs changing, particularly in regards to copy editing (I know I have a tendency towards verbosity, as this nomination kinda shows), and I'll do what I can to fix it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments, to get the ball rolling. All-in-all, this looks a great article; the Guinness ads have been pretty good for a few years now, but I've never seen this one (I should click the links to see it, I think). The points are:
  • "24-35-year-old", I think, should be "24–35-year-old", but I'm not sure (the age range being a range)...when I hit "preview" here, I'll see if it looks odd that way or not. (Yes, a little odd)
I'll wait for an MoS guru to weigh in before doing anything on the 24-35/24–35 issue. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The en-dash is actually correct, but it does look awkward. I've reworded the sentence to remove it! Bluap (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the "Dreamer" link in Production->Background buys you anything. It points to a disambiguation page, which doesn't include any Guinness adverts. Is there an article on the Dreamer ad that should be linked & piped instead?
  • I'd started to knock up an article on Dreamer way back in October, but got distracted by a series of other projects and never got past the lede. Made a quick stub of it for now, with an aim to expanding somewhere down the line. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What's the policy/guideline on scrolling boxes? I'm thinking of the awards box; a nice way of preventing the article being overwhelmed with a huge list, but just as scrolling ref lists are frowned on (something to do with printing the page out, if memory serves), perhaps this box will have to be unscrolled.
  • Bah, I thought I'd found a good "pseudo-image" with the scrolling box, but hadn't considered printer-friendliness. Switched it to a collapsible table, though they don't play nice with references when collapsed. Shame, I liked my scrollbox. :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Consistency with quotation marks around "Good things": cf "Good things..." concept in Production->Background and Good Things... campaign in Legacy.
  • I'd aimed to use quotation marks when referring to the strapline itself, and none when referring to the campaign as a whole. Looks like I missed one though, fixed! GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There are much better prose reviewers around than me, so I'll leave that side to them, other than to note there were a couple of places where I reached for the "edit" button, and then decided I wasn't sure.
That's it. Well done. Carré (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, a couple of points on the refs too, that I just noticed: #17 is a dead link at the moment, and is there a way you can add some text to the external links in ref#27 and #35? Carré (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Switched to dead-tree reference for #17; I verified that the article exists back in November using the University library, so no problem there. Expanded the external links on #27 and #35 to include the source. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments - very well written but I have a few issues before supporting:
    • The entire Sequence heading is unsourced. I realize that the source is the commercial (primary) but articles where writers have to recount a plot normally require at least one secondary source. Can you find any print or Web sources where someone summarized the contents of the commercial?
  • I did have a ref a while back for the section, but removed it to bring the section in line with the Film guidelines. Re-added it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In the same heading, you say they patrons walked backwards out of the pub. They didn't.. the footage of their walking into pub is played in reverse. Subtle difference, but it's one that illustrates how your personal retelling of the sequence based on only primary sources can be open to interpretation.
  • Switched to the wording used by CFC. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Likewise, what is your basis for saying they were depicted as Neanderthals? Read Timeline_of_human_evolution, but I think it's disputed that humans even evolved from Neanderthals vs. various other species. I know - it's just a beer commercial and no place for such debates. But my point is that you decided those were Neanderthals in the commercial when the artist might have been depicting something else. Need secondary sources.
  • While other evolutionary inaccuracies were brought up a while back on the article's talk page, I've not found anything written in a sourcable essay/article. But you're right, and I've switched neanderthals out in preference for the more generic "primitive hominids" GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In the prose, I would de-link the commercials whose articles have not been created yet. The sight of all those red links is messy. Alternately, create stubs if you think they are likely to become full articles in the future.
  • I do intend to create full articles on the entire Good Things... series at some point down the line. WP:REDLINK leads me to believe that provided that a verifiable article on a subject can be written (they can), and the link makes sense in context (they do), they should be left as is. Still, I'll see what I can do about knocking up a few stubs in the meantime. (edit: Swimblack, Surfer, Dreamer, and Bet on Black now done. Others to come.) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The source you commented out in the References heading creates a weird spacing issue between it and the External links heading. --Laser brain (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, you have addressed all my concerns - excellent work on this. --Laser brain (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing note, with more than ten days at FAC, the article has failed to gain significant support. An extended stint at peer review (seeking out editors in related topics and asking them to comment) might help prepare the article for re-approaching FAC. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 23 February 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 23:46, 23 February 2008.

[edit] Le Paradis massacre

This article is current a GA, and an A-Class Military History Article. It has also had a regular Peer Review, and Military History Peer Review, and I feel that it now is up to FA standard. I am a new editor, this being my first article, so if I ask you to clarify seemingly obvious Wikipedian things then please do not judge. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC).

Suggestions and comments

  • References. For an example, see "were ordered to try to slow the German advance in northern France to buy time to evacuate troops at Dunkirk.[3][4][5][6]" (last sentence, first para). This is merely stylistic, and I don't think there's any policy or guideline on it, but those chained refs are really ugly. Since only ref#3 is used more than once, it could be a good idea combining them – <ref>note 3, note 4, note 5 and note 6.</ref> Do the same with the "crossing it that evening.[1][2][3]" earlier in the paragraph, and where you can elsewhere in the article. Makes it look a lot nicer, and don't worry about complaints of lack of refs - 3 or 4 sources in a single ref is fine.
  • Bit of prose: "German forces pushed the French Army and the BEF to the Meuse river on 12 May, crossing it that evening.[1][2][3] From there, they rapidly advanced to the English Channel over the course of the next week." – while I think it's obvious that the "they" in sentence 2 is the German forces, it may be an idea to clarify it to avoid any possible confusion (the "they" could, just about, at a stretch, refer to the French & BEF).
  • "The Battle of France was SS Division Totenkopf's first major engagement of World War II. They were part" – this is just a question really, but should that be "they", or "it" in 2nd sentence? SS Division Totenkopt – division, singular? That's how I would have written it, anyway. Especially as you follow it with "The unit was engaged", unit singular.
  • "but the British counter-attacked under Major-General G. Le Q. Martel just west of Arras, on 21 May" – I think this would be better written "but the British, under Major-General G. Le Q. Martel, counter-attacked just west of Arras, on 21 May." – make the commander a parenthetical, in other words. A few prose problems already, perhaps indicating a copy-edit needed?
  • In main body, link BEF on first occurrence, not the 3rd or 4th. Can't decide whether it's worth spelling it out in full again (I see it's already spelt out in the lede).
  • Linking in general, it seems there's potential for some high-value links that are currently missing (places, for example).
  • MOSDATE - check for "on the <date>" – the "the" is proscribed by MOS. Also, look for standalone years linked for no reason (1943, for example). I did this, I think Carre (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In Massacre, "An account by Private Albert Pooley; one of only two survivors:" – don't think that semi-colon use is right.
  • I'm a little confused: in the last sentence of Battle of Le Paradis, it mentions recent evidence suggesting that 20-odd prisoners from the Royal Scots were murdered – is this in addition to the 97 mentioned in Massacre?
  • Massacre again: "Even many SS officers were appalled by the massacre, some reportedly even challenged Knöchlein to a duel, although none was ever fought.[29]" – "even ... even"; copy-edit again.
  • In Trial of Knöchlein, you've wikilinked "misused a flag of truce" to White flag – two issues here: first, the wikilink is to a DAB page (needs pointing to the right place), and second it's a bit of an "Easter egg link". Link "flag of truce", by all means, but not "misused a". The semi-colon use there is also a bit dubious.
  • References and Notes. I think that, since you have separated the full publication details into References, the Notes sections only need to include author surname, year of publication (optional, probably), and page number(s). A hybrid between Harvard and "normal" in-line refs, in other words. You currently have full publication details in Notes, which makes the References section a touch redundant.
  • References could do with sorting into alphabetic order, by author surname. I did this myself, but it leads to a question on the two editions of Jackson's work. Different ISBNs, but is the pagination the same? Can the two be combined?
  • Is stephen-stratford.co.uk a reliable source? Some of the other Web sources beg the same question: www.kuro5hin.org, www.norfolkbc.fsnet.co.uk (taking from mackillers.8m.com), the others? (Hint, the MOD has some pretty damned good on-line sites for regimental histories, so could be a good place to look for replacing things like norfolkbc).

That's it for now. A pretty short article, but that can't always be helped. Carre (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, more on Notes, for consistency. Most of the Notes have p. x, or pp. xxx–yyy, but a few of the on-line refs don't have the "p." or "pp.", just the page numbers (ref#9, 10, 29). Consistency. Carre (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Tried to combine and tidy up the in-line citations, but the lack of author details on a few of the web links makes it awkward. Can authors be found? Also, two of the three news references are no longer available at the specified URL. Alternatives? Carre (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for the very thorough nature of your review, and the edits you made. I have done all the little grammatical changes you proposed, however I am not sure whether the article requires a copyedit due to the fact that it has had quite a lot of work done by different editors already. However, if you strongly feel that it needs one, or other editors agree, I will attempt to have one done.

I tried to combine the references, but only succeeded in messing them up. I will try again in a day or two, but I don't seem to be having much luck.

Personally, I quite like the notes and references style. I think it is quite clear to the reader, and looks neater and is more helpful to a new user of Wikipedia. However, again if you strongly feel I should change it, or other editors agree I will. But, I had seen it done on some others (I think) so I thought it would be acceptable in this case.

As for the references, I have removed one that I wasn't sure about. But for the others, all I can say is that their sources match what I have read in other books that I have cited, and they match up to one another. References are also listed on stephen-stratford, and from I have read elsewhere on the site and compared to historical facts, they seem reliable.

Could you explain further what you mean by " Most of the Notes have p. x, or pp. xxx–yyy, but a few of the on-line refs don't have the "p." or "pp."", apologies again, this is all new to me.

I will work through the last of the points raised, thanks once again for your help, and I would appreciate any other help from other editors. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC).

OK, the p. and pp. thing. See these two references:
^ Mann, SS-Totenkopf, p. 85.
^ Charles W. Sydnor (1977). Soldiers of Destruction: The SS Death's Head Division, 1933-1945 93. Princeton University Press. Retrieved on 12 December 2007.
(my bold added). The first has p. 85, while the second has just 93. Suspect it's some inconsistency within the {{cite}} templates, but could be wrong.
On the separation of Notes and References, what I mean is something like

== Notes ==

Mann, p. 85.

== References ==

  • Mann, Dr. Chris (2001). SS-Totenkopf. MBI Publishing Company. ISBN 0760310157.
so you only have the full details of the source in one place. However, if you don't like that way, then that's fine too.
I tried to combine the refs too, and also made a mess of it! That makes two of us :) Carré (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Struck off the stuff done, and I fixed the p. and pp. thing - was a misused parameter in {{cite web}} - need to specify "pages=p. x", apparantly. Carré (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued edits. I have clarified the Royal Scots massacre bit. As for the wikilinks, none of the place names are big enough to have their own articles. Again, I would appreciate other reviews by other editors. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

  • Leaning toward support. This is a very well-written article. I fixed some ref errors that were causing part of the Battle of Le Paradis section not to show up and fixed some WP:NBSP isses. Can you address these comments please?
    • I'm a little confused by this: Due to the boundary between the two British regiments being the road, Ryder's men surrendered to SS Hauptsturmführer Fritz Knöchlein and his company, who had been fighting the Royal Scots
    • "Recent evidence " -how recent?
    • Per wP:MOSQUOTE, only quotations of 4 lines or more should be offset. There is a smaller length one that should be returned inline.

Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support with comments:
  • counter-attacked just west of Arras, on 21 May following on from the counter attack of the day before (Battle of Arras).A bit confusing with two counter-attacks in two days. IMO not clear that both counter attacks where done by the British.
  • A map would be nice in the Background section.
  • Rue du Paradis road - Rue is road in French - isn't it wrong to have both Rue and Road then? --Peter Andersen (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you both for your reviews. I have made all the changes suggested by Karanacs, however can you clarify the quote issue? I am not sure what you mean by inline. Peter Andersen, I cannot find a map, and I looked but I couldn't find the suggested confusion over the counter-attacks, but I did make the other change. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC).
I still don't understand the sentence about surrendering to a different unit. What did the road have to do with that? I think this needs a bit more context. I fixed the quote for you. Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Come on editors, don't make me beg for more reviews. Mattyness (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Some concerns:
    • Consistency: Article uses both “Knochlein” and “Knöchlein”. Umlauts need to be used in all instances, or all instances changed to Knoechlein. “Knochlein” is incorrect spelling.
    • Fair use rationale for Image:FritzKnoechlein.jpg needs to be rewritten. Image does not have all “Necessary components”, as described in WP:RAT. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm afraid these don't seem to be reliable sources: [5] and [6]. Epbr123 (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think this source "Gordon Williamson (2004). The Waffen-SS p. 24. Osprey Publishing. Retrieved on 12 December 2007." is used properly. It is being used to footnote the statement "The men of Totenkopf fought recklessly throughout the campaign, suffering comparatively higher death rates that other German forces.[5]" but the book blames inadequate training and inferior weapons/equipment. Use Sydnor (1977) pg 108 instead. Furthermore, the Williamson book goes on to say that 3 men survived, the commander was executed in 1948. The other sources and article say 2 survived and execution in 1949. --maclean 03:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Object. I replaced the Williamson reference above, but the "Stratford, Stephen. Private Pooley's Revenge" appears to be just some guy's website and should be replaced with a published source. --maclean 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing notes: A fine start, but after almost two weeks, the article hasn't gained sufficient Support. Working with Opposers to resolve issues raised may help prepare the article for re-approaching FAC. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 23 February 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 23:46, 23 February 2008.

[edit] Moncton

I'm nominating this article for featured article as I feel it meets all FA standards. Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Nominate and Support. Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this article has potential but it still needs quite a bit of work. I haven't read the entire article thoroughly but it seems that it is comprehensive and generally well-referenced. However, it is in dire need of much copyediting and formatting. The writing has too many very short paragraphs and some lists may be better as prose. There are grammar issues and the prose often reads more like a travel guide than a neutral encyclopedia article. I've been working on this a bit and will probably continue to do more, but others' input will also be needed. A fair number of references are not properly formatted. Other charts and lists should perhaps be re-thought. Finally, religion information (assuming it exists) should be added to the demographics section. Also not sure why the best image for the culture section is a church when the culture section talks exclusively about the arts (I liked the photo of the theater better). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed the picture back to the theater, as for the religion stuff the only data available at this moment is from the 2001 census, I was waiting for the new data from the 2006 census to be released (should be fairly soon) before updating that. As for the references, they arent really my strong suit, I made most of them, but Im not positive on proper formatting, so any help in that department would be appriciated. As for the table which are you talking about? The demographical ones, the sports team one, or the government one? Thanks for your help so far! Stu pendousmat (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment These don't seem to be reliable sources: [7] [8]. Epbr123 (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The first reference is the only reference available on the net for that info, and I admit I was wary of using a geocite, but this guy is in the army and he has sources to back up his information, so I believe its credible. I fixed the second one, I dont know who added that as that info is available on lots of credible sites.Stu pendousmat (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also:
    • Web references need to include the author, publisher, publishing date and access date.
      • R Could somebody perhaps post what the exact proper formatting is so I can just use that in the article for all refs to correct them?Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • The current formatting is fine, but for ref 64, for example, the publisher would be Magnetichill.com, and ref 76 is missing the access date. Epbr123 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "Of the seven members of the Legislative Assembly that currently represent greater Moncton, two belong to the Liberal party and one belongs to the Conservative party." - which party do the other five belong to? Can any info be added on the voting history of the town, eg. is it traditionally Liberal or Conservative?
      • R Fixed the numbering mistake, as far as voting history I have no idea where that info would be found.Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The Notable Monctonians section is too short. Could a couple more Monctonians be added?
    • Could you check that all compound adjectives have hyphens, eg. "nine story building", "service based economy"?
      • R Perhaps sombody with any grammatical knowledge at all could do this haha, not my strong-suitStu pendousmat (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes regarding dash usage.
      • R Are you saying the dashes used in the article are improperly formatted? Or that we need more or something?Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I reviewed the dashes, they should all be correct now. --maclean 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Could the Railways section be expanded?
      • R I dont think there is much more to say in this section. The History section talks a lot about it already...Railways are not a huge thing in moncton currently, but they were in the past, I guess thats why its like that.Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Could the geography section include info on nearby cities, and the layout of the city such as where the main industrial and commercial areas are?
      • R I have a feeling the Geo section is large enough already, perhaps in the future I will make a seperate article on the geography of Moncton and include this info.Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Are figures available for the religious and racial makeup of the city?
      • R As I commented above the latest figures available are from 2001, however within the next few months the 2006 info will be coming out, I will add it in then.Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • 2006 Census data on this will be available on April 2. --maclean 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I've lived in Moncton for the past 10 years have have nothing to add to the article. Bravo! Emmanuelm (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Oppose. The prose needs a lot of work to be compelling. There are grammatical errors and it could be tightened a good deal. There are also significant issues with statistics or claims not being cited. I think I've identified all the areas that should be cited, but the prose issues here are only a very tiny overview. Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Response. Thank you for your help Karanacs, I will be able to fix all these problems shortly, however at the moment I am away for the weekend and unable to do much. I just want to make sure nobody fails this because of inactivity! haha Stu pendousmat (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Two paragraphs in the lead talk about shipbuilding and railroads. I think these two paragraphs should be combined.
      • Done Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
        • This is still fairly repetitive. I think the lead needs more than minor work to help it more concisely focus on the important parts of the article.
          • Done (again) The section had a copy edit by another editor and is much better now :) Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "Although Moncton was traumatized twice" - the city was not traumatized; the economy might have been; this needs to be rephrased
    • In the history section, the sentences don't flow well within each paragraph. It is very choppy, and a good copyedit should help it to be more compelling.
    • Need a citation for the fact that the name of the initial settlement was "in reference to the sharp bend of the Petitcodiac River."
      • Done, could not find a ref and although it is a fact, I deleted it.Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Need citation for "with him came eight immigrant Pennsylvania Deutsch families who were to re-establish the pre-existing farming community at Le Coude. This settlement was known as "The Bend of the Petitcodiac", or simply The Bend."
    • Need a citation for "Railway employment in Moncton peaked at nearly six thousand workers in the 1950s before starting a long slow decline."
    • Need citations for the paragraph about the Francophone-Anglophone tensions
      • Done, tidied up that section and added a reference. Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "The sharp bend of the Petitcodiac River at Moncton has strongly influenced the names given to the community by the various succeeding inhabitants living in the area." is mentioned in both history and geography and not cited either place
    • Need citation for: "It is the longest remaining unspoiled barrier dune system on the mainland eastern seaboard of North America"
      • Done removed that reference and tidied that section in generalStu pendousmat (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Need citation for: "This popular attraction"
      • Done this was removed in a previous edit Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Need citation for: "occupies a relatively large footprint for its size"
      • Done this was removed, its not really true anyways, the city is fairly compact for a modern Canadian city. Stu pendousmat (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This is out of date: "it is scheduled for major renovation in 2007.
    • Need citation for: "None of these buildings however are imposing enough to really help define the city"
    • Need a citation for "Irishtown Nature Park (one of the largest urban nature parks in Canada"
      • Not really sure what to do here...I know its true, the park is 890 hectares (2,200 acres). Rockawood Park in Saint John (nearby city) is the same size and on Tourism NBs website they claim that it is "One of Canada’s largest municipal parks". I just dont know how to sourse that as I cannot find that info online directly about that park.
    • Need citation for "Since the previous national census in 2001 the metropolitan area has grown by 6.5%"
    • Need citation for "This rate of growth is within the top ten amongst major cities in Canada and Moncton has the fastest growth rate of any city east of Toronto."
    • You ought to also provide an official citation for the 2006 census data, so that people can easily verify the info (you never know what numbers a vandal might change it to)
    • There is a mixed Harvard style and footnote reference for the census 2001 info
    • Need a citation for " The local unemployment rate averages between 4-5%, which is below the national average" (that does not appear to be covered in the next reference)
    • Need citation for "The World Wine and Food Exposition — held every November, this is the largest event of its kind in eastern Canada"
    • There are a lot of lists in the article. Some of these should be converted to prose
      • Done, I converted three lists to prose since you wrote this. Stu pendousmat (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Need a citation for "The "Magnetic Hill Illusion" remains a popular tourism draw"
    • There are two sentences that begin "Of the seven members of the Legislative Assembly that currently represent greater Moncton" They then have different numbers of people belonging to various parties. This information needs to be cleaned up, and a date needs to be added
      • Done, that section was cleaned by another editor (vidioman). Stu pendousmat (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Need a citation for " Moncton Flight College is one of Canada's oldest, largest, and most prestigious flight schools. "
    • Need a citation for "Skydive Moncton operates the province's only nationally certified sports parachute club out of this facility."
    • Need a citation for "such, all flights between the atlantic seaboard of North America and Europe pass through Moncton Centre airspace."
    • "The city is currently working to increase its annual ridership from 1.7 million to 2.8 million. To assist with this, the bus fleet will increase to 54 vehicles within the next two years' - there is no anchor date to let us know when this was added -- 2005, 2007, 2008?
    • Not all references have publishers listed
      • Done, I went through them all and added in a publisher and any other missing info, should all be correct now. Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • A lot of the information is referenced to self-published sources. I think you should look for more newspaper and magazine articles to cover some of this.
      • Response as far as that goes I personally found about 90% of the references and where possible used non self-published sourses. Moncton is not a huge city like NYC or Toronto where there are 5 daily newspapers and tons of coverage, so it is difficult to find sourses at all, and even more difficult to find non self-published sourses. All sourses used are accurate and factual. Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support This article is one of the best articles I have seen. -FlubecaTalk 02:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Object due to abundance of self-published sources. There are better sources and I can help identify these. There are also a few extra aspects I'd like to see covered. For example, the demise of the Moncton Police Force and the water system (Canada's first drinking water-related PPP). There are several small things, like some of the language and too many images (Image:JulieDoironHeartAndCrime.jpg is improper fair-use, and Image:Wheeler blvd at night.jpg is just decoration, not educational). This is up there as one of the best city articles, but it needs to address a few more aspects, a stronger reference-backing, and some polishing in the writing. --maclean 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Response For the self-published issue see above, if you are able to find others which are not self published please do so, I would be very grateful :). The other aspects you mentioned are interesting, however I dont feel they are critical to the main Moncton article, you can add them if you like, but I dont see why that would hold the article from FA status. There has been some re-writing of sections (including lead and government), and also many more sourses added (see above). If you or someone else would like to do a copyedit of the article perhaps and fix any small gramitacal errors, I have a hard time doing that as I wrote a lot of it, otherwise I would. Thanks! :D Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • According to their 2008 budget[9] police protection is the City's #1 expenditure. Yet, police and crime are not even mentioned in the article. And why not use a local history book for the History section, rather than relying so heavily on another encyclopedia. --maclean 04:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        • R The reasons behind the high cost of protection services is outlined in this article: RCMP COST. Basically salaries have risen a lot and gas as well. Also the city is growing fairly quickly hense more officers are hired. The crime rate is either average or below average, not really notible. Like I said this could be added in, I would not mind, I even have a picture of a Codiac RCMP cruiser I could add in if need be, however I dont feel it should be a requirement for FA. There is a good History book about Moncton, I read it once a long time ago however I dont have access to it now (it was at a high school library). Most of the info in the History section could be soursed to that book but like I said I dont have it unfortunately. Its called "A History of Moncton, New Brunswick - Town & City 1855-1965 ". Stu pendousmat (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing notes With more than two weeks at FAC, the article failed to gain significant support. Working with Opposers, or requesting an extended peer review, to resolve issues raised may help prepare for re-approaching FAC. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 23 February 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, 22 February 2008.

[edit] Blue's Clues

Nominator: I am nominating this article because after passing its GA nomination, I felt it was a well-written article and that it was ready to move on. There are only a few flaws but they could be fixed easily and would not affect the process that much. I really hope that this article has hope for FA status. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 04:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure I understand why an article that admittedly has "a few flaws" is being nominated. Kmzundel (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because of the fact that EVERY article has a couple of flaws. No article is completely perfect. And I do not plan to lie and make this article an exception. In fact, the few flaws in an article is what makes people oppose a nomination until they are fixed. So far, unless you point out any specific flaws that prove this article not to meet FA criteria, then your comment is not constructive. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 14:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if you were offended by my comment. My comment has nothing to do with the article itself. My comment has to do with your *nomination* of the article. WP:FAC specifically states as the 1st step under Procedure "Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria." Kmzundel (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if my comment sounded like it was accusing your comment of offending me. I did not mean to sound rude or anything. I understand your basis and I assure you that, in the nomination, when I said "There are only a few flaws but they could be fixed easily and would not affect the process that much", that I meant the flaws would not have anything to do with the criteria. I just felt like I wanted to admit that the article was not perfect. Sorry again if my comment made me sound as if I were offended. If you have any specific oppositions against the article, please state them and I will be happy to fix them. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 15:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The references section needs to be changed. You have cited books using the <ref>Author, page</ref> but you don't include a bibliography, which should include the author, full title of the book, publisher, date and ISBN number (if applicable). If it's an internet site, it should have access dates (which you do include further up). Remember, when someone clicks a reference in the article, they will see the citation at the top of the page; they won't see the full citation you place above. I suggest you write out all the books in a new ==References== section, and above it, have a ==Notes== (or footnotes) section listing the authors and page numbers. Plus, I don't know what others think, but the "Format" section is perhaps too short. Can't it be integrated, or put under a subsection? PeterSymonds | talk 13:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed I wrote out all the references. I know that the problem was the "Author, Page Number" and you suggested putting in a Bibliography but this way is a little easier. If you still think it should be your way, please comment. But for now, the references are fixed. Thanks for the comment. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 14:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
And I went back and corrected the second reference that had this problem. This is no longer an issue with this article. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed I make the section a subsection in the development section. Is that what you meant? Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 14:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It doesn't bother me how the refs are formatted, as long as they're all accessible. A number of experienced copyeditors should review the article against the FA criteria in the next few days. Best wishes, PeterSymonds | talk 15:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
No, thank you for the advice. The article should be copyedited soon. I sent a request to somebody who recently edited an article I was working on, Aang. In addition, I tagged the page for copyediting to possibly get more attn. to it to be copyedited. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling: that's what the tag says. The lead is also a bit weak. Basketball110 vandalise me 15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The tag is only there because an editor (the one directly above you) suggested it be copyedited so I tagged it to attract attention for it to be copyedited. And what do you mean by the lead is "a bit weak". Please be more specific. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The criteria of a featured article where are? P.s. Where are the criteria of a good article here? --jskellj - the nice devil 17:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If you oppose the article so strongly, could you at least provide a less ambiguous argument instead of just "The criteria of featured article where are", which does not even make sense within itself. Please post a real argument before opposing the article.Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe that by using such warped grammar, he's mocking the current state of the article (It's in serious need of copyediting). Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is going to be copyedited soon. I contacted somebody. Don't worry. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 04:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Briskelly's oppose is not actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have doubts about the neutrality of the article. There is nothing negative in the Reception section, and statements like this need citations: "Blue's Clues revolutionized the genre". Epbr123 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Sorry, but until {{copyedit}}ing duties are done, it won't stand a chance. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The article is going to be copyedited soon. I contacted somebody. Don't worry. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 04:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The licensing for Image:BluePeriwinkle.jpg is inappropriate, as the image constitutes a derivative work and user:Kowloonese, therefore, is not the sole copyright holder. A fair use license is needed and would be appropriate, as an image of Blue’s Clues characters could reasonably be expected to significantly increase our understanding of the article. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as follows:
    • I hate to reiterate what has already been said, but this really needs a copyedit that shouldn't be a huge job. Have you contacted the League of Copyeditors? As it stands, the prose is full of minor grammatical errors.
    • The article-writing guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs talks about two sections that seem to be missing here: a heading that gets into more detail about episodes, and a heading about production. I don't think this article can be considered comprehensive without those aspects of the show covered. --Laser brain (talk) 21:13, 21 February 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, 22 February 2008.

[edit] Peyton Manning

Self-nomination. I feel that the article is accurate, stable, and well-written. The article is already listed as a Good Article. I requested a peer review as well, but nothing came of it other than an automated review. Dlong (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I couldn't understand much of this article, I know I come from a different culture but are expressions like, "Manning is well-known for his pre-snap routine. The Colts rarely huddle, preferring to have Manning call the plays at the line of scrimmage, accompanied with numerous hand gestures" OK in the Lead of a Wikipedia Featured Article? Also all those numbers! Doesn't the Manual of Style provide some guidance on this? --GrahamColmTalk 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. I've tried to read this article again, but I can't get past all the jargon. This is a big problem in the Professional career section. Here's but one example of many expressions that are meaningless to me: "they blew a 21–0 lead". --GrahamColmTalk 17:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't be a FA because you have poor reading comprehension skills? That's a valid use of the verb "to blow". [10]
Oppose: like Graham + look at the section references.--jskellj - the nice devil 17:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I appreciate the comments. The reference section problem was caused by a user editing the page to correct some information that I inadvertently inserted twice. However, by removing this information, he accidentally broke a couple of references. Regarding the 'pre-snap routine', I will be adding a section to Profession Career that will explain this in more detail. Regarding jargon, I will like some more information as to what you consider jargon. "blew a 21-0 lead" seems quite clear to me, although I have watched athletics for years. What would you consider an acceptable alternative? "They surrendered a 21-0 lead"? "They led 21-0, but still lost"? Issues like these are why I requested a peer review, but unfortunately the only user interested in helping me was a robot. Dlong (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I fully sympathies with here Dlong. Any user on here will advice you that you should give any article a PR before nominating, but my experience has been that unless you alert users on there talk page of this you are unlikely to gain feedback. So I suggest in future you go to the Wikiprojects the article is a member of , find the main users of the project and alert them of the PR on there talk page.
In this spsific case I think a copy edit would have been a good idea. Just at a glance I see the Tennessee Volunteers being referred to as “the Vols”, “blew a 28–7 lead”, “was held without a touchdown”, “their now-signature no-huddle offense” and “exorcised his big-game demons”. Buc (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Short, choppy writing and paragraphs. Much jargon. Writing is hardly brilliant prose. Many refs in middle of a sentence, normally they should be at the end of a sentence or clause. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, references need minor fixes but otherwise it seems great to me. HoosierStateTalk 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment on "Support" above: I don't think the refs need any work, I think that the best part, well referenced article. B110 communicate (that means talk) 04:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Object per Sumoeagle179 basically. The prose is often choppy (just check the second choppy paragraph of the lead). The article needs copy-editing. And indeed the placement of the inline citations is wrong. You overdo it, and interrupt too often the text with citations. But I must admit that the nominator was unfortunate, because his article did not draw much attention, in order to get the proper advice.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I was unfortunate. I would say, instead, that the peer review process is a joke, and an utter waste of time. Frankly, I'm not sure why we even have it. I've requested three peer reviews on three different articles and received (with the exception of the automated reviews) exactly 0 advice. I've requested a copyedit from the League of Copyeditors or whatever they call themselves, but there is little doubt in my mind that I will again be completely ignored. You guys are strict, and that's fine; you should be. However, from my personal experience, there is absolutely no way to get help from other users on any article I work on, which quite frankly makes this whole process useless. I will do the best I can to improve the article, but since I'm clearly on my own in this endeavor, and since writing is not my area of expertise, I doubt it will ever reach the standards required. Nonetheless, thank you for making the featured article criteria clear, even if it's a standard I will never be able to reach. Dlong (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment The semi-automated peer review comments are helpful, but seem to have been ignored for the most part in this article. For example, the script still finds that this article needs non-breaking spaces between numbers and units, that it wikilinks dates without years, has the order of the last sections wrong, uses contractions, and has a few other easily fixable errors. See here for the full list. There is a list of volunteers at peer review - I have found them to be very helpful - did you ask? Another good way to get reviews is to make some comments yourself and ask for comments in return. I also know that LoCE is also quite busy so it takes a while. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - As regards the semi-automated peer review, I believe that I fixed all the nonbreaking spaces before "yards", the contractions are in titles in references, and I could not find an unlinked date (perhaps the script is fooled by links to years in seasons and Pro Bowls, etc.). The "See also" section still should come before "References" and "External links". I also find numerous other MOS and grammatical problems - a few examples (not a complete list): Ref. 135 (Meet Mrs. Manning) is an internet link but has no date retrieved on. There are zero refs in the first paragraph of the "Early years" section (and it does not repeat items from the lead such as his birth date or the name of his younger brother - see WP:LEAD). In the second paragraph, these two sentences on his high school career are either an error or just confusing: As a junior, Manning went 8–2 in the regular season and made it to the state semifinals before losing to Haynesville, tying the school's best finish.[17] During his junior year, they went 11–2 and advanced to the state quarterfinals, with Manning throwing 30 touchdown passes.[18] (I think perhaps he was a sophomore in the first sentence?). Just one more example, from the "Charitable works" section Manning and his wife made a donation of an undisclosed amount to St. Vincent's and has had a relationship with the hospital since his arrival in Indianapolis.[13][14] Subject is plural at the start and singlular by the end of the sentence. Too many problems to be FA and too many to fix in FAC. A very good start, but needs some polish. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:25, 19 February 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, 21 February 2008.

[edit] Reasonable Doubt

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is comprehensive, well-written, factually accurate, non-biased, well-sourced and structured. Not to mention, the album is significant to its artist (Jay-Z) and genres (Hip hop music and Mafioso rap). Noahdabomb3 (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment/weak oppose - the prose is professional enough. cut ties, Despite these humble beginnings, the glitz of Manhattan, are just a few examples I noticed in the first section. I suggest you get it copyedited. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I just requested a copyedit to tighten up the prose. Thanks for the recommendation. Noahdabomb3 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I copyedited the article to make the prose smoother. Any wording issues can probably be fixed easily. Other than that, it's reliably sourced, well-structured, and comprehensive. Spellcast (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just skimming the lead right now, and its too POV:
  • "It is considered a masterpiece of Mafioso rap and one of Jay-Z's best albums." - remove this sentence; that it is a good album is evident from the critics above.
  • Are so many reviews required? Those 5 star rating mentions can both go, and probably two of the publications' "best albums ever" can go as well. (Rolling Stone is enough). This will also reduce the seeming clutter of numbers in the lead ("500 albums", "five stars", the chart positions, sales figures)
  • Too much referencing in the lead: [4][5][6][7] hampers readability.
  • The lead uses the word "it" nine times; replace it with "the album" or Reasonable Doubt.
indopug (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I replaced about half of the "its" as was requested. I removed that sentence about mafioso rap and replaced it with a different sentence about significance. I am currently leaving all of the reviews and "best album" lists in the second paragraph because the album is best known for its critical success: I feel that the second paragraph best communicates this point. I'm not sure if the "clutter of numbers" is such a bad thing as it adds legitimacy to the claims made. Also, the abundance of references bolsters highly opinionated claims about the album. I am still debating whether to delete one of two of the references though. Noahdabomb3 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Leaving the numbers in the leads severely hampers readability; look at other album FAs (Love. Angel. Music. Baby., Adore, Spiderland etc.) to see what I mean. There is absolutely no need to mention every review and every "best-ever" list in the lead. Also, what is the merit of mentioning sales figures and chart listings in the lead if it didn't do that well? The mention of another album is also completely unnecessary. Also, the entire article needs a desperate copy-edit--"It differs from his future albums in its lack of commercial songs like "(Always Be My) Sunshine" and "Money, Cash, Hoes"."--what does that even mean? What is a "commercial" song; who says those two are the best examples of "commercial" songs? I think this article has POV issues too; although cited, in too many different places does this article feature a random comment about how mind-blowingly influential this album is. The detailed charting and other info for the singles is unnecessary; there is a table at the eend of the article isn't there? Is Jay-Z's childhood necessary for the backgrounnd section? Also, where is the cite for the lyrics featuring black comedy, and the cite for the lyrics themselves? All those "greatest album" lists might better be compiled in an Accolades table (see: Spiderland) indopug (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - "It is Jay-Z's least commercially-successful effort, peaking at #23 on the Billboard 200, but received platinum status in 2002..." I don't know anything about the Billboard 200, but #23 sounds decent. Can you compare it to something else he did so we can see how #23 wasn't that great for his album? I'll add more comments as I read it. David Fuchs (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I had those same sentiments.[11] #23 is pretty decent, so I simply removed the "least commercially-successful effort" line altogether. Spellcast (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Comment (Response)The "most commercially successful" line was removed so that issue is resolved. Let me justify the second intro paragraph for a second: it serves to explain the album's significance and critical success. The best way to do this is to list reviews and stats that compare it to other albums. If anyone would like to delete the numbers on the lists, that is fair--but the second paragraph still needs stats to justify Reasonable Doubts significance. Also, the singles charting position information serves the purpose of comparing the singles, but anyone is free to delete the unnecessary numbers (as I may do so soon). Also, I will try to restructure the POV thing about "commercial" songs. Lastly, I already cited the lyrics and got rid of the "black comedy" line. Noahdabomb3 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The online hip-hop archive is unreliable. Also, "puns and other forms of word play to a comedic affect" is still OR, and printing such a huge bunch of lyrics might be copy-vio. Who is Biggie? indopug (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for WP:BLP and other issues:
    • The image Image:Roc-A-FellaTrio.jpg is probably not acceptable fair use for this or any article since free photographs could certainly be found for these individuals. This should be removed for FA status.
    • "Four singles were released, the most popular being 'Ain't No Nigga' and 'Can't Knock the Hustle'." Suggest rewording - two things can't both be the "most" popular.
    • Regarding the lead - are there sources that rated the album poorly? It doesn't seem neutral to only mention the perfect reviews.
    • In the Background heading, avoid referring to the subject as "Shawn".
    • The sentence about his dealing drugs to support himself suggests that he was supporting himself previously by appearing on a couple rap tracks for Jaz-O. That's not clearly the case from reading the source. Also, the source does not say he was "dealing drugs", it says he was hustling. Those aren't the same thing. As it stands, you have an unsourced statement about someone dealing drugs. Even if it happens to be true, you need a reliable source there.
    • "In an unconventional move..." I'm not finding where the source supports this opinion.
    • For the Yahoo! interview source - you might need to use the {{Cite interview}} template to get the correct citation.
    • I don't think many readers will know what the term "new jack" means.
    • Same with the albums "beats" being "formed". This is jargon that should be reworded for common encyclopedic language.
    • The whole "Recording Sessions" heading needs copyediting - the prose is not up to standard.
    • I'm not sure "Production" is the best subheading under the Music heading since you aren't really describing the production process of the album. Maybe "Composition" would be better.
    • When I get to the Reception question, I can't help asking again: Didn't anyone dislike the album?
    • In the Significance heading: For statements such as "...it is generally considered his best record." you really need a more reliable source than All Music Guide (a print source would be preferred) and more than one source. Someone will come along and challenge a statement like that so it should be strongly sourced. --Laser brain (talk) 03:50, 19 February 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 00:06, 20 February 2008.

[edit] Angolan Civil War

previous FAC

I'm nominating ACW again. It was pretty good last time. Since then I've expanded the 1970s and 1990s sections and added a chunk, as requested, on the origins of the conflict. Jose João (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Publishers and ISBNs should be added to the book sources. Dead web refs need to be replaced. Epbr123 (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There's one dead reference. Jose João (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I personally would order it as "notes" then "references/further reading" rather than "further reading" and then "references" I think the footnotes ought to come before the list of books, at least that is how it is done in any other FA that comes to mind, but it's a suggestion only. SGGH speak! 10:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • The lead loses me toward the end. You state that several other "factions" were engaged in the conflict and then mention one other faction (FNLA) and several foreign states that I would not readily describe as "factions". I think I was expecting a prose overview of all the factions involved. The infobox serves as a distraction at this point - you mention Cuba and Mozambique there but they are not mentioned in the lead. In fact, Mozambique is never mentioned in the article...
    • In the Roots heading, I am unclear how the MPLA came to control Cabinda after you said FLEC was operating there. The reader can go off to the main article, but it should at least be summarized properly here.
    • In the second paragraph, you mention "Robert" but the reader has not been introduced to this figure. Mention by full name the first time and provide some context.
    • "Ford told William Colby, the Director of Central Intelligence, to 'go ahead and do it' with an initial US$6 million in funding." Since that's not exactly a compelling or memorable quote, I suggest it is not needed.
    • The manner in which you've chosen to summarize facts from the two main articles in the Clark Amendment heading is rather confusing. For example, you mention Zaire but not why it's relevant. Why was it important that Mobutu Sese Seko would not approve of UNITA support? I was left with questions about why Ford would sign the Clark Amendment after he approved aid. Also, I don't understand what Angola's UN membership has to do with the Clark Amendment. These items might be covered in their respective articles, but they need to be summarized properly here so readers don't have to go elsewhere to understand the basic concepts.
    • On a related note, if you have copied and pasted text from main articles into this one, you need to adjust the context and wikilinking to be appropriate to this article. An example is if a person is mentioned in the copied excerpt and not wikilinked because they were linked elsewhere in the source article, you might need to link them here.
    • In the Vietnam heading, you seem to be implying that the Soviet Union and the US did not want to repeat mistakes that led to the Vietnam War, but it's not stated clearly. I checked the Time Magazine source given and it supports the concept - just needs clarity.
    • "The napalm killed cattle to feed government troops..." Do you mean the troops that were killing 10 year olds were also killing cattle with napalm and then eating the cattle?
    • "The FNLC retreated to Zambia and back to Angola, vowing to return." Which one? Or both?
    • "The Zairian army then forcibly evicted civilians along Shaba's 65-mile (105 km) long border with Angola and Mobutu ordered them to shoot on sight." Ordered whom? To shoot whom? The way this is written is sounds like Mobutu ordered the civilians to shoot.
    • "...he gave Alves the task of once again clamping down on dissension" Use "dissent" instead.
    • In the Nitistas heading, what are the Cabral and Henda Committees?
    • You jump pretty quickly from Neto supporting Alves to being threatened by him. Maybe add a sentence that explains how Alves' actions/successes created a threat to Neto.
    • "After twelve hours of debate, the party voted 26 to 6 to kick Alves and Van-Dunem out of power." The term "kick out" is too informal.
    • "Neto allies like Defense Minister Iko Carreira and MPLA General Secretary Lúcio Lara also irked the Soviet leadership through both for their policies and personalities." Grammar.
    • "With Alves out of the picture, the USSR promoted Prime Minister Lopo do Nascimento, another 'internationalist', against Neto, a 'careerist,' for the MPLA's leadership." I think this is the first time you use "USSR" instead of "Soviet Union". Some readers may not know this is the same thing. Also, avoid using single quotes unless they are inside another quote.
    • General comment: The article is very informative and the prose is good in most places. However, it treads on being too succinct in some places and I get the impression that information was cut out for length's sake. The article is already quite long so it seems logical to identify, as a near-term project, additional material that could be broken off into different articles. A good example would be the Nitistas heading. It could easily be its own article as it begs for more detail and narrative throughout.
I'm out of time but I'm not all the way through this epic narrative - will return with more comments later today or tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • More:
    • When Neto dies you mention Lara and Pascual Luvualo. Who are they and why is it important that they flew to Moscow?
    • The second paragraph of the 1980's heading gives quite a bit of narrative but only has one citation at the end. Does that citation cover everything in the paragraph? There are items there that might be disputed, such as South African plots to set off explosives in Luanda. It is very dicey to make such statements without being individually sourced.
    • "Cuba increased its 35,000-strong troop force in Angola from 35,000 in 1982 to 40,000 in 1985." You don't need to state 35,000 twice.
    • "The government tried unsuccessfully to take UNITA's supply depot in Mavinga from Menongue." Who is Menongue? First time we have heard of him in this article. --Laser brain (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • 1. Lara and Pascual's occupations are established above, in the Nitistas section. They are significant in how they shaped Angola-Russia relations. 2. The citation covers the entire paragraph. 3. Good point, modified to: "Cuba increased its troop force in Angola..." 4. Menongue is a place, not a person. Jose João (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, I see Lara now. I still don't see Pascual. In any case, it needs rewriting because it reads like a couple named Lara Luvualo and Pascual Luvualo, if you follow. The Menongue sentence also needs rewriting because you say "in Mavinga from Menonque" - sounds like the depot was in a city named Mavinga and they tried to take it from a person named Menongue. Will you be responding to the rest of my comments above? --Laser brain (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing note: after more than ten days, this article has failed to garner any support. Please work with editors who commented to try to address issues before re-approaching FAC, or consider approaching peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 20 February 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 18:16, 18 February 2008.

[edit] Cincinnati, Ohio

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it fits the criteria for one and is a very useful article to get facts from. Meckstroth.jm (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The bottom of the article lists Articles needing additional references from October 2006. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Object maybe it is better referenced since then, but several section still have no references. Now, I do not insist on a reference for every sentence, but at FA level you need to do a lot better than this.--Docg 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, like Hurricanehink. --jskellj - the nice devil 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The reference issue above. Also placement of images is sometimes interfering with flow of reading. Reconsider these. Arnoutf (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: Nominator has left Wikipedia, and the article is tagged uncited since October 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Suggest speedy archive - this is going nowhere.--Docg 13:31, 18 February 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 18:16, 18 February 2008.

[edit] Tenacious D

previous FAC

Self nomination. This is a stable WP:GA-rated article that has had a Peer Review. Assertions are cited, and descriptions do not verge on the waffley (brevity is... wit).

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. "or "The D" as they are also known by fans", in the first sentence of the lead, seems out of place. Try not to get into specifics too early (we technically don't know what Tenacious D is yet, so it seems strange to talk about fans). CloudNine (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "Initially Gass felt threatened by Black". Why?

Oppose at the moment.

  • Check the external links - several are dead (see this page).
  • Present should be present in the heading, per WP:HEAD. Probably doesn't need the capitalisation in the infobox either.
  • "at the time" repeated in consecutive sentences, also some punctuation seems to have gone missing!
    • Removed one instance of "at the time". Will check through punctuation. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "While Gass initially felt threatened by Black, they eventually worked out their differences," the second statement isn't a logical run-on from the first.
  • Too many short paragraphs in the opening sections, consider a merge and improvement in flow.
  • "In an interview on BBC Radio 1 aired on January 18, 2006, with Colin Murray," - with Colin Murray should come after interview.
  • "Gass described " and "Black posits" about the same interview, tense change.
  • Isn't there a more visually elegant way of crowbarring in the audio clip?
  • Again, throughout the 2004 to present section, far too many mini-paragraphs. Almost list-like set of statements.
  • Appearances have no references.
  • "shrivs"? relevance?
  • "Black said the Iraq War "felt so wrong", since, in his words, it had "nothing to do with Osama bin Laden".[63] Gass said of the state of the U.S. administration: "It’s a bad time for the U.S. government", and had expressed surprise that Tony Blair was still the Prime Minister of the UK.[16]" - these are personal opinions and don't appear to relate to Tenacious D - they could be placed in Black and Gass' articles, but not here.

Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose: quoting rambling man + only 2 imgs? --jskellj - the nice devil 13:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, there are some problems to kink out before this is ready. The thing that stands out the most it the [citation needed] template that has been there since August of last year. That is not all though. With citation templates, articles shouldn't really be GA, that informs me that there is inacurate info. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article has many issues. There is unsourced information everywhere, the genres seem to change every 5 minutes and the article is not of FA quality. Read Nirvana (band). That is an article of FA quality. This article just skimmed GA. Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster UTC 14:39, 16 February 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 18:16, 18 February 2008.

[edit] Seton Hall University

previous FAC (22:39, 7 January 2008) Id love to know where the errors are so i can fix Rankun (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Self nomination. This is a mostly-stable(see below) WP:GA-rated article that has had a Peer Review. Wikiproject Seton hall is proud to bring The current good article Seton Hall University There was a recent shooting on campus and we ask that you ignore that while we fix it up. but that should only take a day or two, and wed love for you to look at the rest of it in the meantime. If you see something, by all means fix it if its no big thing, there are only 5 of us and we each work on 10 pages at a time. feel free to join wikiproject seton hall aswell sencirely Rankun (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment
    • Only full dates or dates with a day and a month should be linked.
    • Some refs are missing the publisher or access date.
      • Refs 35 and 62. Epbr123 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Fixed Rankun (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence. They should also start with a capital.
      • The images in the Main campus, Notable alumni, and Notable faculty sections. Epbr123 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Can you explain, im having problems understanding?Rankun (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I've fixed them now. They should have begun with a capital letter and not ended with a fullstop. Epbr123 (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images. Epbr123 (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Text is squashed between two images in the Early history and Sesquicentennial sections. Epbr123 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • doneRankun (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) goodnight

I will be getting to it tommrow (above was me)(homework time is now)Rankun (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - there are (very) short sections. --jskellj - the nice devil 12:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Id just like to point out how horribly formed your opposition was, say which sections, and why you think by adding to them i wouldnt be violating wp:lengthI also would have appreciated CONSTRUCTIVE criticismRankun (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are various referencing issues: "citation needed" tags in "Modernization period" and "Athletics" sections, a few too many entire paragraphs without even one reference, and a couple of the refs are not formatted properly or are missing information (#12 and #13). I have not read the article in depth as of yet, but taking a look at the previous FAC, it seems to have improved greatly since then. It may require more time than a month between FAC nominations to improve this article to FA status, however. I'm not sure if the article is comprehensive enough for an institution that has been around for more than 150 years; the "Academics" section seems especially skimpy. Compared to Featured University articles like Texas A&M University and Cornell University, Seton Hall seems unfinished and lacking in comprehension. María (habla conmigo) 15:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are several citation needed templates on the page, which is an automatic oppose from me. Overall, the article needs more citations for statements (there are several paragraphs with none whatsoever), and several of the sections are on the small side, especially academics. -- Scorpion0422 16:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose As an editor of the article, there are a lot of areas of coverage that need to be expanded and, as far as we've come in citations, more needs to be sourced. Mystache (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • When did you get back?Rankun (talk) 17:45, 14 February 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 18:16, 18 February 2008.

[edit] The Wiggles

previous FAC (04:25, 3 February 2008)

I am renominating this article because all the areas of concern in its previous FAC were addressed. In addition, I did some further copyediting and added an image that was requested. There was some feedback about the placement of the images in the "Characters" section, and I changed them, but I need further feedback about how effective it was. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the cultural reference section necessary, and if yes, could it be prosed-up? Same applies for honours (needs prose). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is, but I will make this change as necessary, since I believe that bringing this to FA is more important than my personal views about trivia sections in WP articles. I will also prose up the Honours section. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Done! I folded the guys' honours into the rest of the article, and created another article for the "trivia" section. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. You may wish to see WP:BUNCHED re. the links in the characters section. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Done again! It works great, so thanks for the input, Di. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I would to see an article on the television series separate from the band itself much like Hi-5 (Australian band) and Hi-5 (Australian TV series). I know that there is List of The Wiggles episodes, but there no The Wiggles (TV series) at present. Move the information relating to the TV series to the new article so that this current article doesn't have to be categorised under Category:Australian children's television series, Category:Programs broadcast by Treehouse TV and Category:1991 Australian television series debuts -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The short answer to this request is, "No." If you actually bothered to read the article, or if you knew anything about The Wiggles, you'd see that unlike Hi-5, The Wiggles developed organically. They were a band before producing their TV show, unlike Hi-5, a group that was created specifically for a TV show. The Wiggles' TV series are ancilliary to their touring and recording. If an article about their series were created, it wouldn't be encyclopedic, and full of original research (see WP:NOR). I will not create such an article, even if it means that this article never becomes a FA. If you'd like, remove the categories in question.
To be honest, I don't see how this opposition has anything to do with this particular article, and how it would prevent its passage to FA. If someone wants to create the article you suggest, knock yourself out, but it shouldn't affect the status of this article. The quality of this article is substantially higher than Hi-5's articles, because, of course, The Wiggles as a band is by far superior to Hi-5. They've been around longer, their story is more interesting, and they're more significant. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Here are random samples from the lead, indicating that the whole text needs a good run-through by a copy-editor.

  • MOS says you need to specify A$ first time (I presume from the source that they're A$ ...?).
  • "Programs", not "programmes", is the usual Australian spelling. This is a rare difference with UK spelling.
  • "By 2002, The Wiggles had become the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's (ABC) most successful pre-school television programmes." Do you mean "one of the most successful"? Should it be "(ABC's)?
  • Remove the redundant "also".
  • "America"—is that "the US", or North America? "America" is a loose term.
  • "former dancer Sam Moran"—Does that mean that Moran used to dance, or that he was previously a dancer with the group? Tony (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

All the above issues have been addressed. Although this article has been previously copy-edited by the LOCE, I will re-submit it for someone else to have a crack at it. If it doesn't pass (and I highly suspect that it won't), I'll give it a break for a little while before re-submitting it. Thanks for all the input. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Efe left over 50 comments; all have been addressed. Thanks! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments This isn't too far off, but I did find some copyedit and reference issues:

  • The infobox image's caption is not a full sentence and therefore does not warrant a full stop
Corrected.
  • Please provide a source to support the alternative rock and post-punk revival genres listed in the infobox; I find those characterizations really questionable. Note the article later states "All their songs, based on pop music".
Changed to children's music.
  • "The group have achieved" - subject verb disagreement
  • "They have earned seventeen Gold, twelve Platinum, three Double-Platinum, and ten Multi-Platinum awards" - this needs some work. The source is inferior; it's a university's student newspaper. Further, the individual types should not be capitalized, and linking multiple words to the same article is unnecessary.
I changed the source, but to The Wiggles' homepage. I understand the policy about using the source's own webpage, but it was the best I could find and I believe the info is important and credible enough to make an exception. I will go through the article and see if I can find better sources for the other times the webpage is cited.
  • Is the language construct "pre-school" common in Australia? I interpret "pre-school" as before-school. If "nursery school" is also common, I would suggest it as an alternative that's less likely to be misread.
According to this, the Aussie use is "pre-school."
  • The middle paragraph of the Origins section needs to be cleaned up for overuse of parentheses.
Addressed previously.

*"The Wiggles made a decision to do not, as Cook has said, "just go down the route of what people think is kids' music"." - this needs a rewrite to fix 'decision to do not'

  • "when being photgraphed with children" - typo
  • "The group have always had a strict code" - subject verb disagreement
  • "The Wiggles have performed 12 sold-out shows at Madison Square Garden in 2003, and have been in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, the first time in 2001. " - wrong tense on both verbs
See talk page for the reason for the tense use. Also see this,
  • "Six Flags opened its first "Wiggles World" section in April 2007" - this needs some context; where?
Tightened this up. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A "Leeanne Ashley" is mentioned as the choreographer; a "Leanne Ashley" is mentioned as having acted as Dorothy; a "Leanne Halloran" is mentioned at the end as the choreographer.
  • The wiggly dancers are referred to variously as (verbatim): "The Wiggly Dancers", the Wiggly Dancers, and "the "Wiggly dancers".
  • Some of the references need parameter work. For example, ABC News is improperly italicized because it was set as a 'work' parameter; the same is true of references including the Australian Film Commission, ABC TV Online, MSNBC, Tv.com, and MTV.com. 'Publisher' or 'author' would be a more appropriate parameter, and would result in the proper display format.
  • I'd suggest fleshing out the intro to the Characters section by reinforcing that the main 4 characters are known by their first names; I think this is important since the bulk of the article refers to them by their last names.
  • Regarding the first oppose vote above, where an editor wants to see an article for the tv series: yes, that would be lovely, but I do not see that as a valid reason for opposing since this FAC is not overly laden with tv series-specific content. I can't see opposing because you don't like some of the categories on the article. Maralia (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Feedback? Have you re-contacted reviewers for a re-visit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that the nom has gotten around to my list of concerns yet. Maralia (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You are correct! Real life has gotten in the way, I'm afraid. I hope to start in on 'em over the weekend. Patience, please! ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing notes; since Jan. 26, this candidacy has garnered one Support, so I'm archiving. It might be helpful to initiate a new peer review, and solicit feedback from all previous opposers before re-approaching FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 18 February 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 00:08, 17 February 2008.

[edit] History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present)

Hi there, I believe this article meets all the FA standards. It is part of the Aston Villa F.C. topic that I am attempting to push towards Featured Topic status. The history of Aston Villa is too long to condense into a single article and as such is split into two: History of Aston Villa F.C. (1874-1961) and History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present). It is currently a good article after a review by The Rambling Man. It has also been reviewed by a Blues fan so as to ensure its neutrality. I think it now meets the FA criteria. As always, I will endeavour to respond to comments quickly. Thanks. Woody (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now
    • A few statements need expanding or rewording
      • "The League Cup win of 1961 was to be something of a pinnacle." This really doesn't mean much without any context especially as the opening sentence. Something of seems very vague, either it was a pinnacle or wasn't?
      • "had developed neither" or had neither developed. If it was simply one negative statement, it would had not developed.
      • Instability section, use of the cliche "came to a head" twice in as many sentences.
      • In the Taylor, Venglos, Atkinson section "Their second-place finish". I can't see any other time a dash is used but I realise this may be because it's used here more as a single adjective.
        • The pinnacle has been changed slightly. However, there will always be that jump between the two, it is in the nature of the split between two pages. Changed "had developed" and "Instability". The dash is intended due to the adjective, though I am no grammar buff. Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • All look okay now. Though I'm going to change nor to or given your other edit. Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
            • I totally appreciate the reason for the pinnacle situation. Is there anyway it can be linked to the previous history section? If not don't worry. Peanut4 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Some more references are perhaps needed
      • "After these results, and because of declining health, Joe Mercer resigned in July 1964."
      • "The board had also sold two of Villa's most valuable players, Phil Woosnam and Tony Hateley."
      • "The fans' calls for the board to resign became more and more pronounced when Villa finished sixteenth in the Second Division in 1968."
      • "Ellis left the club in a good position." unless the statement is qualified by the following sentence, then it perhaps ought to be a good position on the field.
      • "Spink went on to make a number of "world class" saves in the game from the highly experienced Bayern strikeforce, which included Karl-Heinz Rummenigge."
      • "At the AGM in October 1982, it was revealed that the club were in £1.6 million of debt, mainly due to escalating wages and building costs, including the construction of the North Stand."
      • "Aston Villa's new manager was Ron Atkinson, who had achieved considerable success with West Bromwich Albion, Manchester United and more recently Sheffield Wednesday."
      • "His transfer policy was successful, with Aston Villa finishing as runners-up to Manchester United in the inaugural Premier League season of 1992–93."
      • "Whilst Gregory remained in his job, the relationship between him and Ellis was strained."
      • "Chairman Doug Ellis made a surprise decision to appoint Graham Taylor in January 2002."
      • "O'Leary transformed the team"
      • "After several years of speculation and failed bids, the 23-year reign of Doug Ellis as chairman came to an end." Though everything that follows could be said to back this up I suppose?
      • "Villa started the 2006–07 Premiership campaign well,"
        • Upto the O'Leary one, they are all covered by existing refs. I have reworded and reffed the O'Leary one. The Doug Ellis one is backed up by the refs after that. His reign ended, that is obvious. I have added in a 2006-07 ref. Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I'd rather the refs be put in more than once, because some of these statements seem very POV. Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
            • As you command. I have now added in refs for those statements, and reworded a couple. Woody (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I missed one statement needing a ref. It's in the lead and was going to check if it was in the article but forgot.
      • "To the surprise of commentators and fans, Saunders quit halfway through the 1981–82 season, after falling out with the chairman, with the club in the quarter-final of the European Cup." Peanut4 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Done, added in ref. Woody (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


    • MOS issues
      • There's a mixture of style between sixties and seventies and 1960s, etc. I prefer the latter but will let you choose and amend them all.
        • I notice you've gone for the former, and as long as it's consistent, that's fine. WP:MOSNUM does suggest the latter see "Decades contain no apostrophe (the 1980s, not the 1980’s); the two-digit form is used only where the century is clear (the ’80s or the 80s)." And I do wonder if it might be easier to change to that version, if you need to use 2000s, etc., later on. Peanut4 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I think positions lower than ninth, ought to be 10th, etc. Though there is actually use of 15th and 16th later on.
      • semi final and semi-finals
        • Done the sixties and the semis/quarters etc. Can you clarify your thoughts on the numbers? Do you believe that they should all be numerical? Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I reckon first to ninth should be as is, and 10th onwards be numerals. Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Have done. Woody (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Some other points
      • I'm not sure of the title and first line particularly "—present" and "present day", I would prefer onwards and to the current season, otherwise it implies it will be updated each day. Slap me with a wet fish, if I'm being a bit picky here.
      • Some of the sentences seem to be on the short side, not allowing the same natural flow which is present elsewhere.
        • I have reworded the first sentence, though I disagree about the naming. I think it is a perfectly acceptable and representative name. With regards to short sentences, I think it now flows though.Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • No worries. Peanut4 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Think that's it for now. Peanut4 (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have responded to your issues in their groups. Thanks for your comments. Woody (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Everything above has now been addressed or I'm satisfied with. However I have a few more queries regarding the references.
    • "To the surprise of commentators and fans," Saunders quit halfway through the 1981–82 season. The reference doesn't say to the surprise of commentators and fans.
    • "The board had also sold two of Villa's most valuable players" Reference says best. Though perhaps this is a subjective opinion on the actual wording.
    • "Spink went on to make several "world class" saves". Again, though I don't really doubt this casting my memory back, the reference again doesn't say "world class".
  • I think the article could also do with some more images, though I appreciate how hard it can be to lay hands on some copyright-free images. Maybe even just some of those already there a little bigger. It looks very texty at the moment. Peanut4 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have added in some more images. The sizing is by default so that it fits all resolutions so I can't really change that. I have also reworded those sentences to fit more accurately with the refs. Woody (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment No major problems but the prose needs work. I have left more detailed comments on the article talk page. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Done that lot thanks. Woody (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • And your next lot. Thanks. Woody (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose on criterion 1a. The main problem is that the article is full of jargon that leaves the non-soccer fan completely perplexed. To get this up to shape, it needs copyediting by someone who is completely unfamiliar with soccer/football. I provided some examples below, but this is not an exhaustive list; please have the entire text copyedited.
    • General prose examples:
      • The first sentence is not in an encyclopedic tone. Don't say, "This article is about..." Just start writing. For example, "The history of Aston Villa F.C. from 1961 to the current season covers the fluctuating fortunes..."
      • Avoid phrases like "The late sixties saw..." Instead just say, "In the late sixties..."
      • Also, avoid starting sentences with "this" to describe the previous sentence, as in "This started with Villa..." We don't know what "this" is referring to.
      • In the beginning of the Instability section, you introduce Joe Mercer by saying he resigned but we don't know who that is. A manager? Same with other names there.
        • The point about those names is that they are already covered in the previous history article and by the wikilinks. That is what they (wikilinks) are designed for. The names are all provided in context. If we take this sentence: "the manager Joe Mercer resigned in July 1964. His replacement, Dick Taylor, managed to avoid relegation... and so on" It would be unneccessary and redundant for me to say, his replacement as manager, it is obvious. Woody (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I disagree somewhat. I don't think people should be forced to follow wikilinks to at least get the basic idea of the sentence they are reading - for example, that Mercer was a manager. True, you don't need to state that every guy was a manager because it follows logically. But at least one of them should be identified so readers don't have to click links to find out basic information. --Laser brain (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
            • I had written in that Mercer was the manager after I read your comment, I just didn't think it neccessary to wikilink those names that followed logically on. Woody (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Jargon examples:
      • I have no idea what being "relegated" means although it may be obvious to a soccer fan. Either wikilink it or provide context. I assume they were relegated to a different league, but a lot of people are totally unfamiliar with that concept since it does not occur in many countries.
      • Two sentences later, we find out they were relegated to the Third Division.. are you talking about the same incident? If so, why two different sentences?
      • "Fell down the table"? --Laser brain (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I have amended your jargon examples, though personally, I didn't think wikilinking relegated was strictly neccessary, we are not the simple English Wikipedia. We assume some level of intelligence amongst the readers. Woody (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
          • No, I wasn't suggesting linking to a "definition" of the verb relegate. If, however, there was an article about the process of sports teams being relegated to a lower league (which there is), you could link to that so people could read about it. As it stood, you said they "were relegated" but that verb is normally followed by a prepositional phrase in everyday use. For example, "I did a terrible job at investigating crimes, so I was relegated to directing traffic." Hope that's a bit more clear. --Laser brain (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
            • That is what I understood and carried out, I wikilinked the first use of relegated to Promotion and relegation. Woody (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Woody's talk page says he's away for the weekend, back on Monday. Have the opposers been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I reviewed his fixes of my examples but I don't think the article is ready. I think it still needs treatment by a non-soccer person and a copyedit. --Laser brain (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. This article really needs a good copy edit.[12]. The grammar is v. poor in places. The article is not ready for FA yet. But please do not give up—it's very interesting.--GrahamColmTalk 21:14, 16 February 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 00:08, 17 February 2008.

[edit] Geneva drive

Nominator 83.176.135.191 (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This has no references, for a start, and it is too short. Nowhere near the standard to be featured. PeterSymonds | talk 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose too, I'm afraid. The animations are lovely, and explain the principles of the drive wonderfully, but the lack of references/citations is an instant problem, and the comprehensiveness is lacking too (who invented it, when, where?). Carré (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose It's a very good start, but I too recommend reading the featured article criteria. You need inline citations for a number of the statements in the article, starting at the very first paragraph. Another criteria is that external links are only in the external links section, not in the body of the text. If you are using them as sources, they need to be in footnotes/inline citations. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: there aren't references. jskellj (msg)
  • Strong object: no refs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a very interesting little article and it's well illustrated but it needs more: references for a start; then some history; and a photograph of the drive would be good. Please don't give up on the article. --GrahamColmTalk 16:18, 16 February 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 17:08, 15 February 2008.

[edit] Fox hunting

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it has reached the required standard, which is especially difficult with relation to maintaining NPOV in a subject which many people find very emotive. The article is well referenced and brings in arguments from all sides of the debate, with no major point overlooked. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment but hoping to support (and congratulating Owain for his work on the article). I am concerned at the choice of photographs. Several are bland and hence repetitive pictures, adding nothing to the article. Yet the controversy section of this controversial subject is denied any current photos due to a misplaced consensus at the article talk page.
I also think the external links could do with a review and prune. MikeHobday (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Web references need to include the author, publisher, publishing date and access date. This source isn't reliable enough as its self-published. Epbr123 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Working on this now. Not all web sources contain a reliable date, for example [13] to the University of Michigan. Does this make them inherently unreliable, or do you recommend case by case analysis? Thanks MikeHobday (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Publishing dates only need to be included if they're available. Sources without dates aren't necessarily unreliable. Epbr123 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Identified self-published reference replaced, all weblinks now have requested details where available (I think). MikeHobday (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, the writing is choppy, and seems to bounce around between ideas. Second, there are way to many one or two-sentence paragraphs, which could easily be merged together and make the article easier to read. Third, there are several short sections with one or two sentences, and only one reference. Finally, if you could move some of the picture to the left, it would make the article look better. Juliancolton Talk 18:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • See below for stuff for others. Agree about the short choppy paragraphs. Consider merging or expanding them to make the prose less choppy.
Done a bit of this, please do advise typical shortcomings and I'll use that to look through the article. MikeHobday (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, a number of the web citations are not fully formated with as much information as possible. At the least, they need the date they were accessed.
Done as much as I can see, glad you can have a more detailed look. If you point out typical shortcomings, I will address them. MikeHobday (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how reliable some of the web sites used as references are. (For full disclosure, I don't usually edit in areas that HAVE many websites) Q&A Online?
That one's gone! Controversy in fox hunting has peaked relatively recently, so there's quite a lot online. MikeHobday (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I also noted some sentences in the Controversy section that were uncited, especially under Pest Control, where there are statements pro and con that are unsourced. There are other spots that need citations besides there, though.
Had a run through. Again, do say what else could be referenced. MikeHobday (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what I noticed on a very quick glance. Will try to find time to do a more detailed look pretty soon.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Struck through the above stuff, since I've detailed below. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the following details:
  • The lede consists almost entirely of short one or two sentence paragraphs. This is very chopy and hard to read. Expand and combine to make the lede more comprehensive and less choppy.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • History section, early hunting subsection. I'm unclear what this section has to do with fox hunting, quite honestly, especially the first paragraph. Is there a plain "Hunting" or "History of hunting" article that could be referred to for background material like the first paragraph? The second one at least at the very end mentions foxes.
Done, not sure about the link to the article - can anyone else help? MikeHobday (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Same section and subsection, you mention beasts of the chase, but what's the diff between veenery and chase? Chase is just dropped into the paragraph with little context or explanation of why the beasts for it should be different than the ones for the venery.
Done by virtue of above edit. MikeHobday (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Prose in early hunts in England section seems off to me, very stilted. "The passing of the Enclosure Acts from 1760 to 1840 had made hunting deer much more difficult in many areas of the country as that required great areas of open land." is just plain awkward. Try "The passage of the Enclosure Acts made deer hunting difficult by cutting down the large areas of open land required to chase deer." or something similiar.
That done, but clear that section is lacking - I've added a new reference, but more work is needed here. MikeHobday (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In the US subsection - Consider moving the current (2006) stats to a "Current status" or something similar section. It reads a bit odd in the "history section"
  • Same for the current stats in Australia and Europe.
  • History section feels very skimpy to have so many subsections. Definitely feel the need for some expansion or combining here, because of the short stubby subsections giving a choppy feel to the text.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Need to specify Imperial measurements also. Use the handy {{convert}} template.
Couldn't find that template, but done with others. MikeHobday (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You go into great detail about the habits of the red fox, then only mention that the gray fox can climb trees. Makes the coverage seem off.
Adjusted, gray fox seems a minor quarry according to reference, so downgraded in article.
  • Quarry section also has a good number of short stubby paragraphs, consider expanding or combining.
  • You need to capitalize Thoroughbreds or use purebreds instead. Thoroughbred is a breed of horse. In the context here, it's clear you're referring to the English Thoroughbred, correct?
  • Animals of the hunt. Short paragraphs again.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And in the Procedure section.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Drag hunting, the second paragraph (which is a one sentence paragraph!) I *think* there is a missing "in" in the sentence, but I'm not entirely sure.
Done, plus add cite. MikeHobday (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What is the Burns Inquiry? It's referred to a few times in the Controversy section without explanation. Also settle on spelling is it Inquiry? or Enquiry?
Amazing what you miss whe you're too close to the subject! Done. MikeHobday (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I might explicitly link the "Government inquiry into hunting with dogs" with the Burns Inquiry.Ealdgyth | Talk 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Consider culling down the external links section, it's rather large.
Done. Do advise if still too long. MikeHobday (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If the three books at the bottom aren't used for references in the text, I'd use them in a "further reading" section that is separate from the "external links" section. Likewise, if you're using the Burns Inquiry report in the footnotes, I would think it doesn't need to be in the external links section, but double check with one of the FA regulars on that, I'm hardly an FA regular.Ealdgyth | Talk 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Done with regard to further reading. I'm tempted to keep the Burns Inquiry pages as they are so seminal. MikeHobday (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Places needing citations:
    • Early Hunts in England subsection: You need something to cover the whole section before the Game Laws relaxation in 1831, all that bit about Enclosure acts and fences and stuff is opinion and needs sourcing, and it is obviously NOT covered by footnote 14 which is the 1831 Game Laws.
    • I know the red fox isn't indigenous to NA, but it needs a cite. (If you can't find one online, check out the Yellowstone National Park website, I think they have something on there about studying the native foxes that are up in the mountains).
    • Cite for the number of registered packs in NA.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In Australia subsection, last sentence needs a citation (In the US, accusing folks of spotlighting prey doesn't go over well in some circles, not sure how it would be in Oz land.)
    • Procedure section - "and hunt seat riding in the US" and the second paragraph need citations.
    • Autumn subsecton, last sentence of the first paragraph, most folks won't believe that animals have to be taught to hunt, could use a citation.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • American variations subsection, last sentences of the first paragraph need a citation.
    • Shooting foxes subsection, last sentence of first paragraph and the second (stubby!) paragraph need cites.
    • The opening paragraph of Controversy is uncited. Definitely can use them.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Pest control, second paragraph, last sentences need citations, as well as the last sentence of the fourth paragraph.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Animal welfare, last sentences of the second paragraph needs a citation (I'm guessing PETA would say that it isn't rare) Also last sentence of the third paragraph (I'm guessing that PETA would disagree also)
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Available alternatives, last sentence of the first paragraph needs a cite
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You caught the next to last sentence, but it's really the fact that drag hunts are faster that needs the cite. Not being a foxhunter, I wouldn't think that it would be any faster with a drag than with a live prey one.Ealdgyth | Talk 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Regulation, last two sentences of the first paragraph could use a cite.
Done. MikeHobday (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In popular culture section, need a cite for the fact that the movie has a happy ending compared to the book. Also for the fact that the listed children's books have a pro-fox message.

I'd definitely give the article another look after these have been addressed. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. My humble opinion is that, especially compared to the hounds sections, the horse section is given short shrift, it's a bare summary, not well sourced, lacks detail, is far too sparse. I would oppose this as an FA until this section is expanded, preferably be someone who knows fox hunting horses. I may make a few edits, but I am not an expert on field hunters. I also concur with the comments that the article is a bit choppy. I tweaked it a little, but it will take more than what I did. Also, the materials on attire are not wholly accurate, many critical nuances are missed, I'm not an expert, but the hat thing alone is not properly covered. I don't have time to explain why, but the Chronicle of the Horse forum sort of gives you the picture. Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The references to "fox hunting" in Australia are really a separate subject, and perhaps deserve a different article, wikilinked at the top of the article.MikeHobday (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Notes. Incomplete citations (many missing publishers) and inconsistent citation style (many publishers listed incorrectly as authors, resulting in some publishers before the title, and some after). Inconsistent date linking in the citations, some linked, some not. External link farm should be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT. Incorrect endashes (example, ... hunting bill 2000-2001, with traditionally ... ). Incorrect use of logical quotations. Missing WP:NBSPs. Incorrect WP:MOSBOLD ( ... each have a Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA) which consists ... ) and in the "Red fox" section. Incorrect WP:ITALICS ( ... In Australia, the term "Fox Hunting" is also ... ). WP:SEASON confusion in the "Main hunting season" section (specify each case, Northern and Southern). WP:MOS#Captions problems with punctuation differences between full sentences and sentence fragments. Cite needed tag when I read. Incorrect use of WP:HYPHEN in place of dash (example, ... Hermann Goering on July 3, 1934 in the Reichsjagdgesetz - one of the first laws ... ). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you advise on one point? In many cases, the author is a corporate entity and also publishes its own material. Should it be listed twice? Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, an author is (usually) a person (sometimes something like a study group could be listed as author), a publisher is an entity; just leave author blank when there is none. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Done as much as I can - frankly need some help with the hyphens and dashes. MikeHobday (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Opppose. The lead is misleading, with a very incomplete definition of fox hunting. As defined implicitly by the content of this article, "fox hunting" is humans on foot or on horseback chasing a quarry using a pack of scent hounds that work off lead. I suggest adding a section that clearly distinguishes this form of hunting from others involving dogs. Eg, hunting pigs, where the dogs' job is to trap the quarry until the human arrives to kill it. The human does not chase. Or hunting deer with dogs, where the dogs' job is to go around the quarry and drive it toward the hunter. Here again the human does not chase. Or hunting birds with dogs from on horseback...ditto. Also, the discussion of drag hunting needs expansion; it is my understanding that drag hunting is far more common and popular than the article suggests, but there is an art to laying a good scent trail for the hunt to follow. --Una Smith (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also tell us what happens to the hounds once they retire. --Una Smith (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Lead rephrased more clearly as per suggestion;
Drag hunting already well referred to - it is a separate subject after all
Article already says "hunts ... commonly put down their hounds after their working life has come to an end, which is usually only about half their lives (five or six years)" MikeHobday (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing note: archived with 4 opposes (in case there is a bot delay). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 15 February 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 17:08, 15 February 2008.

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

previous FAC never submitted at WP:FAC

This article has had a recent peer review and just passed GA. I think it meets the criteria for featured article. Please come take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Issue:Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a little misleading to say Simon Peter was the first pope? From what I know the Catholic church was officially formed a couple hundred years after the supposed death of Jesus. Also I never read anything about Jesus wanting to start a church, from what I read he just wanted Peter to lead the apostles to foreign lands and spread his message of love, etc. As the article is currently written it's as if Peter was crowned the title "Pope of the Catholic Church" by Jesus. 76.10.142.30 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? It says right in there "upon this rock I will build my church"...its in any version of the bible.... I suppose you could argue whether he meant it to be the Catholic church instead of a broader definition of "Church", but its definitely accurate. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The article states the Catholic Church originated from the whole Jesus blessing/directing Simon Peter episode. It also states Simon Peter was the first pope. If you're unaware of the problem with such statements than you should read up on early Christian history. Of course it's not the only misconception of the article but only a glaring one right in the lead and first section. I agree with other commentary in regards to a Catholic bias and lack of academic objective sources. 76.10.141.107 (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue with Jesus appointing first Pope was addressed at the GA level and resolved in favor of the current article because the statement is sourced to a book by National Geographic Society - very third party and very reliable. NancyHeise (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I must second the anon's question. How can Simon Peter be the first pope when the church didn't exist then? In History of the Papacy it notes that the church considers him the first pope, but this article does not seem to explain that well and just boldly proclaims he is. Since there is a History of the Catholic Church marked as the main article, the Church history section seems like it is a little long here. Could it be summarized better? There seems to be an excessive number of External Links, many of questionable value. A review of WP:EL and some clean out might be a good idea. The article also seems very unbalanced and biased towards the Catholic Church's view, rather than taking an outside neutral view. This appears to have been brought up multiple times in the article's talk page, and ignored. Alternative/opposing views are not presented regarding RCC's claims regarding the history of the church or Peter, and it seems odd that there appears to be no criticms at all. Considering the recent edit war and per my other remarks, I feel this article fails the first FAC requirement of being "well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable". Collectonian (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue with Jesus appointing first Pope was addressed at the GA level and resolved in favor of the current article because the statement is sourced to a book by National Geographic Society - very third party and very reliable. The history section was rewritten in response to GA reviewers comments, in addition other reviewers asked for specific information to go into that section. I think it is a brief summary of a very long history and we cant shorten it without removing basic important facts. The History section gives facts, not opinion one way or the other, these facts are referenced to very third party non Catholic Church affiliated sources - school textbooks for the most part. This is not POV, this is the most NPOV source I could find to create this history. NancyHeise (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
External links were cleaned up by editor ArielGold. NancyHeise (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to reiterate my earlier oppose. Many issues raised regarding neutrality have not been addressed (simply changing primary references to ones supporting to point of view being pushed is not neutralizing).Collectonian (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it is fine to describe what the Church says of itself, the historical veracity can be discussed elsewhere. The formula this article uses initially "traces its origins to" is good, factual and avoids the POV minefield. However, there bits of this where more reference to the Catechism etc are needed. I mean, the "Origin and Mission" section cites Scripture as its source. That will not do, you need to cite some official document attesting that this is how the Church is interpreting Scripture. Also avoid words like "Catholics believe" - what ALL Catholics? No they do not! We need to be clear that we are speaking of the teaching of the denomination and not all members and adherents. The History section, however, has POV problems. The reformers are described as repudiating "various other Catholic doctrines and practices". However since the Reformers claimed to be Catholics, indeed often the true Catholics, that's decidedly a problematic description. I suspect this article needs to pay a little more attention to some definition of "Catholic", which is an ambiguous and disputed term in itself. The Church claims to the THE Catholic Church, and in sole continuity with the pre-reformation Church, but that title and claim are not straightforward or without POV. The alternative is to stick to the formula of "the church claims" throughout. I suggest this needs some eyes by historians that do not necessarily take a Roman Catholic view for granted.--Docg 20:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed every instance of Catholics believe to "Catholic beleif includes" or "Catholic belief holds". NancyHeise (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue with Jesus appointing first Pope was addressed at the GA level and resolved in favor of the current article because the statement is sourced to a book by National Geographic Society - very third party and very reliable. NancyHeise (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose based on sourcing and NPOV issues. There are also layout issues. I did not read very closely to see whether the prose needed work.
    • External links section is too long
this has been shortened by editor ArielGold NancyHeise (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It is still way too long. Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I will stand in agreement with the decisions made by ArielGold on what to include and exclude here. ArielGold has been repeatedly asked to be an admin and I trust her judgement to be unbiased and done only to improve the article. Please appreciate her work. NancyHeise (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There are 19 links. That is excessive, especially when some of them are linking to the Encyclopedia Britannica, to a US Catholic directory (but not to any for other countries, so just leave this out too), to various pieces of the Vatican website (a link to just www.vatican.va should be sufficient). Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have serious concerns about the sourcing. The vast majority of the citations are to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is considered a self-published source. There have been numerous books written about the Catholic Church, and I would expect the bulk of the citations to come from these independent sources, with a minimal number to those published by or for the Catholic Church.
Addressed by adding more citations to non Catholic church sources. NancyHeise (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The Catholic Church is a very controversial organization, and has been throughout history. I feel this has been whitewashed in this article.

Karanacs (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the history section to see how these issues have been addressed in a very NPOV manner. That already passed GA. Per your concerns, I have added to some sections in history to give a more thorough account with references to textbooks. NancyHeise (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

continued comments from Karanacs (this has been cross-posted on the article talk page as well)

  • Create a separate article called Beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church beliefs. You can then summarize that information here, and it will allow you to go more in-depth in the beliefs article.
This is an unreasonable comment. Looking other church articles, they all have a belief section, this is a core part of a description of what a church is. Karanacs wants to remove the beliefs section of this article and replace it with sections on Catholic art and architecture and science and Criticims of the Church even the most insignificant like Traditionalist Catholics. This is off subject material. The definition of the Roman Catholic Church includes its beliefs, it does not include these other things which do have their own articles that are mentioned in the body of this article and wikilinked.NancyHeise (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This is only a suggestion to reduce the size; not a requirement for my position to change. Karanacs (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In the beliefs section, Bible verses and an interpretation of what they mean are cited directly to the Bible. For example, "Historically, the New Testament contains warnings against teachings considered to be only masquerading as Christianity,". This is original research. There are multiple interpretations of just about every verse in the Bible, and these types of statements should be able to be sourced to a reliable, third-party source (or two or three).
This is an unreasonable comment. The Bible verses in the Belief section are accompanied with Catechism refs that directly show the relation of the Bible verse to the Church teaching about that verse.NancyHeise (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed some of the wording to show only what Jesus says when it is referenced to a bibleref and added another textbook ref to support the Catholic translation commentary in this section. Every statment has appropriate references not only to Bible and Catechism but also to this third party textbook.NancyHeise (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
More examples of this type of issue noted on article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Need to expand on the influence of the Catholic Church on art and architecture. There is only one sentence on architechture in the history sentence, which does not really convey the Church's tremendous impact on this field.
This is an unreasonable comment. The article is about the Church, not the church's impact on art and architecture. There is a See Also at the top of the history section of this article directing the reader to three articles that address this in detail. Per GA reviewer and Peer Reviewers, the history section was deemed too long with the section on Art and Architecture so a new page was made for that material and it is one of those referenced at the top of history section. FA criteria requires the page to stay on subject, not stray into every possible area in order to keep it from being too long. I am sorry but the consensus of editors does not support this comment of Karanacs. NancyHeise (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The Church's impact on the world around it is a HUGE part of its history, but that is not summarized properly in this article. Per WP:SUMMARY, when you spin off content into a child article, the parent article should still contain the highlights from that information, and this does not. Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • POV issues:
  • There's no mention of the continued religious fights in Ireland between Protestants and Catholics
The subject is the Roman Catholic Church, not relationships of Catholics with other peoples. The Church is not fighting the Protestants in Ireland. Irish people are fighting Irish people in Ireland and they are divided over much more than religious differences, like economic . NancyHeise (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
With so much discussion of persecution of Catholics in earlier parts of the history section, it seems wise to include at least a mention that in some parts of the world Catholics are still persecuted (if not Ireland, than some African and Asian? nations). Karanacs (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no mention of the Traditional movement in Catholicism - the people who are unhappy with the reforms of the Second Vatican Council
honestly I don't think this is an issue. If it belongs anywhere it should go in the Criticism of the Catholic Church article.NancyHeise (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly believe that there is an issue with the citations in this article. WP is based on verifiability, meaning that information can be found to verify a fact in a source that is not selfpublished. There are literally thousands of books written about the Catholic Church since its founding (Amazon lists over 42000), by both people within the church hierarchy and those without. These sources should be used instead of the official church writings or random websites, and, for a subject such as this, even before newspaper and other media sources.

***Catholic Fun Facts, culturalcatholic.com

      • Major Branches of Religions. adherents.com.
      • Chart of Catholic & Protestant Beliefs from ReligionFacts
      • Robinson, B.A. (2007). Comparing the beliefs of Roman Catholics with those of conservative Protestants. Religious Tolerance.org.
      • Messianic & Apocalyptic Biblical Texts", UNCC.edu, 24 October 2007.
      • Scott, Jr, J. Julius (1992). The Jerusalem Council, The Cross Cultural Challenge in the First Century. Wheaton College. Retrieved on 2008-01-30.
      • The Great Schism: The Estrangement of Eastern and Western Christendom. Orthodox Christian Information Center. Retrieved on 2008-02-09.
      • Applied History Research Group (1997). The End of Europe's Middle Ages. University of Calgary. Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
      • Anastos, Milton V.. Constantinople and Rome. Myriobiblos Library. Retrieved on 2008-02-09.
      • King Henry VIII. History Mole. DOI:2008-02-01.
      • Knox, Skip. The Reformation in Germany. Boise State University.
      • Council of Trent. Boise State University. Retrieved on 2008-02-02.
      • Shimabara Castle. Japan National Tourist Organization. Retrieved on 2008-02-02.
      • Sommerville, Professor J.P.. Louis XIV, Religion and dissension. University of Wisconsin. Retrieved on 2008-02-02.
      • Terry, Karen; et al (2004). John Jay Report. John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
All of these references have been deleted and replaced with textbooks or library books you approve of. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The sources should not be used by themselves because they are published by the subject of the article (the Catholic Church)
      • Paul VI, Pope (1964-11-21). Lumen Gentium. Chapter 3. Vatian.
      • Catechism of the Catholic Church
      • Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 2 paragraph 15. Libreria Editrice Vaticana (1964).
      • 1983 Code of Canon Law. Vatican.
      • Sacrosanctum Concilium. Vatican
      • Humanae Vitae. Vatican.
      • Apostolic Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone. Vatican.
      • Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
    • The Bible should not be used as a source for an interpretation of the words in the Bible - that is WP:OR.

Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Self published sources are allowed to be used if they are defining the teachings of the church and especially if they can not be obtained from other sources. I have added more refs to compliment these throughout the belief and community sections - specifically to a textbook on Catholic religious education - not self published.NancyHeise (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

However even though I disagree, I added third party sources to each of these concerns to satisfy your comments here. NancyHeise (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
These sources are still self-published (not by the Church):
    • von Hase, Karl August (1855). A History of the Christian Church. D. Appleton and Company. Retrieved on 2008-02-02.
    • Halsall, Paul (1997). The Chinese Rites Controversy, 1715. Internet Modern History Sourcebook. Retrieved on 2008-02-02.
    • a b c Abridged History of Rome - Part III. Romeartlover.it. Retrieved on 2008-02-02.
    • Roman Catholic Church. theotherside (2000-10-23). Retrieved on 2008-02-02.

Karanacs (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, it is not always evident to me when something is self published and I am trusting that you are more experienced at this than I am that is why I have so painstakingly attended to your comments and addressed them to your full satisfaction. I need a book that my daughter uses in her religion history class at school and I will not be able to address these until later tonight. Thanks again. NancyHeise (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments Karanacs (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Some refs are missing the publisher, author, access date or publishing date.

Epbr123 (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Refs have all been checked and corrected to make sure they include this info. NancyHeise (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The Concordate with Nazi Germany, Opus Dei as fundamentalist offspring, Ignatius of Loyola and his Society of Jesus with all its negative forms of Counter-Reformation, would give a more balanced view on the history of RCC, which has really dark and ugly spots. But my favorit sentence on crusade is failed to stifle Islamic aggression this has to get a little more balanced.--Stone (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, that line in particular made me laugh out loud! It's the most obvious of the NPOV issues, but by all means not the only one. I honestly don't think there is enough time in the FAC process for this article to be fixed, and I encourage Nancy to withdraw the nomination for now, work on the NPOV and sourcing issues, and bring it back in a few weeks/months. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Note: the Crusades paragraph has been rewritten. This statement is taken out and the paragraph is much more NPOV. The history section is almost at NPOV; some things are still being discussed at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
NOMINATORS RESPONSE TO ABOVE COMMENTS: This is the second article that I have attempted to bring to FA. The first made it see Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. These are my answers to your statements above:
  • I have cited very third party and very reliable sources for calling St. Peter the first pope - see National Geographic source especially.
  • The Catechism is a self published source that is used to create the Beliefs section of the article and none other. What source should I be using to compile this section? It seems to me that if you write an article on a church and you are creating a beliefs section, you would go to the direct source - the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
  • History section is not whitewashed. Please read the History section to find all dark spots wikilinked and appropriately mentioned in this brief history of this 2000 year old organiztion. If I were to delve into all of the dark spots and expand, then to be NPOV, I would have to do the same with the bright spots - then the article would be too long for FA. Thus, everything is mentioned in brief with main articles listed at the top in See Also or wikilinked in the body. Karanacs seems to be fond of dark spots but does not realize that it is POV to expand on them without expanding on the good - and there is quite a lot of good in fact much more than the bad if you really consider the hospitals and schools and orphanages and etc etc throughout history. A lot of rich and poor people have found help in the church but it doesnt get reported or remembered for some reason.
  • The lead section is not too short and does properly summarize the article. IF you click on Edit this page you will see that the appropriate information exists but since the article is somehow locked, for some reason what is in the lead never makes it to the actual page. I don't know how to change that.

I would appreciate reviewers not placing POV comments here as seems to be happening. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The lock is a protection lock to keep anon and newer users from editing it. I've fix the lead for you (there was an unclosed named reference). Collectonian (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is supposed to present a balanced view – both what the Church thinks/says/does and how other people interpret what the Church thinks/says/does. Articles need to rely on reliable sources when at all possible. I would wager there have been many books written on the Catholic Church that discuss in depth what the Church believes and how those beliefs have changed over time. Those should be cited first, and then (and only then), should you fill in with information from a self-published source. Articles about controversial topics should especially rely on an abundance of independent, quality reliable sources, and this article does not. I do agree with you that the Church has done a lot of good as well as a lot of bad, but the bad has been almost completely ignored, and some of the good has also. The Church is responsible for much of the passion for art and architecture of the Renaissance, but that information isn't in here either. Karanacs (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article was created using the FA Islam as a guide. Islam relies extensively on the Quaran when creating its belief section, as is appropriate to this type of article. It does not use other viewpoints when creating the article because its purpose is to give the reader a definition of what Islam is - not a commentary of the issue. I have done the same thing with this article. It is a definition of what the Roman Catholic Church is. While there exist many differing personal opinions about how good or bad the Catholic Church is, these opinions are included in the article Criticism of the Catholic Church which is appropriately wikilinked in the See Also section. I eliminated three obscure see also's and now the See Also section of this article is no longer than that of Islam. Thirty two of the references in the reference list are to non-Catholic Church, third party reliable sources. Catholic Church linked references such as the Catechism are used only to provide a source for comments that describe what the Church teaches and believes or holds as a rule, in keeping with the example of the FA Islam.NancyHeise (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, a commentator above, stated that there is some POV problem with this sentence in the History section: "Lasting a period of just over one hundred years, these crusades ultimately failed to stifle Islamic aggression and even contributed to Christian enmity with the sacking and occupation of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.[71]" As you can see, this comment is referenced, it is not just someone's opinion. If you will take a look, it is referenced to a very third party, very reliable reference. I don't appreciate the above reviewer making reference to only part of the sentence when you can clearly see that the full sentence is in no way flattering to Roman Catholic Church history and can hardly be called POV. It is simply factual. NancyHeise (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Some pictures have been eliminated per FA reviewers comments. Also, I put all refs in proper format per another reviewers comments here.NancyHeise (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also added more info and very third party reference expanding on role of the church during WWII and criticism. NancyHeise (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Changing to Oppose The Lead could use a little work on summarizing the article, but While, I see no problems with POV or references, a more thorough reading reveals a lack of some key points: Tridentine Mass, Post V2 Traditionalists, etc.--Mike Searson (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support vote - I added to the lead paragraph per your comment. NancyHeise (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "Catholics are taught that there are sins of commission, we sin when we do them; and sins of omission, we sin when we fail to do them. Jesus preaches that his way leads to the fullness of life and love and following him leads the person to this fullness. Sin is the opposite of following Jesus (...)." This section needs some cleanup, it seems to mix specific Catholic beliefs and general Christian teachings about Jesus.
"although the word 'church' is what Catholic places of worship are called." Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I know all Christian places of worship are referred to as 'church'. Squash Racket (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I reworded the section and added a couple of references to the Catechism and Gospel to address your comment. Let me know what you think. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I am copy and pasting SquashRackets comments regarding this article from my talk page. NancyHeise (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not that big theology expert, so I could only do some minor changes. I advise you to contact User:Lima who seems to know more about the Catholic Church than me and also seems to be an active editor. I try to keep an eye on the process though. I think the article will be FA one way or another, it would only be better if real experts checked it. It looks nice. Squash Racket (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


I have addressed each one of Karanacs comments here. Specifically, I added content in the History section addressing issues Karanacs says were missing. I eliminated all refs that Karanacs did not like and replaced them with refs Karanacs said were OK - textbooks and library books. I added refs throughout the article wherever Karanacs had posted a Citation Needed tag including supplementing Catechism references with textbook refs on religion. Some of Karanacs comments I did not agree with and did not implement citing conflict with previous peer review and GA reviewer agreements on how to treat issues. NancyHeise (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Citation needed tag needs to be removed from this article. NancyHeise (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Original research tag needs to be removed from this article because every concern of Karanacs has been addressed. Specifically, every bibleverse ref that has commentary also has a ref to the third party textbook on Catholic belief. There is no commentary that is left without a ref to this third party source. There is a sentence that states what Jesus says in the Gospel with no commentary in the same sentence. That sentence just has the bibleref and the end. The commentary follows and is refed to the third party ref and catechism. There should be a list of specific concerns by Karanacs if the tag is not removed after this comment. NancyHeise (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed Karanacs comments in full yet many of those comments are not crossed out. Whole sections remain unaddressed by Karanacs especially the concerns over citations and original research which have clearly been resolved to a degree beyond Wikipedia standards due to Karanacs insistance. After answering all of Karanacs concerns which even concerned the history section, this editor has decided to reinvent the history section with completely new concerns that are not concerns to anyone else. I have a difficult time believing that this person is not trying to be obstructionistic to the progession of this article to FA. The original research tag that Karanacs added to the page remains even though these issues have been sufficiently addressed. As such, I am removing the tag and would appreciate a list of reasons if the tag is replaced. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I looked over Karanacs additions and changes to the history section. I made some minor adjustments and I think it is fine. NancyHeise (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Papal infallibility gets two bare passing mentions in the article. It's a central identifying feature of the church and has been the topic of vigorous and broad discussion. There is absolutely no mention of the Roman Curia. struck comments addressed/partially addressed 13:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC) The earliest part of the church history section deals with a version of early Christian history, rather than with the early history of the Roman Catholic Church as discussed by academics. That section needs to be replaced with what reliable sources report about the origin of the Catholic Church. For example, one of the earliest mentions of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome occurs in the 4th century in the results of the First Council of Nicaea. Even then, the Roman Catholic Pope (Bishop of Rome) was not the sole authority, as the Bishop of Alexandria was granted similar authority. This POV problem is represented in the infobox, which reports that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in Jersusalem around 30 AD. All in all, this article has major holes in coverage and some significant problems with presenting the Catholic POV as fact. Vassyana (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassayana brought this same issue up over and over again before the GA review. This issue of Bishop of Rome has been resolved in favor of the current article at the GA level and should not be repeatedly brought up. There are two very reliable references and neutralizing language used here to support it. Papal Infallibility like numerous other issues that people think are "central" is mentioned and wikilinked so the reader can find out more elsewhere. In the section on Beliefs, the pope is mentioned as being the highest authority and I have included a new mention of papal infallibility there to satisfy Vassayana's comment here. NancyHeise (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

also added mention of Roman Curia - both papal infallibilibty and roman curia are good comments and important to mention here. bishop of rome issue was resolved by the evidence of consensus of historians in various third party books, most notably the National Geographic "Geography of Religion" which is used as the reference supporting the entry in the article.NancyHeise (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No such "consensus of historians" was ever established. Regardless, the "Bishop of Rome issue" is one small part of a broader problem. As I mentioned, the earliest history is presented as a version of early Chrisitian history. The origin of the Roman Catholic Church (a sect of Christianity) is not the same as the origin of Christianity. Vassyana (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
For a contested fact, it is usually best to either a) cite it to multiple independent reliable sources, or b) present both sides of the controversy (without giving undue weight to either side). Since several people have mentioned this very concern on this page, it is likely time to pick one of these methods to strengthen your position. Karanacs (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Further comment. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me clarify the foundation of my objection regarding the early church history presented in the article: Bart Ehrman, Harry Maier, Jaroslav Pelikan, James Tabor, Joseph Tyson, Carsten Peter Thiede, Elaine Pagels and Philip Esler all posit (in varying versions) that early Christianity was a diverse religion with orthodoxy (as reflected in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox branch of the faith) developing alongside competing sects over the first few centuries of the religion's existence before establishing and imposing itself firmly. They all also address earliest Christianity as a tension between Judaic and Hellenistic tendencies and doctrines, also with a diverse spectrum of belief. These experts are all highly respected for their scholarly work and they represent a fairly decent spectrum of scholarly opinion. Presenting the earliest history of the Roman Catholic Church as identical to early Christian history is simply contrary to the picture painted by reputable scholars. Vassyana (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassayana's position was not the position of the consensus of editors in both the peer and GA review. The book by National Geographic was written in consultation with the top historians and advisors in the world listed in both the front and back of the book. This is not a self published source, it is a collaboration of historians and is by far the best reference anyone could use for this article. It is very third party and very reliable source. While there are many opinions on the roots of Christianity, there is no one who can bring forth a better, more reliable reference than what already exists in the article. It was also the consensus of editors that the language used is neutral in this article. "traces its origins" is not the same as "it origins are". What Vassayana is proposing is unreasonable and is not the consensus of editors. For more approvals of what exists, please see other editors comments on my talk page. This issue should not be part of FA if it has already passed GA. Please respect that. NancyHeise (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There was not a clear consensus regarding this. We settled the matter in the form of a compromise for the infobox (some of which, I notice now, has been reverted). I withdrew myself from the debate because it didn't seem like at the time we were proposing anything new. However, I believe I established through multiple, reliable sources, that the traditional view isn't the only notable view. That not only are there prominent Catholic scholars who disagree, but other secular historians. I agree with Vassayana that the Roman Empire subsection needs more balance. And you also neglect to mention that Vassayana was the first person to reviewed this for GA, and it failed on January 17th. These issues were raised back then, where never settled on the talk page, and should still be addressed if FA is the intention. Just because another reviewer didn't mention it during the next GA doesn't mean we get an easy pass to ignore this important NPOV issue here at the FA.-Andrew c [talk] 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's also not unusual for scholars to disagree. While a very highly respected scholar may agree with what is in the author, another, equally respected scholar may disagree. Per WP:NPOV, the differing opinions should be given appropriate weight in the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I listed a cross-section of academics representing a collection of several of the most prominent and well-regarded scholars of early Christian history from various schools of thought. I hardly think it's "unreasonable" to ask that the article does not baldly present claims counter to the overwhemingly dominant view in modern scholarship. Vassyana (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
But you are forgetting one key point: that a National Geographic reference work trumps your alleged "modern scholarship". :Þ In all seriousness, I agree with Karanacs, that we shouldn't take sides, and that per NPOV, we should present all notable views with appropriate weight. I have a feeling though, with Vassyana's claim that a more skeptical/critical view is dominant, and Nancy's claim that millions and millions of catholics hold the "traditional" view, we may not come to an agreement on weight issues. So at least for the time being, we should try to introduce balance and differing perspectives.-Andrew c [talk] 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh. :) Regardless of how it is resolved, it should all be reliably referenced from on-topic reputable sources. Vassyana (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It is reasoning like this that makes articles like this end up with a locked page like FA Islam. I suggest that the ultimate FA reviewer look at the sources being offered and make a decision based on the most reliable and most third party source. That is what I have done and the GA reviewer. Vassayana's first attempt at GA failed because this editor holds a radical POV view that is not the consensus of historians as revealed by the sources I have that will stand with National Geographic. IN particular, the book Saints and Sinners by Eamon Duffy published by Yale University Press and was a 10 hour documentary with S4C. Here's their quote on page 1 "Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum (Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church and I will give to thee the keys of the KIngdom of Heaven). Set there to crown the grave of the Apostle, ...they are designed to proclaim the authority of the man whom almost a billion Christians look to as the living heir of Peter. With these words, it is believed, Christ made Peter prince of the Apostles and head of the Church on earth: generation by generation, that role has been handed on to Peter's successors, the popes. ..... The continuity between Pope and Apostle rests on traditions which stretch back almost to the very beginning of the written records of Christianity. It was already well established by the year 180AD, when the early Christian writer Irenaeus of Lyons invoked it in defence of orthodox Christianity. The Church of Rome was for him the 'great and illustrious Church' to which, 'on account of its commanding position, every church, that is the faithful everywhere, must resort'. Iranaeus thought that the Church had been 'founded and organised at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul,' and that its faith had been reliably passed down to posterity by an unbroken succession of bishops, the first of them chosen and consecrated by the Apostles themselves. He named the bishops who had succeeded the Apostles, in the process providing us with the earliest surviving list of the popes - Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, and so on down to Irenaeus' contemporary and friend Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome from AD 174 to 189." This first paragraph is then referenced to this footnote "Most of the early texts bearing on the history of the papacy up to the reign of Damascus I are conveniently collected and translated into English in J.T. Shotwell and L.R. Loomis, The See of Peter, New York 1927, reprinted in 1991. The passage from Irenaeus' Contra Haereses III cited in the text will be found at pp.265-72. The next paragraph in Saints and Sinners this author goes on to discuss how there are no written records of Peters later life, that part of history was orally passed and accepted by the greatest minds of the early church - Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. So I am going to ask you all to tell me, if there were no written records of these events except what we have from Irenaeus who recorded it in 180AD - about 150 years after Jesus death - how can anyone say that historical evidence proves otherwise? This is why National Geographic sided with written historical record instead of some people's fantastical speculation for which there are absolutely no early historical records to support. NancyHeise (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The list of scholars I provided is composed of prominent and highly regarded academics who represent a broad swath of opinions. Addressing your misuse of Duffy's work, it would have behooved you to read past the first page to get the entire context (struck because I better read your comments which indicate you did read that far, but simply were dishonest in the presentation of the source):
“ All the essential claims of the modern papacy, it might seems, are contained in this Gospel saying about the Rock, and in Ireneaus' account of the apostolic pedigree of the early bishops of Rome. Yet matters are not so simple. ”

—Duffy. Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes. Page 2.
“ These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest n minds of the early Church -- Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve. ”

—Duffy. Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes. Page 2.
The very source you provided argues against you, leading me to worry what other sources may have been similarly cherry-picked or misused. In addition to any other remaining issues, this particular exchange leads me to believe that a source audit by an outside party is needed. Vassyana (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
ACCUSATIONS OF CHERRYPICKING ADDRESSED: Vassayana has accused me of cherrypicking - yes - I cherrypicked from the book Saints and Sinners. What I cherrypicked was the actual facts, not the writers speculation. I did not use the book Saints and Sinners as the documented reference for listing Jesus as the founder of the Roman Catholic Church. I used National Geographic Society "Geography of Religion" which is a better source. In making my decision on what content to put in this article, I made use of three school textbooks, two are non-Catholic school and one Catholic school textbook plus the National Geographic book and Saints and Sinners. Traditionally (the language used in this article) Jesus is considered to be the founder of the Church in Rome based on his consecration of Peter in the historical document of the Gospel account of Matthew, considered by historians to be an eyewitness account. The earliest written record of Christian history is ST. Irenaeus. There are no written records to support the opposing view in this article. I used the written record, the best sources and tossed the speculative comment by Duffy based on what other sources were saying using just the available facts. That is what an editor is supposed to do. Vassayana will instead overlook the written record and jump into the speculation ignoring other better historical sources and opinions like National Geographic. If Wikipedia really wants to destroy its reputation, it will side with Vassayana on this one. I have offered the more factual and historically accurate version. NancyHeise (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

New Tags by Karanacs The history section of this article passed both peer and GA review. It is not only sufficiently referenced. It is very sufficiently referenced. Karanacs has decided that the paragraph on the Inquisition is not accurate and has replaced it with a version that is very inaccurate according to my three history books. I replaced the version with my previous one based on other editors who protested Karanacs additions as incorrect. Karanacs has responded with placeing a Disputed section tag on the article. The section is not disputed. Karanacs does not have consensus of editors or GA or peer review for her version. My version does have these things and they are referenced. I don't see how this editor can be helping this article with these maneuvers, this is more like harrassment or obstructionism. NancyHeise (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, this is not the place to complain about tags. The article page is the appropriate forum. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed section of history compared

This is the text that Karanacs disputes that passed GA and peer review as factually accurate and NPOV: "The Medieval Inquisition in 1252 was part of the campaign against the Cathars also known as Albigensianism. At the time, heresy was seen as an attack on both the state and the Church and any remedy was considered acceptable, even torture.[21] The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions were Church approved but state controlled campaigns that began in 1478 at the request of the Spanish monarchs.[21] It was developed in part out of the effort to drive out the Moors. Anyone suspected of following a faith other than Christianity was arrested.[1] Although the pope issued strict guidelines about how to conduct these trials, abuses occurred including torture and execution.[21] The Roman Inquisition persecuted Jews, beggars and prostitutes as well as Protestants in Rome under Pope Paul IV from 1555-1559.[9] Galileo Galilei was among those tried as heretics under this inquisition."

This is Karanacs version which doesn't match the three school textbooks I have used to create the section: "The Inquisitions were intended to identify and prosecute heretics. The accused were encouraged to recant their heresy and those who did not could be punished by fine, imprisonment, or execution by burning. In 1252, the Church authorized torture as a method of questioning.[81] Some of the Inquisitions also prosecuted bigamy, usury, witchcraft, apostasy, and blasphemy, and some accusations were made for political rather than religious purposes.[81] Scientists, including Galileo Galilei, were also subject to the Inquisition."

A reader looking at Karanacs version would think that torture was approved for all the inquisitions when it was only approved for the 1252 one and that Galileo was tortured when he was really sentenced to house arrest. NancyHeise (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, please see the discussion on the talk page, as I have submitted several versions of this and am trying to reach consensus. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a consensus - it passed GA and peer review and even the editors you are talking to now disagree with you - you are the only editor to object and from your edits it is clear you are a POV problem for the advancement of this page to FA. I do not think you are NPOV enough to be the FA reviewer for this article anymore. NancyHeise (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

maybe Karanacs should not be copyediting this article

This is her edit to the last paragraph of Middle ages that appears just before Reformation section: "Respect for the Church and papal authority declined in the late Middle Ages due to these internal disagreements, clerical corruption and abuses of power, and perceived misuse of finances. Some ordained men were considered hypocrites, as they live luxurious lifestyles or maintained mistresses and fathered illegitimate children.[21]"

That edit is referenced to the source I used. I put that reference in the article at the end of this sentence that she removed and the one that passed GA and peer review. "The late Middle Ages saw a decline in respect for the Church and papal authority because of these internal disagreements, clerical corruption like simony and nepotism, abuses of power, and perceived misuse of finances. The hypocrisy of some ordained men who lived luxurious lifestyles, who had mistresses and illegitimate children spawned a new age in Christianity that brought these abuses to task. This was the beginning of the Reformation.[21]" That is what the reference says - not what Karanacs copyedited it to be. Her version makes the sentence a POV problem and inaccurate. Help! NancyHeise (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, Nancy, FAC is not the place for this. Please discuss on the article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
When someone is actively destroying an FA candidate I think it belongs on the FA talk page. I worked to bring a Wikipedia article up to FA status and you are doing your best to destroy it. NancyHeise (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Break 1 RC

NOTE TO FA REVIEWER I have given a good faith effort to bring this article up to FA. I have answered at lenghth all of everyone's oppose comments. None have changed their vote even though their concerns have been addressed and incorporated. The editor Karanacs is actively trying to obstruct the advancement of this article to FA with unreasonable changes, edits to referenced material that then makes the material not match the reference and against the consensus of editors. I do not consider Karanacs an NPOV editor to this article but an obstructionist. I offer to work with an FA reviewer who is sincere about bringing the article up to FA but I will no longer be a part of this FA process as long as Karanacs is allowed to harrass and obstruct. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith with the editors here. User:Karanacs and User:Vassyana are both pointing out rather obtrusive problems with the article that need to be address if it is to become an FA. Shooting the messenger does not remove the problems that this article currently suffers from, namely the WP:NPOV problems mentioned above. No one here wants to see this article's candidacy "destroyed" in any fashion. On the contrary, every editor here would be more than happy for an article on such an important topic to become an FA, but it is necessary for it to meet all the criteria, which the aforementioned users are pointing out. Please keep your comments limited to discussion of the article's content and the like instead of attacking editors, as it only hurts your chances of bringing the article up to standard. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
difficulty getting knowledgeable people to help

This comment was on my talk page after an admin asked me to consult with this person he considered an expert. This is what that person said:

I am sorry that I have not been able to intervene as requested. Perhaps I am not the best person to ask to polish an article, rather than merely to search out factual information. Besides, I fear that an editor who has taken a dislike to me and my editing might be drawn to intervene in what you and I would consider to be a negative way. Perhaps, too, people with prejudices against what the article is about will in any case make it impossible for you to achieve your aim, no matter how perfect you make the form of the article. Lima (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


I think it is clear that people like me who are trying to build a non POV article get harrassed by people who are somehow anti-Catholic and wish to turn these Wikipedia pages into propaganda against the Catholic church. I am very discouraged working with Karanacs after seeing her edits to the sensitive issues of Crusades and Inquisitions. I think her edits are very POV, mine were neutral - they told the plain facts. She has spun those facts into something that makes it POV. Other editors have said the same thing, she is the one owning the page and not listening to others. I am trying to bring an important article to FA - this editor is doing her best to block that effort. NancyHeise (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One issue I see throughout this discussion, that bears clearing up, is a repeated reference to what passed peer review and good article review. GA is not a community process; FAC is. Whatever passed GA isn't relevant to a featured article candidacy. A review of the suggestions at the WP:FAC instructions may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Also, the peer review got scanty input, and an article doesn't "pass" peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Sandy, passing GA and peer review isn't exactly the greatest accolade in the world in most cases, as the former varies drastically on the reviewer and the latter usually doesn't get much critical input (unfortunately). Nancy, I must again ask you to assume good faith with the editors here, and accept the fact that you must consider outside, reliable sources independent of the Catholic Church to address the issues they are bringing up. None of the editors here are pushing an anti-Catholic viewpoint, they are ensuring that all points of view are represented. Especially for such controversial topics such as the Crusades and the Inquisition, all points of view must be given proper weight, the good and the bad. To be absolutely frank, this nomination will never succeed until all points of view are adequately represented for these issues, and I highly recommend that you cease your ad hominem attacks on the users here and work with them so this nomination can have a chance at passing. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd suggest eliminating the infobox since it's a lightning rod for argument. Take a look at other denominational articles such as Lutheran Church. Rather than using an infobox it features a portal banner. Perhaps the Catholicism WikiProject banner could be used in place of the infobox.
Also, beef up content on Eastern Catholic Churches, which are mentioned in the lead but appear only in passing elsewhere. I'd suggest a short (3-4 sentence) section, nothing more, which branches to the main article on Eastern Catholic Churches. Best, Majoreditor (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've added a section break. A little curious why a section on Sacraments got inserted into "Church and Papal Authority" (see also WP:MOSHEAD). It wasn't there a month ago. Gimmetrow 05:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw that and just moved/merged it where it should be, I trimmed some extraneous text and added a sentence or two as well. I'm thinking the article needs mention of the Traditional Mass as opposed to just the Novus Ordo Missae and the role of traditionalists post V2.--Mike Searson (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
ACCUSATIONS OF CHERRYPICKING ADDRESSED: Vassayana has accused me of cherrypicking - yes - I cherrypicked from the book Saints and Sinners. What I cherrypicked was the actual facts, not the writers speculation. I did not use the book Saints and Sinners as the documented reference for listing Jesus as the founder of the Roman Catholic Church. I used National Geographic Society "Geography of Religion" which is a better source. In making my decision on what content to put in this article, I made use of three school textbooks, two are non-Catholic school and one Catholic school textbook plus the National Geographic book and Saints and Sinners. Traditionally (the language used in this article) Jesus is considered to be the founder of the Church in Rome based on his consecration of Peter in the historical document of the Gospel account of Matthew, considered by historians to be an eyewitness account. The earliest written record of Christian history is ST. Irenaeus. There are no written records to support the opposing view in this article. I used the written record, the best sources and tossed the speculative comment by Duffy based on what other sources were saying using just the available facts. That is what an editor is supposed to do. Vassayana will instead overlook the written record and jump into the speculation ignoring other better historical sources and opinions like National Geographic. If Wikipedia really wants to destroy its reputation, it will side with Vassayana on this one. I have offered the more factual and historically accurate version. NancyHeise (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) A book by a popular writer (in the sense of the genre) with no qualifications in the field published by a popular science publisher (again, genre) is most certainly does not trump a book published by a professional academic through an academic press. Such an assertion turns reliable sourcing standards on their head. Furthermore, such cherry-picking is against the grain of the basic content policies of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. Sources need to be accurately represented. All notable views need to be presented. Dominant Catholic views and dominant academic views need to presented as such. While there is an amount of editorial discretion, editors are expected to avoid cherry-picking for their favored view and NPOV (presenting all notable views) is "non-negotiable". Vassyana (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'm a bit concerned that the Gospel of Matthew is being characterized as "considered by historians to be an eyewitness account." especially as Gospel of Matthew right here on Wikipedia says "Secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus' ministry." Ealdgyth | Talk 15:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Working with editors- I am willing to work with editors. I thank all of you for coming to this page and giving your input. I am especially happy to see that another Catholic person who is knowledgeable about the Catholic Church is here to help. It should not be just me and Karanacs on an article of such importance. I do not feel that we alone are sufficient to bring the aritcle up to FA. Without your help and input, we will be locked in time wasting back and forth. Please stick around and help. I would like to see this article be a tool of information - non-POV in either direction - for children like my own to see when they are doing research for school. The only reason why I am here editing Wikipedia is that I think it can be a tool of information or propaganda. I would prefer that this page not be propaganda. There have been editors saying things on the talk page like Vassayana who thinks that Jesus did not found the Church. Did the Church Jesus founded disappear? Who founded the Catholic Church? No historical text says that it was anyone else, they just say they don't know or they cite Irenaeus, the only written source. There have been editors who want to say the Catholics are not Christians. This page and editors like me have had to put up with a lot of really screwed up logic. It would help if some knowledgable admins who really care about facts could help out here. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on the infobox - I like the infobox because it really helps give the reader a snapshot of the church. When I am editing Wikipedia I try to keep in mind that children often use Wikipedia as a source for information. If a child were to look at this page with no infobox, they would have to read through a huge lengthy page just to begin to grasp the subject. The infobox gives you a nice picture and a snapshot. Obviously this is just my opinion. I value other non-POV editors opinions who really care about making the ariticle informative and not turning it into propaganda. NancyHeise (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Papal infallibility is at least now defined in the article. However, there is still a complete lack of discussion, even in passing, of why, how and/or when the doctrine arose. The Roman Curia now has an exceeding brief passing mention, but neither their origin, enumeration nor purpose are really addressed in the article. Vassyana (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Just my opinion but I dont think that theses issues need any more expansion. Papal infallibility is mentioned also in the Beliefs intro as one of the points that Eastern Orthodox are out of agreement with Catholics on. It is wikilinked both here and in the section discussing the Pope so the reader can learn more about that issue on another whole Wikipedia page. Since papal infallibility has only been used twice in the whole history of the church (the doctrine of the Immmaculate Conception of Mary and the Ordination only reserved for men) and these issues are noted on the Wikipedia link for that article, I don't think it is a central issue that deserves any more mention. Roman Curia, likewise has its own Wikipeida page. Mentioning it without going into boring detail lets the page be a core page about the Church that is not cluttered up with in depth discussions about things that are already covered in linked pages. The article becomes too long and boring when you get technical and you don't have to do that to the page if there are subpages. You mention and wikilink. If someone wants to add more info I don't care but I would prefer not too much expansion. NancyHeise (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Some things do need to be explained briefly in this article though. Having just a statement with a wikilink is great for people who already have at least a limited understanding of the topic, but people who are wholly unfamiliar with the term/concept will be confused. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the historical sections being incredibly muddled and wrong in some sections.
  • None of the history section is referenced to anything academic. School textbooks are not a good source for information, as they are often simplified and out of date. Neither is a book published by the National Geographic society. This is a contentious subject you are best served by using the best possible sources.

I just checked the page on Verifiablility and it says that you can use "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications" National Geographic is a mainstream publication - the most respected publication in the field of history and archeology. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • At a quick glance - "Beginning in the 11th century some older cathedral schools developed into universities." which is sourced to a web site and greatly simplifies the whole question. The cathedral schools did not directly become universities, but rather the cathedral schools attracted peripheral scholars who set up their own guilds, or universities, to teach in addition to the cathedral schools. Besides, the web site for that cite doesn't say anything close to what it being cited to. I'm sure the book the web site is about does, but you need to cite the book itself, not the website review of the book.
I will look into that Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Another BIG difference between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches is the approach to clerical celibacy, which arrose in the middle ages. That isn't mentioned at all. You also neglect to mention it up in the Beliefs section.
The Eastern Rite Catholic Churches - they are part of the Roman Catholic Church answerable to the Pope - has married priests. I dont think that needs to be distinguished in that section.NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You've muddled time frames with discussing the Cistercians along with the friars. Cistercians were founded a 100 years before the friars, and avoided towns. By placing them together you imply that the Cistercians were involved in the towns, which they empatically were not.
Good point, we were trying to be concise. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact, Innocent III preached a crusade, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars.There were a number of other heresies that caused the foundation of the inqusitions.
I just listed the one in my sources. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Who is this English pope? You're talking about the 14th century, and then link to Nicholas Breakspear, who is from the 12th??? And Adrian IV didn't reside in Rome because of he faced a revolt lead by Arnold of Brescia, which I suppose had something to do with his health, but France wasn't a powerful country at the time of Adrian's election, it was still under Louis VII. And Adrian did NOT reside in Avignon. I believe you mean Pope Clement V here, not Adrian. Clement was a Gascon, not an Englishman, and while he was a subject of the King of England, it was only because the King of England was also Duke of Aquitaine (or Gascony).
Perhaps you would like to help the article and make that edit? NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Technically, the French did not "control" Avignon, and current historical scholarship leans towards the belief that while the first couple of Avignonese popes were intimidated by the French monarchy, the later ones were not so much under the control of the French, and that other reasons kept them away from Rome.

I invite you to come make changes to the history section, we could use some more editors on this important project. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The way the Great Schism is described, it leads one to believe that only two men claimed to be pope during this time. There were actually several different men on each side, not just two.

I invite you to come make changes. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Luther actually owed very little of his thought to the Renaissance, and saying that the Reformation repudiated the seven sacraments and the Eucharist isn't exactly correct. Various reformers rejected various parts of the sacraments, and rejected parts of the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. I think the Lutherans would object to being told they reject the Eucharist and the sacraments, as well as all other denominations listed in the Eucharist article.

I did not put that content in the article, it was Karanacs. I invite you to come make the changes you see need to be made, we could use your help. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The heading 'Renaissance" is misleading, since most of what is being discussed is from the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.
  • If you want to mention things from the Renaissance, mention Lorenzo Valla.
  • The statement that Henry IV of France hoped to avoid the religious wars of his neighbors as the cause of the Edict of Nantes is just... wrong. There were already a series of religious wars in France, fought because Henry was originally a Protestant who converted to Catholicism to become king, and he issued the Edict to STOP the religious wars in his kingdom.

This was directly from my source. If you have another source that says something else, I invite you to come and make the change. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The sudden introduction of the Japanese revolt when there has been nothing on the Japanese being converted is rather jarring, and who is Ieyasu? No context is given for that.
Good point, they were evangelized by Francis Xavier. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The whole section of the Age of Reason is disjointed and lacking context on statements. We aren't told what Louis XIV did (hint, he revoked the Edict of Nantes) No mention of Gallicism, or the settlement between the pope and the French kings over the papal revenues from France and the appointment of bishops in France. Also there is no good indication of time scale in this section, it's just a series of data without much connection to the other data.
  • Historians are divided on the issue of the Council of Jerusalem in about 50, many are not sure it took place, others don't believe it dealt with the things that it is often claimed to have dealt with.
  • The Christians were probably subject to persecutions not just because they refused to worship the gods or the emperors, but because they were different and secretive. Also, many historians believe that systemic persecution led by the emperors didn't happen until the middle of the 3rd century. Previous episodes of persecution were largely localized and not led by authorities.
  • Whether Constantine was a convert, and WHEN he converted is a subject under intense debate among historians.
  • You mention the Oriental Orthodox Church, but not the Monophysites or any of the other branches of Christianity
  • The Catholic Church launched missionary activity only later than 476, much closer to 700 or so. The efforts in the Balkans were done by missionaries from Constantinople. The Finss weren't missonized until after 910, as were the Scandinavians. The section on the Early Middle Ages is a muddle of chronology and topics. You mix up the Benedictines with the missionary efforts, and imply that many of the peoples listed were missionized and converted by 910. Needs a thorough rewrite to not mislead readers.

The History section was supposed to be short to meet FA criteria with the expanded version of history located in another Wikipedia page that is referenced at the top. The article contains the best information I could find using both school textbooks, mainstream publications, University professors who were experts and who I had to delete because Karanacs said they were self published but they are really allowed per Wikipedia Verifiablility and guidlines on History.

  • I too share concerns about some of the sourcing in the Beliefs sections.

What would you suggest using? NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I did NOT look at any sections other than the historical with any sort of depth, but the prose could use a good copyedit, I think.
  • Several contentious statements are not cited:
    • Galileo Galilei was among those tried as heretics under this inquisition.
    • French King Henry IV, hoping to avoid the religious wars of his neighbors, ..."
    • Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria, disagreed wtih this dogma..."and the rest of that paragraph.

For now, I must oppose, as the historical sections have some wrong information, and use sourcing that is not of the quality demanded by FA status. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Closing notes: after a week, four opposes and no supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the FAC is closed, please continue commentary on the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 15 February 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, 15 February 2008.

[edit] Centennial Light

previous FAC 1
previous FAC 2

This article has been submitted for FA twice already, but was recently promoted to GA, so I thought I'd have another go at FA. The article is relatively short, however the FA criteria only says that articles need to be "of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" and I believe this article does just that. If there is a way that the article could be longer then please advise, but don't just claim it's too short to be a FA because it's not. --The_stuart (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Oppose Refs should include the publisher, author, publishing date and access date. Epbr123 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And all the information in the Publicity section should have citations, including indications of the coverage by all the news agencies, as well as a citation to the webcam site, which many readers will be looking for when they read that paragraph.--ragesoss (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments. The last two sections are unsourced, as is Bernal owned the Livermore Power and Water Company and donated the bulb to the fire station when he sold the company. This story has been supported by firefighter volunteers of that era. ...turned off a handful of times isn't very professionally written, and it seems weasly vague. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments The last paragraph is unsourced, and there are slight writing issues. Juliancolton Talk 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: nominator has not edited the article since the nomination, issues raised above (and in last nomination) still not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 14 February 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, 15 February 2008.

[edit] Lal Masjid siege

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have extensively worked on it. Updated it, corrected information, added citations. Article is fairly stable and thus worthy of this nomination. Mercenary2k (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Your references should be cited using {{cite web}} templates. Seegoon (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Cite templates are not a requirement of WP:WIAFA; consistently formatted citations are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at pure Google hits, "Siege of the Lal Masjid" and "Siege of Lal Masjid" seem to be more common than the present title (and are the more typical way of naming sieges, besides; cf. WP:MILMOS#NAME). Is there any particular reason why the current one was chosen? If it's arbitrary, I'd suggest moving the article to the more common variant. Kirill 02:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment this is still up for GA nomination, from 30 December 2007. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose Refs should include the publisher, author, publishing date and access date. Epbr123 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: nominator has not edited the article since the nomination, issues raised above not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 14 February 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 01:53, 14 February 2008.

[edit] Samuil of Bulgaria

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the criteria for FA. Gligan (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Dead links need replacing, per Check external links. Epbr123 (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have removed those links in the references. --Gligan (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • And some refs are missing the publisher, access date or language. Epbr123 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Oppose. There are a few layout issues, and I think the prose needs work. There are verb tense issues throughout the article, and some areas where the prose does not flow well. I'd recommend reading it out loud to identify places where the text is clunky or choppy (or get a good copyeditor to help you).
    • Lead should be expanded a bit. It is fairly short for an article of this size.
      • I have expanded it a bit. Is that enough?
    • The template on Samil's Campaigns should be relocated to the bottom of the article.
      • Where exactly? I am not sure that it would look better at the bottom.
        • It would probably look good in the See Also section. It doesn't belong with the article text, though. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I have put it there. --Gligan (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • His mother's name is a redlink in the infobox but a valid link is provided for her in the article
      • Corrected.
    • Instead of " In the same year the four brothers David, Moses, Aron and Samuil " how about something like "That year, Samuil and his brothers, ...., rebelled" That way to focus stays on Samuil
      • Done.
    • Should the first section just be titled "Comitopuli". There is really nothing there about his early life
      • Done.
    • There are some verb tense agreement issues in the second paragraph of first section.
      • I think I have done that.
    • "After John I Tzimiskes died on 11 January 976 and the Comitopuli learned this" - very awkward construction
      • Corrected.
    • "In addition, was now the eldest living of the Comitopuli and was tempted by an alliance with the Byzantines and the opportunity to seize power in Bulgaria only for himself." - subject?
      • Corrected
    • "due to the vindication " -> what does this mean?
      • Substituted with a synonym (intercession).
    • Do you know who take over the ruling of Moses and David's areas of the country after they died? Was it Samuel or Aron or someone else?
      • I haven't read anything on this matter but Aron was killed in the summer of the same year David and Moses perished so it is likely that Aron and Samuil did not have time to divide the power again and from 14 June 976 Samuil concentrated all authority in his hands as he was the last of the Comitopuli.
    • " The population of the town was deported to the interior of the country and forced to enlist in the Bulgarian army" Did this include the women and children, or just the male population?
      • The whole population was moved and of course only the males were enlisted in the army; I have cleared that in the text.
    • " after the conquest of Thessaly, Bulgaria won the battle with Byzantium for influence in the southwestern Balkans" did something happen after the battle, or was the battle itself the catalyst?
      • After the fall of Larissa Byzantium did not have any strongholds left in that area and lost its influence there. I have cleared that in the text.
    • The way the bottom two images are placed in the Co-rule section makes there be a double blank line between two paragraphs. One of them likely needs to be moved.
      • I don't know how to do that.
        • I moved the image. Can you check and make sure that its new placement is okay with you? Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Any details on what was wrong with his arm after it healed?
      • It healed at 140 degrees as the excavation of his grave showed.
      • Can you put that in the article? Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. --Gligan (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • the quote by the presbyter of Duklja is offset in a very odd way. It is actually short enough that per WP:MOSQUOTE it should be inline.
      • Done.
        • It should be inline (part of the paragraph before it). Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "The constant war with the Byzantine Empire meant that such recognition could not be received from Constantinople, so the only possible alternative was Rome." - what type of recognition is he seeking and why was Rome the only possible alternative?
      • Imperial recognition because Boris II officially gave up his title. The Byzantines considered him as a rebel so it was impossible that tha Patriarch in Constantinople would recognize him as Tsar; the only other man with authority to do that was the Pope.
        • That is a very good explanation, and I think it belongs in the article. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, I tried to link it with the text but take a look whether it sounds good. --Gligan (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "which was profitable for both sides" huh?
      • His recognition as Tsar from Rome was profitable for both Samuil and the Pope as the first receives Imperial title and the later lessens the influence of his religious rival, the Patriarch of Constantinople.
        • That is a very good explanation, and I think it belongs in the article. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, I trying to link it with the text but take a look whether it sounds good. --Gligan (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not necessary to wikilink words multiple times unless they occur pretty far apart in the article. Duklja is linked three times in a very short time in "Rule as Emporer" section
      • Corrected.
    • I'd rename "Rule as Emporer" to "Emperor"
      • Done.
    • Can you find a citation for first paragraph of Advance of the Byzantines section?
      • Done.

Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these notes and suggestions : ) --Gligan (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. I begin with a comparatively minor matter; but really this will not do.
    • Transliteration is bizarrely inconsistent. We should, in any given article, Latinize, Demotize, Bulgarize, or be hypercorrect. This does all four. We see the severely Latinate Comitopuli (except, for some reason, eta becomes i) and the pedantic Kastoria in the same paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The transliteration of the Bulgarian names are in Bulgarized Latin and of the Byzantine names is in Greek Latin. I would like to transliterate Kastoria as Kostur as it is called in Bulgarian but the Greeks do not seem to agree. If you have suggestions how to improve that, please write them. --Gligan (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
        • The professional Greeks are often disruptive. Our guideline would produce Castoria, which is the English, like Castor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And above all, why Samuil as opposed to Samuel of Bulgaria, which is normal and intelligible in English? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Because in Bulgaria we do not call the English King John "Ivan" as it should sound in Bulgarian. The Serbian Kings are also transliterated that way - Stefan instead of Stephen and so on. --Gligan (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
        • This is, as seems to have gone unnoticed, the English Wikipedia. It should be phrased, and (where possible) sourced, in English. We English-speakers call him Emperor Samuel; Bulgarian usage should be followed on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • POV: I have marked two cases of "who says?" he is a "heroic ruler", or that so-and-so is the "rightful heir".
      • In addition to the internationally established treatment of facts, founded by the Bulgarian historian V. Zlatarski, regarding Samuil's life and rule,[89] there also exists a minority theory. Initially it was popularized by political reasons in Kingdom of Serbia and then further developed in Yugoslavia by D. Anastasijević, G. Ostrogorrsky and others. In his book History of the Byzantine State[90] Ostrogorsky wrote that all contemporaries and the people of Samuil's state believed it was a Bulgarian empire, but because of its different, westernmore placing it was another state. Anastasijević claimed that the state Samuil ruled was in fact a separate Slavic Empire.[91] It was founded as a result of an anti-Bulgarian rebellion of the Comitopuli, as opposed to a continuation of the Bulgarian state. Today this theory is only popular in the Republic of Macedonia, also to a lesser extent in Serbia (with modern scholars such as S. Pirivatrić rejecting it).[92] In Republic of Macedonia it is often changed to refer to a "Macedonian Slavic" or even only "Macedonian" Empire.[93] This is despite the different location of the geographic area of Macedonia in the Middle Ages and the anachronism.[94].
      • This is polemic; polemic even for the majority view is unacceptable. It probably is present consensus to call Samuel Bulgarian, but dismissing a scholar of the magnitude of Ostrogorsky in this manner is not reasonable. It is unfortunate that this should have become mixed in the Macedonia snakepit; but that should encourage more care for neutrality, not less.
        • done Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • He is considered heroic ruler in Bulgaria as Jean d'Arc is considered national hero in France. It is obvious why Boris II and Roman were the rightful heirs to the throne - they were sons of the previous Emperor Peter I. I don't know what exactly you disapprove in the cited section. --Gligan (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
            • To say that he is so regarded in Bulgaria would be (subject to WP:UNDUE) largely unexceptionable. That is how Jean d'Arc is phrased.
            • Anti-Macedonian rants are violations of WP:V, even if (on the whole) justified. (So, of course, are pro-Macedonian rants.) This is not neutral language. I will attempt to rewrite to something approaching neutrality.
    • The fundamental problem, which also shows up in the use of English, is that this has been written almost entirely from sources in Bulgarian. This is undesirable in itself, since it makes the article much harder to verify; if equally good sources in English exist (and they do) they should be used.
      • The Bulgarian historians have carried much more research that the English on this matter so the Bulgarian sources are much more abundant. However, I will try to search for English sources. --Gligan (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Scholarship is genuinely international. I see very little here not found in English except expressions of opinion, which we should not include in any case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I have added several more non-Bulgarian sources. Currently 30 of 111 footnotes are from Bulgarian authors. --Gligan (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Authors should be transliterated, especially if their works have been translated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I will transliterate all authors whose works have been transliterated. --Gligan (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
          • In fact I did not find authors whose works have been transliterated without their names. Did you mean here that I should transliterate all authors and works from Cyrillic to Latin? --Gligan (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Names should be given in the Latin alphabet; our articles on Bulgarian scholars are so titled. Titles should be given in both Bulgarian and English. When an English translation exists, it should be noted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • See this policy, and this guideline: Sources in Bulgarian should include translations of the sentences cited, preferably from a standard English translation. On a topic this well-worn, primary sources should be cited only for completely uncontroversial facts, unless a secondary source vouches for their accounts. In practice, this means that the only mention of primary sources should be of the form: "Secondary author X, Title page, citing Chronicle Y, edition, page number or other standard reference." 20:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • So I should write the Bulgarian sources as they are written in the article of Simeon I of Bulgaria, yes? --Gligan (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, and you should include translations of the passages actually cited. The first is more urgent, and should be easier, than the second; especially if the works have actually been translated. Rather than the latter, it may be simpler to look up English sources, which should not be hard. This is narrative history, little of it actually controversial, I hope. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I have corrected your link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A proofreading by a native speaker would help, especially with Slavicisms like the omitted the. I have replaced "poetry works" with "verse" at the end; I hope the implication of metrical form is correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • So to conclude: a Bulgarian source which currently looks "Андреев, Й. Българските ханове и царе, Велико Търново, 1996, p. 127" should be written "Andreev, J. The Bulgarian Khans and Tsars (Balgarskite hanove i tsare, Българските ханове и царе), Veliko Tarnovo, 1996, p. 127". If I have again understood you wrong, please give me an example with that source here. --Gligan (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, or "Jordan Andreev, The Bulgarian Khans and Tsars (Bulgarskite hanove i tsare, Българските ханове и царе), Veliko Tarnovo, 1996, p. 127", especially if we do have an article on him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 13 February 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 01:53, 14 February 2008.

[edit] Astrid Peth

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I think it is well-written citing many reputable outide references and accurately describing the character and her impact on Doctor Who. I think having this companion article receive featured article status would encourage editors to improve the many other companion article that lack citations in much the same way that the episode "Doomsday" achieving featured article status has inspired editors to improve other story articles. I think this article meets the FA criteria. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The lead needs expanding so that it adequately summarises the article. Epbr123 (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Response - I've added two sentences to the lead to summarise the impact the character made on the show as detailed in the article. I think this now means the lead adequately summarises the article. Please check out the revisions. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The lead's fine now. Epbr123 (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article needs a major copy edit. I started to do some editing, but stopped when I couldn't understand what was being said in the first sentence under the section "Conception and behind the scenes." Many long sentences would be clearer if broken into 2 or 3 smaller ones. Kmzundel (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Response - Just because a sentence is long, it does not mean it is unclear. Credit readers with some intelligence. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Further response - My apologies, I just re-read the first sentence of the section you cited and indeed it did not make sense as it was missing the word 'and'. As it was, it was just a string of related points with no structure. I have expanded the introduction to this section into a new first paragraph containing the points as separate sentences with further clarification as to the events they refer to. Once again, my apologies for shooting down your legitimate point and I hope these revisions amend the problem. Please inspect the revisions and see what you think. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. I hope you understand that breaking long sentences into smaller ones for the sake of clarity has nothing to do with the readers' intelligence. I'm trying to help bring the article up to FA standards. I've done some copyediting but will read through the article completely again tomorrow when I have a fresh brain. Kmzundel (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right. I wrote that without properly reviewing the article. It seems continued editing, (for which I am partly responsible), has stretched sentences and errors have been made. Thank you for your work on improving the article. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Under "Reception", I suggest starting the second paragraph with "Minogue's portrayal of Astrid received mixed reviews" continuing with both positive and negative comments - not solely the negative which appear currently. I also suggest minimizing the use of direct quotes in this paragraph....especially when they are only one word. Kmzundel (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose—1a; strange and bizarre things, and they're not bug-eyed creatures, either. Here are random examples of why this shouldn't be promoted in its current state. Needs coy-editing thoroughly by someone else.
  • "The episode's success" and "the episode's climax" are ungainly; usually, we prefer "the success of the episode" etc, when the noun is inanimate. "before the episode's broadcast"—remove "episode's" (what other broadcast were you thinking of?). There seems to be an addiction to possessive apostrophes; please clean up these expressions. Bloopers such as "... she is alongside the Doctor to discover the plan of Max Capricorn to destroy the Titanic, its passengers and the nearby people of Earth with his villainous angelic robots, the Host. Growing fond of the Doctor, she kisses him as part of what she assures him is an "old tradition" on Sto." Um .... Tony (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Response - Why is the genitive case 'ungainly'? The apostrophe construction saves repeating 'of the' constantly. To my mind, it is a tidier form of writing. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:34, 13 February 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 01:54, 13 February 2008.

[edit] England

previous FAC

I'm nominating this article as it's been almost two years since its first attempt. The article has improved a great deal since then. Polly (Parrot) 04:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose
    • There are many stubby paragraphs, and the prose needs a lot of work.
    • Refs aren't consistantly formatted and some lack information.
    • Galleries are discouraged.
    • The Sport section suffers from recentism.
    • Some of the lists should be made into prose, and the Literature and Science section contains listy prose. Epbr123 (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Epbr123. I would've recommend going to WP:PR, then WP:GA before nominating for FA status. Lack of verifiability is my main objection here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Epbr123. Plus, too many refs in the lead, a proper lead, as a summary of the body, will have few if any refs. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Epbr123. Juliancolton Talk 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose short stubby paragraphs, use of lists for the major rivers subsection, the cuisine subsection, the engineering subsection, and the nomenclature section. Galleries are frowned on. References lack complete information. I did not check in depth. I highly recommend PR and/or GA, especially for an article this broad in coverage. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:54, 11 February 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 02:21, 12 February 2008.

[edit] Weather front

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is a very good article, and meets all criteria. Juliancolton (The Giants Win!) 17:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently titled in the plural, which doesn't seem correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That could be easy enough to fix. I don't know if that would affect stability to move the page, though. Juliancolton (The Giants Win!) 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No, best to go ahead and move it and correct the FAC links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, done. Juliancolton (The Giants Win!) 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Object for now; this still needs some work. First, drawings from the side of a cold front, warm front, occluded front, and stationary front are really important. The current warm front picture doesn't show much, and the representation of clouds isn't well done. Show what kinds of clouds are on each side of the front, and how far ahead (cirrus far to the right of a cold front, progressing downward to cumulonimbus, etc.). I'm talking about something along the lines of [14] or [15] or [16]. Without these images, the entire concept requires much more effort to understand. Second, the language needs work. For example, under "Surface weather analysis", the last three sentences jump from an explanation of general symbols to an unknown category of "various symbols" used for local weather to areas of precipitation determining where fronts are found. These thoughts don't seem to be connected at all. Third, add some external links that might be helpful. Finally, I suggest that you find more print references, such as meteorology textbooks. They will have more discussion about these phenomena and will be able to give more detail that can be incorporated into the article. --Spangineerws (háblame) 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I added pictures, copyedited somewhat, added external links and a bibliography section which includes the only textbook I could find. Is it any better? Juliancolton Talk 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Object for now. Organizationally, the article is confusing; it mentions cold, warm, and occluded fronts first, but then it introduces a movement section, then continues with other front descriptions, with a precipitation section sprinkled in. Additionally, the sections are short; they need slightly more flesh to them (for example, expand the cold front section to have about half of the material in cold front). Also, the image in the lede introduces several types of fronts that are described on the page, but the page does not mention surface throughs at all, and they are mentioned as #5 in the page. Overall, more details are needed, although it is a good start. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have addressed those issues about the organization. However, IMO, the reason that the sections are short is because this is the main article. For further, more in-depth information, one can go to the sub-article. Thus, this article should give enough info for the average person to read it, and get the basic idea of what it is they are reading about. If you feel it is needed that there be more info, I can certainly add more. Juliancolton (Talk) 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That's the thing; it's not readily apparent that the article is the main article, and it is missing {{main}} templates in several sections, in that case. Still, I think that more info would be better to satisfy WP:SUMMARY concerns. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Ok, now that the {{Main}}s are there, what do you think? Juliancolton (Talk) 02:28, 12 February 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 02:21, 12 February 2008.

[edit] David Suzuki: The Autobiography

A relatively short article on a book published in 2006. It is as comprehensive as the sources will allow but I would like to see if there is anything else that can be done for it. maclean 19:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Not well-written. The glitches in the opening sentences indicate that the whole article needs serious attention, preferably by someone new to it.

  • Second sentence: "the last 20 years of his life"—what, he's dead? "Past" if not. "But" is wrong, since it's not contradicting the previous clause.
  • Do we need little-known Anglophone countries such as Canada and Australia to be linked? Why dilute the useful links? And why isn't Suzuki himself linked ....?
  • "It begins as a chronological autobiography with Suzuki recounting his childhood,..."—Ungrammatical noun + ing. "in which S. recounts his childhood ..."
  • "Suzuki highlights the impacts that internment had on him as a child and throughout his life"—clumsy. Try "Suzuki highlights the impacts on him of internment since his childhood"?
  • "The book progresses towards using a memoir approach"—meaning what, exactly?

Can't bear to read any more. Tony (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I have solicited some copyedits and I'm going through it closely myself. Please let us know if we are going in the right direction. --maclean 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Gaak. I'll ignore the writing and focus on the content. The article is more about the author than about the book. However, the author is dealt with in another article. On its purported subject, the book, this article is rather thin. Certainly not FA material. --Una Smith (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • You point out two things here: (1) too thin is difficult to action. What specifically were you hoping to find? (2) too much focus on the author/subject he is written about in 3 places: Background (standard context of who the author is and why he wrote the book), Content (what is written in the book - 70 years condensed into 405 pages condensed into 3 paragraphs), and Introduction (nothing new). Perhaps this is an organizational issue? I will examine the Content section to orient it more around it being a review of the book's contents, rather than his life in general. --maclean 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, look at some other articles about autobiographies. There are a couple of under-developed themes in this article: chronicle vs memoir, working vs published title, different editions for different markets (different jackets, forewords, etc), marketing plans, influence of publisher, how much paid to author, time required to write it, industry news about the book (trade news, not market-oriented reviews), etc. An article about an autobiography need not (and perhaps should not) summarize the autobiography; to the extent that you re-hash the book, I would want to know about any important new information or new photographs not published elsewhere. Hope that gives you some ideas re how to proceed. --Una Smith (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the speedy elaboration. I can expand on the chronicle vs memoir, working vs published title, and marketing plans. I have found no evidence of distinctions between editions or influence of publisher. The author's salary would be interesting, where is that kind of info published? The industry news and time spent writing are grey areas - there is evidence but little that is concrete. For example, none of the references (reviews and interviews) say how long it took him to write, but I can say his last book was published in 2002. With the industry news, there are 3 industry awards listed and I can work in a review from the Quill & Quire, otherwise I only found generic blurbs in the 'upcoming' or 'new' sections - should I note that it was mentioned in these, perhaps add them to the Reference section? Also, could you point me to those developed autobiography articles? The only comparable one I've found is Night (book) (which is subject to much more academic research, of course). --maclean 02:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, I can expand on what new information is presented in the book by expanding the Content section. But as Suzuki writes in the preface do 'not expect any startling revelations'. maclean 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To summarize, requested expansions: chronicle vs memoir, working vs published title, marketing, rough timeframe, review in industry news (including industry awards, and new material. Reduced content details. maclean 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A note was left on Una Smith's talk page [17] regarding the work. maclean 23:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think the writing is that bad, although there are a few places where it could be improved, nor do I agree that it focuses too much on the subject. I did find myself wishing that some of the statements were expanded on, but I am unsure whether there are sources available to do that. Advice below. Full disclosure: I came to this article after a request from maclean for more eyes.
    • I don't really like these sentences "Suzuki calls his father's berating for not running for his high school's student presidency as the turning point of his life. He did not think he could win because he felt like an "outsider" for being the only student of Japanese-decent, along with his sister, and not belonging to any popular cliques. After his father pressured him to try, he ran and unexpectedly won on that "outsider" platform." The sentences seem a little unwieldy and the verb tenses don't seem to be quite right. I suspect there is a way to reword this to make it flow a bit better.
    • Is there any information about how/whether the information from his first autobiography is presented differently in this one?
    • Of the 6 sentences in the third paragraph in Content section, 4 start with He or Suzuki. Can this be varied a bit?
    • Verb tenses are a little off. In some cases events in Suzuki's life are described in past tense, and in others they are described in present tense.
    • Are they any works that discuss his thoughts "concerning climate change, celebrity status, technolog and death"? I'm wondering if any of those were interesting enough to be covered a bit.
    • Are there any examples of "instances of blurting out surprising statements"? I'd like to see an example.
    • I'd like to see a little more in-depth information on the themes in the novel, if possible.
    • The first paragraph of Publication and reception section does not flow well
    • Some of your references have a retrieval date listed and some do not. Please add one for the links that it is missing.

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I re-worded the sentences in your first point. I can expand upon the differences between autobiographies as the Litrary Review of Canada article does a good job at this. I can also expand upon 'his thoughts concerning...' to match UnaSmith's request for new information presented in the book. Not all the references are available online, so they do not all have retrieval dates. maclean 04:58, 9 February 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 02:21, 12 February 2008.

[edit] Tel Aviv

previous FAC (00:19, 27 January 2008)

Nominator: Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Support as nominator: Following a previous failed FA nomination, the issues brought up have been addressed, and I feel the article is now fully ready for FA status.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment
    • There is some incorrect dash usage.
    • Some refs are missing publishers.
    • Some measurements are missing conversions. Epbr123 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment - could you possibly give me some idea as to where this applies? Thanks--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the dashes. Every reference has to give the publisher; for example, the publisher of this is Madtchi.com. Also, these statements will need dates to prevent them becoming outdated - "It is currently undergoing redevelopment" "that currently plays in the lower divisions" "the mayor, who is currently Ron Huldai" "will open in the next school year". The article would also benefit from a third-part copyedit. Epbr123 (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the date issues and references. How do I get a third-part copyedit. Which measurements need the converstions--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Kilometres need mile equivalents, and °C need °F equivalents; using the templates at Template:Convert will make it easier. To get a copyedit, you can list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests, or search for individual editors who are good writers and preferably will have an interest in the subject. Epbr123 (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The copyedit request has been made and I have converted the figures--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There are still some refs missing the publisher. Epbr123 (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ooops - they were mostly just typos in the cite template - I have fixed these now--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "it is exceeded in size by Jerusalem, the modern-day capital of Israel" Can we avoid the phrase "the modern-day capital of Israel"? It isn't exactly relevant to the article, and it brings us into POV territory, since that claim is disputed by much of the international community. We probably could find an undisputable form of words, but perhaps simpler to say nothing here than to complicate the lead.--Docg 00:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that's ok now - just took out the bit about modern-day capital--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm picking up dead links, please fix.--Docg 00:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Article looks very good, and very close to meeting the FA criteria. I've made a few copyediting changes, mostly related to grammar & spelling, and moved a few of the sections to conform to WP:CITIES guidelines. Please see my comments related to the 'dubious' tags for some areas that still need clarification. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed those tags--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment

    Tel Aviv is known as "the city that never sleeps" due to its nightlife and 24-hour culture.

    I'd remove that one. We usually refer to New York as the 'city that never sleeps' and the reference supporting it does not seem to be reliable enough for a featured article. Squash Racket (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ive found a better reference for that - Tel Aviv is referred to in this way so I dont think it should be removed just because another city is in the same way. Thanks.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not yet satisfied that the prose is of the required "professional" standard. A few samples:
    • "Tel Aviv is Israel's economic hub, with many high tech firms maintaining offices or research and development facilities". Hi-tech, or if "high" is used, at least hyphenate it. With + -ing is clumsy and, strictly speaking, ungrammatical. So some firms have R and D facilities but not offices? More seriously, the causality doesn't work: why does the presence of R and D facilities make the city an economic hub? What a bombsite.
    • Again, a problem of logic: "Tel Aviv is the country's cultural capital, and a center of music, theater and the arts." "and"? So being the cultural capital wouldn't mean that it's a centre of m, t and the arts by default? The A plus B doesn't work properly here; recast.
    • Etymology — The third "Tel Aviv" has to be in italics or double quotes; see why?
I think I have addressed these three issues.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs a good massage by someone new. Tony (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's quick to address the solutions I put to you here; but there were mere examples of why the whole text needs copy-editing. Please try to find someone new to the article for this purpose: an eye for logic is required, as well as for other micro-issues of language. Tony (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Later comment—The prose is much better, for sure, and with a little more work (by yet another person) it may pass 1a. I have concerns over 1c, too.
    • I looked at "Demographics" and had to make a few changes.
    • Why are non-breaking spaces inserted after most of the numbers? Undesirable gaps between words may result, where there's little advantage in preventing "50,000" and "unregistered from being split by a line-break. Please address.
    • There are many valuable links, so why did I have to remove links to such everyday words as "port"? Please check through.
    • "Built on sand dunes, farming in Tel Aviv was not profitable, and maritime commerce was centered in Haifa and Ashdod. Instead, the city gradually developed as a center for scientific and technical research." Um ... when?
    • The city is considered by Newsweek to be one of the top 10 most technologically influential cities in the world." Is Newsweek sufficiently authoritative (who wrote it, anyway—that would help a little, but not enough)? It's like citing a daily newspaper—some journalist's opinion—which may or may not have tinges of commercial influence. Be careful; some may accuse the article of peacockery over such claims and sources.
    • "Israel's center of high-tech"—last item is not a noun, but appears to perform that role here.
    • Odd thematic treatment (i.e., the grammatical point of departure): "Many major routes of the national road network pass through or end in Tel Aviv, a transportation hub." Better: "Tel Aviv is a transportation hub: many major routes of the national road network pass through or lead to the city." Surely this issue is the same in Hebrew ...?
    • Ref 86: "proxy error". No authors appear in the reference citations. Are all sources reliable? I'm concerned. Tony (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree entirely with Tony. The copy has been worked on and added to sentence by sentence without too much attention to the bigger picture. It needs a thorough copy-edit by an experienced editor. Here are some examples
Redundancy: Despite the fact that it is less than a century old ("Less than a century old"?).
Inelegance: the old city walls were destroyed due to increased security allowing for expansion.
Brochurese: As well as having a vast array of museums for tourists to visit, and quarters to explore, many tours of the city are available in different languages focusing on various aspects of the city.
Clarity: the Jewish community of Jaffa, with it Jews with a nation-building mind-set.
Conversions absent: of 51.8 square kilometers & 7,445 people per square kilometer.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There is currently a request in place for a copyedit. Hopefully this will resolve these issues once complete.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a copyedit has now been carried out by a new user. If you could have a look, perhaps this is ok now?--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you re-contacted editors who asked for a copyedit? Since they didn't lodge an Oppose, they wouldn't know to revisit unless you ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've had a look at the copy-edit carried out by Finetooth and while he has done an outstanding job in very little time, the copy still needs improvement. Quite apart from Maralia's comments, it still has an unconverted 7,445 people per square kilometer (why is this being ignored?). Also, I now notice that the Religion section makes no reference to mosques though it does mention churches. The Local Government section still doesn't talk about support services and who provides them. It would be good to see these issues addressed methodically. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm sorry but this still needs a very thorough copyedit. Examples:
  • drop the first comma in the very first sentence
  • "The White City" - this is a nickname and should be in quote marks the first time
  • "the New York Times" -> "The New York Times"
  • Better, but it's The New York Times, not the New York Times. Maralia (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "On April 1, 1917," - link full dates please
  • "Tel Aviv continued to grow in 1926–28 but suffered an economic setback in 1927–30." - these date ranges are somewhat illogical as they seem to contradict each other
  • "When Jaffa was taken on May 14, only few of its 65,000 Arab residents remained." - 'only few' is awkward; 'few' would work on its own
  • "On November 4, 1995, Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s prime minister was assassinated" - reword "On November 4, 1995, Israel's prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated"
  • "Elections are carried out by every adult who has been living in the city for over one year" - nonsensical; every adult may be eligible
  • Better, but is there really no citizenship requirement, only residency? Maralia (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "more likely to be around 10 °C (50 °F) to 15 °C (60 °F)" -> usually between...and...
  • "The Azrieli Center, composed of three buildings, one square, one triangular, and one circular, usurped that title." - this reads as a list of four things; reword "...of three buildings—one square, one triangular, and one circular—usurped..."
  • "The city is considered one of the top 10 most technologically influential cities in the world." - this needs a citation
  • Thanks for providing the citation, but high tech is a rapidly changing field, and I must challenge using a ten year old citation to support a present tense statement. Maralia (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Tel Aviv is home to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, (TASE)," - drop the first comma
  • "and Pinchas Zukerman (born in Tel Aviv), have all appeared" - drop the comma
  • "Maariv, Israel's second most popular tabloid is also published in the city," - add comma after tabloid
  • the word "municipal" should not be capitalized unless it is in an organization's title
  • Some words are overlinked: Jaffa, Bauhaus, Jerusalem, Meir Dizengoff, metropolitan area, Neve Tzedek, Ramat Aviv, Ramat Gan, Sde Dov Airport, secular, Tel Aviv Central Bus Station, White City (Tel Aviv)
  • Please do link to: Palestine, Nazi
  • All three links in the 'See also' section are redundant; they are already present within the main article text
  • External links need some cleanup: there are three links to photography by one person at one website; the official website is already linked in the infobox; it's not appropriate to external link to all the individual institutions' websites from the city's wiki entry.
I have addressed everything up to this point--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Citation format is lacking: many publication names are not italicized; some authors' names are not last name, first name; some cites have no retrieval date
I did not look at the sourcing for the entire article, but the sourcing for some of the more exceptional claims does not appear to meet WP:V/WP:RS:
  • "is the oldest port in the world" - this hefty claim needs a really hefty citation. It currently has none.
  • This is not a sufficient source; it states Jaffa "is claimed to be the oldest port" (emphasis mine). Maralia (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Tel Aviv has the world's largest collection of such buildings" - the citation for this claim is an Israeli travel site
  • The citation added for this looks okay, but the link is broken. Maralia (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Israel has the highest number of museums per capita of any country, three of the largest of which are in Tel Aviv" - this is cited to two an Israeli travel site and the Israeli consulate
Done--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You've added a citation, but it's another Israeli source. Maralia (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a good article, but it needs some work to get to FA. Maralia (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You did a great job of addressing many of my concerns quickly. I've left comments above about issues that remain. I am particularly concerned about the sourcing; the exceptional worldwide claims (oldest in world, largest collection in world, highest number in world) need rock solid, non-COI sourcing. Maralia (talk) 15:22, 11 February 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 02:21, 12 February 2008.

[edit] William Claiborne

previous FAC

This article was nominated last year, and the nomination was subsumed by an argument over whether to link years. I've tried to go back and address substantive concerns raised at the time, though I may have missed some. Geraldk (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The current position of Kiyarrllston:Neutral Support.
    - Queries"However, Claiborne was offered a position as a land surveyor in the new colony of Virginia, and arrived at Jamestown in 1621." and what did he do as a land surveyor? - "business acumen" or not, I have no clue how one would derive a large fortune from (please take a look at this article) surveying-
    --- Political acument seems to be more accurate anyway, since most of his wealth came from grants and salary he secured from the colonial council. I've added in a sentence to better explain why surveying was lucrative for him. Geraldk (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    When it is said that his father was an alderman - the article on alderman states two "Although the term originated in England, it had no clear definition there until the 19th century, as each municipal corporation had its own constitution." - is there a way to clarify what this job was? - was Claiborne's father the "owner of a small shop"? to say so would be much less vague than to say he was a "small-time merchant".
    --- I've tried to clarify his father's career, though none of the sources I can find are any more specific about what exactly the role of an alderman was in King's Lynn, Norfolk at the time. Let me know if that meets your concern here. Geraldk (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    " Around 1627 he began to trade for furs with the native Susquehannock on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay and two of its largest tributaries," while chesapeake bay and susquehannock are linked - the more context relevant "fur trade" is not linked to.
    --- Added link Geraldk (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    "The family's business was not enough to make it rich, and so Claiborne's older brother was apprenticed in London,[...]" - was there a "cast" or "caste" system in place- a system of classes? could this section possibly link to somewhere regarding economic conditions for people in England during the 1600's?
    --- Will have to research this further if you think it's necessary to add more to it - I can't find anything in the sources about Claiborne, and 17th century British economic history does not seem, for some utterly unfathomable reason, to be a popular topic on the web. There was a system of classes in the sense that the nobility existed, and that there was a developing mercantile middle class, but in the sense of caste-like socioeconomic stratification, I don't know what his brother's apprenticeship says about the role of his family in the society of the time. Geraldk (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    "William Claiborne (c. 1600 – c. 1677)[1] (also spelled William Clayborne)" are the second set of parenthesis necessary? did he spell it both ways? - are his descendants of only one or many ways of writing it? (why is this only in the lead?)
    --- It's referring to the flexibility in spelling that was common at the time, and his name appears as Clayborne in a couple period sources, though as far as I know his descendants all spell it Claiborne. Do you have a suggestion as to how to clarify this for readers? Geraldk (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


-Kiyarrllston 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"17th century British economic history does not seem, for some utterly unfathomable reason, to be a popular topic on the web." hehehe ... I have no idea who would know where to find this kind of information either.
I think just a short note somewhere in the body regarding the different spellings would be good. do you think claiborne has anything worthwhile for this article? are those part of his family?- searching for clayborne on wikipedia got me lots of hits :D
note- changed to support, I wish you a nice FAC
--Kiyarrllston 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • MOS breach in the first caption: unspaced en dashes required.
Wasn't sure where you meant, but fixed it in the other people note at the top of the article and in the first footnote. Geraldk (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hate those fully spelt out and capitalised items in the Notes: "Page". Easier to read a more standard "p. " and "pp. " (can paste into Word and do a global change).
Done, and thanks for the suggestion of doing it in Word. Saved me some time. Geraldk (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please avoid starting a sentence with "But". Tony (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Good catch, I hadn't noticed that. But it's fixed now. Geraldk (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Comment. I think this is a very well-written article. If you can fix the first three comments below, which are all MOS breaches, then I'll be happy to support. The fourth is just a suggestion.(Full disclosure: I was the sole peer reviewer for this article last summer.)

**Need nonbreaking spaces between numbers and their units or qualifiers (examples, 200 acre, 30 pounds, 300 colonists)

    • There's an instance of acres that doesn't have corresponding hectares
    • Image captions shouldn't end in periods unless they are complete sentences
    • Is there any way to work into the lead that he was involved in the first naval battles in North America? That is really interesting information.

Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No response from the nominator? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No response needed. These are trivialities; either fix them or do not; they are not the difference between a good article and a great one. The insistence on non-breaking spaces at points (the beginning of a long paragraph) where only very unusual monitors would break lines is particularly silly. But I am glad to see that some of this review has actually focused on content and clarity; a welcome change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If I'd found any content or clarity issues I would have mentioned them. While MOS issues may not be the difference between a "good" article and a "great" one, they are a part of the featured article criteria and enough MOS-type breaches could be the difference between a "good article" and a "featured article". It would by nice to have a response from the nominator to say whether or not he has even seen the comments. Karanacs (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Update: I checked Geraldk's contributions, and he hasn't made any edits since Jan 31, so he may not have been back to this page since I commented. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Most unfortunate that the nominator has gone six days without following this FAC, as the previous FAC was also closed when the nominator stopped following. I'll give it another day or two, but nominators are expected to follow FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the nominator's absence, I went ahead and implemented the MoS fixes and made a mention in the intro of the first naval battles in North American waters. I'll be glad to take care of any other minor issues such as these if they come up.-Jeff (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking over, Jeff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a concern about the use of Appleton's for dates and other biographical details. As our own article on on Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography states, it has some credibility issues. I don't think Claiborne is a totally fictious entry (I'd better not, I have ancestry that traces to him!) but it might be better to source to something that dosen't have credibility issues. I'll try to dig through my genealogy files to find some recent articles that would give his biographical details.Ealdgyth | Talk 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are a few things that are unclear to me, or just seem a bit odd:
  • "As the settlement on Kent Island was progressing, the Privy Council had proposed to George Calvert that he be granted a charter for lands north of the Virginia colony ...". What does "as" mean in this case? "Because", or "at the same time"?
  • "a retroactive salary". Would retrospective not be the more usual thing to say?
  • "salary of 60 pounds a year". That looks rather odd from the perspective of an English reader. "£60" would be more conventional. I accept that an American writer might well write "60 dollars", but the dollar isn't also a unit of weight.
  • "This happened to be to Claiborne's private advantage". Perhaps reads a little bit too informally?
  • "In 1635, a Maryland commissioner named Thomas Cornwallis swept the Chesapeake for illegal traders and captured one of Claiborne's pinnaces in the Pocomoke Sound". I'm unclear what "swept" means in this context, and I've got no idea what a pinnace is.
  • From the lead: "Claiborne repeatedly attempted and failed to regain Kent Island". Nowhere before does it say that he lost Kent Island, or that he ever held it in the first place.
If the above issues were addressed I'd support this article.
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Because Geraldk is the one that did the research here, I probably wouldn't be able to fix most of those unfortunately. My comments on those points:
  • I'm not sure what is meant here either, it would be an easy fix though, by replacing "As" with "While" or "Because".
  • Probably, "retroactive" sounds like his past salary was changed, while "retrospective" would just mean his past salary.
  • That makes sense, I'll fix it right now.
  • Maybe it could be reworded as "This was to Claiborne's private advantage". I'm wary of changing it though because at the same time that rewording makes the sentence sound less interesting.
  • "Swept" in this context means that he searched the bay for illegal traders. I would assume "pinnace" is a type of boat, but I could be wrong.
  • It should probably be worked into the sentence, for example as "After losing control of Kent Island to Maryland, Claiborne repeatedly attempted and failed to regain it."-Jeff (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Pinnace is a type of small boat. I'm still hunting for a better biographical data source. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, prose/comprehensiveness/MoS. There are some misc. prose and MoS items to fix, but my main problem is comprehensiveness as outlined below.
    • "Claiborne became a wealthy planter, a trader, and a major figure in the politics of the colony." It's not necessary to have "a" before each list item.
      • While the sentence could stand recasting, "Claiborne became a wealthy planter, trader, and major figure..." does not mean the same thing; the a-less version implies that he was wealthy as a trader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "He was a central figure in the disputes between the colonists of Maryland and of Virginia, partly because of his trading post on Kent Island in the Chesapeake Bay, which provoked the first naval battles in North American waters." The way this is written, it could be the disputes or his trading post (or even Chesapeake Bay) that provoked the naval battles.
      • No difference of meaning between the first two alternatives; the last is impossible. The Chesapeake Bay does not "provoke" outside epic poetry. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I disgree. The first means that his being involved in the disputes provoked the battle; the second means that just the existence of the trading post provoked the battle. The reader deserves the clarification. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The next sentence is also confusing. First, it is out of chronological order. We read that Claiborne fought to regain Kent Island before we know why and from whom. Second, we read that Kent Island "became" Maryland which gives the impression that Maryland is wholly made up of Kent Island.
    • "However, Claiborne was offered a position as a land surveyor in the new colony of Virginia..." A sentence at the beginning of a new paragraph should not begin with "however". If the concept is that closely related to the previous para, it should be connected.
    • "Calvert was not welcomed by the Virginians, both because his Catholicism offended their Protestantism..." Suggest rewording. It was not Catholicism that offended Protestantism, it was his being a Catholic that offended them.
      • His Catholicism in this construction means "the fact he was a Catholic". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Not the greatest, but also not worth arguing over. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "Claiborne tried to get it back, and the first naval battles in North American waters ensued on April 23 and May 10, 1635 in which three Virginians were killed and Claiborne was defeated, although his settlement on Kent Island remained." Too long, says too many different things. Addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "In May 1638, fresh from his defeat over Kent Island, Claiborne received a commission from the Providence Land Company, who were advised by his old friend Maurice Thomson, to create a new colony on Ruatan Island off the coast of Honduras in the Caribbean Sea." Same comment as above.
    • I suppose it's out of scope for this article, but I really don't understand why Cæcilius Calvert would appoint a "pro-Parliament Protestant" to govern Maryland. The Calverts are described throughout the article has pro-Monarchy Catholics.
      • Two reasons suggest themselves: Maryland became more and more Protestant with time, and established Anglicanism after the Restoration; and 1648 was a year of Parliamentary victory in the English Civil War. Appointing a Parliamentarian may have averted confiscation. It would be nice to know which, but since it's a question of Calvert's motives, there may not be consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
        • All the same, it needs to be researched and clarified. That was definitely a moment in the article when I went, "Huh?" --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • General narrative remark: The article really glosses over the (I assume) armed engagements where Kent Island was taken and retaken throughout the article. These seem pivotal events in Claiborne's life but the majority of the article focuses on the political tactics he employed. The first naval battles in North American waters seemingly involved him, you said he was defeated, however you only dedicate once sentence to what was certainly a major life event for Claiborne. Likewise, you do not describe how Claiborne seized the island in 1644 or how he lost it again in 1646. Some of the questions the reader is left with: Was Claiborne personally involved in the skirmishes? Did he maintain his own armed force? Was he ever injured? Was he a sailor?
    • The insertion of Claiborne's personal life at the end of the article is rather abrupt. The reader has no idea Claiborne married until the end of the article. I presume he had children - where is that information?
    • MoS problems:
      • The last sentence in the lead - if a period is part of a quoted sentence, the period should be inside the end quote.
        • One of the difficulties of "logical" punctuation; it is impossible to be certain whether the original punctuation used a semi-colon, or even a comma, in which case this would be correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • En dashes in the infobox should not be spaced. I see that is part of the infobox code, which is unfortunate. Whoever maintains that infobox needs to fix it. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
        • This is MOScruft. Go edit the infobox, if you care; it has nothing to do with the quality of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Agreed, not really an article-related item. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 February 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 20:37, 11 February 2008.

[edit] Fight Club (film)

previous FAC

I am nominating this article, because it is one of the best arcticles I have seen on wikipedia in months. It is well sourced, talks about the film in a great way... there is everything that should be in Featured Article. Have a nice day. Running 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I am withdrawing this nomination, because Erik (main contributor) wishes so... --Have a nice day. Running 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Erik 318
LGagnon 65
Bordello 47
Malachirality 27
Conti 18
Bignole 17
68.80.198.25 17
Alientraveller 14
Pomte 13
Earisu 12
Maziotis 11
Dark Kubrick 10

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Moderate to Strong Oppose First, there is poor writing throughout the article. Second, it is not well sourced as the entire "Plot" Section doesn't have a single reference. Finally, there is a lack of wikilinking. It need serious work before it will reach FA standards. Juliancolton Talk 00:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hello, could you please point out where the writing is poor? I had someone from the League of Copyeditors go through the whole article, but your constructive criticism would be welcome. In addition, the consensus is that the Plot section is self-referential, focusing only the descriptive unfolding events and saving interpretations for analytical sections. Please review the other Featured film Articles; all of them are presented similarly. In addition, where do you feel that there could be more wikilinking? The article was previously reviewed to avoid overlinking. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, it's not that there is is one example of poor writing, but the prose doesn't seem to flow very well. I also wasn't aware that there was that consensus about the Plot section. Somehow it seems slightly better than it did last night, and after I read it over and over again, I change my 'vote' to Weak Support for now. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I appreciate Running's nomination of an article that I've improved significantly since the last time it underwent the FAC process. August 8, 2006. The article has received a copy-edit from editor Malachirality from the WikiProject League of Copyeditors. I've done my best to incorporate images and quotes in an encyclopedic manner, but I am fully open to constructive criticism in shaping this article for the better. One thing, I'd like to note is that there are numerous academic studies of Fight Club, and I was influenced by Awadewit in deciding to pursue the "unintended themes" aspect of this film. You can see my subpage with the resources listed; I haven't made headway with it, being too busy IRL. It would probably be best served as a spin-off article, but I had held off on a self-nomination because I was concerned that this article's lack of coverage would be detrimental. I personally don't believe many film articles have sections on unintended themes (this one only has intended themes). Comments about this are welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Erik, do you feel the article is ready? There is FAC talk page precedent to withdraw a FAC that has a significant main contributor if that editor says the article isn't ready. It doesn't appear that Running has ever edited the article, so it can be withdrawn if you're not ready or would prefer to resubmit later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it would depend on if other editors feel that this article requires coverage about unintended themes. My opinion is that such coverage would be on a sub-article because the current article is fairly lengthy already. I feel that the coverage will be similarly extensive in the interpretations sub-article. It seems to be a matter of balance, basically asking, "Is this article OK without the academic studies available here?" I could move the subpage to the mainspace and provide a {{more}} link to the Themes section, but the sub-article would obviously be very stubby and a link farm. I think that outside of this key issue, the article is ready for the process. Having spent a lot of time with this article, independent pairs of eyes are always welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I have really never edited that article, but I came across it and I found it is very well written and very well done, then I found it meets every criteria for FA (plus it is already a GA), so I put it to FA.. --Have a nice day. Running 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Erik. You have a great opportunity to up the ante for film articles by including an overview of this literature, perhaps learning about academic criticism yourself in the process, and certainly exposing "regular readers" to a broader perspective on how films can be interpreted. I think you should do this. It will take more work, but it will pay off. Awadewit will be helpful, I'm sure, if she has time, and if you need a journal article or two as listed on your resources page, you're welcome to email me! –Outriggr § 03:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note of encouragement, Outriggr. I suppose that's been the reason why I've held off a self-nom; I'd like to set a "gold standard" for film articles rather than have this article limp through the FAC process. The reason why I haven't made leeway with interpretations is, well, the academic studies are a challenge to digest. Topics like spatiality and masculinity are presented to a layman like me; I unfortunately do not have any credentials to invoke in any regard to my editing. Any additional resources for interpreting the film would be greatly appreciated! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me just add a quick note here. Like Outriggr (hi, Outriggr!), I would be happy to help you out with this article. I looked at your list of articles and I can immediately see why someone unfamiliar with literary criticism would find some of it rather dense. If you want, we can work on the article together. I am rather busy with Jane Austen and Mary Shelley at the moment, but if you don't mind working rather slowly, I think that we can achieve the "gold standard" you are referring to (a very admirable goal). Awadewit | talk 06:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now as a primary contributor. Admittedly, there is some pride involved in having this article put up for the FAC process. However, taking Outriggr and Awadewit's advice, I think it would be better to pursue the "gold standard" with the unintended themes, even if the content is spun off into a sub-article later on. I doubt that this pursuit could take place within the time frame of this FAC process, based on the complexity of the academic studies to implement and the generally busy schedules of myself and potential assistants. :) Running, I truly appreciate the commendation of this article, but I hope you don't mind if I ask you to withdraw the nomination for the time being. It's probably most appropriate as a Good Article now having broad coverage, where Featured Articles should be comprehensive. You and others are welcome to help expand on the topic of unintended themes; this article seems as good of a place to start as any, with all the resources lined up. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I will withdraw if you wish, I am just not sure how to do withdraw the article without doing some mess :) I wrote it up there, I don't know if I should also remove it from FAC page and if I should archive this conversation.. --Have a nice day. Running 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Erik. Epbr123 (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Erik. I look forward to seeing its return with the planned additions for sourced interpretation and unintended themes! Would support its being made a GA though, as it already meets those standards. Collectonian (talk) 16:01, 11 February 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 00:00, 11 February 2008.

[edit] Alfred the Great

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it is a good enough article to be made so. It is historically acurate and seems to be a well written neutral page and is about a topic vital to England and the United Kingdom as it is about the founder of its original monarchy. Electrobe (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Nominate and Support (Electrobe (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Oppose Sorry, but there are insufficient inline citations to adequately assess its historical accuracy. The "Cultural references" section is off the main focus of the article and goes into needless detail. Stylistically, I don't like the short sections, the inclusion of weblinks within the text or the short lead. DrKiernan (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If I look into this will you withdraw your opposal? (Electrobe (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Yes, of course. But you may prefer to spread out your improvement effort over a longer timescale than this process allows. If this nomination closes without promotion, you can always re-nominate later on, once the points above are addressed. You could also ask for feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review, or consider a Wikipedia:Good article nomination, which will also provide feedback. DrKiernan (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I cant get rid of the Cultral references section without a consens from other editors however do you believe that I have covered your other points (Electrobe (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Oppose The cultural reference section kills it, I mean a reference about a major historical figure does not deserve sub-trivial like "In episode six of the British comedy show At Last the 1948 Show, the sketch.. " and if the "latest biography" isn't in a references for further reading section, it does not belong here at all.

And I'm no citation counter, but whole sections are without references--Docg 18:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point about citiation it is curretly being dealt withj. As for the Cultral references as previously expllained i wish from a consens from other editors of this page (please note: that I am in complete agreement with you on this point but feel compelled to confer with other editors) Thank you for your constructive and most helpful comments (Electrobe (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

I have now created a section on the discussion page asking on views on whether or not to delete the cultral references section. If you would please help me in getting this section deleted it would be of much appreciation. Thank you. The link is [18] (Electrobe (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Comments:

  • Childhood, please be consistent with your spellings - for example, the linked Aethelwulf of Wessex, Alfred's father, compared to Ethelwulf used later in the same section.
  • Same section, this last sentence: "Other sources however indicate that Alfred was the youngest of five sons. [4]" – two problems here, the ref placement, and then the sentence as a whole. Just stuck there out on its own, and you've already said in the first paragraph of the section that Alfred was "He was the fifth and youngest son". Presumably then, there are sources that claim he was something other than the fifth and youngest? But not mentioned?
  • Why is his marriage, at age 19 or 20, in the Childhood section?
  • Dashes, yes I know some people don't like these being brought up here, but try and be consistent. There's an mdash used to separate the years of his reign in the infobox, and a hyphen used in year ranges in the Childhood section. Suggest a check through for these things.
  • Under Alfred. This bit: "'secundarius,'" – that comma placement looks wrong to me. Possibly an AmE vs BrE difference, but does it conform to WP:MOS (I never really completely understood that whole logical quotation thing anyway - every time I think I get it, a comment from other people makes me rethink)? Should be double quotes anyway, from a look of the MOS. There are a few instances of these single quotation marks.
  • "four days later, a brilliant victory at the Battle of Ashdown on" – a brilliant victory? According to whom? As with Doc, above, lacking citations in various places, and certainly calling a victory "brilliant" strikes me as POV without a backing source.
  • The popular legend of the burning of the cakes: I thought that was pretty much agreed to be apocryphal these days, but you don't say so explicitly. Is it just implied by the the use of "legend", or am I just plain wrong :D ?
  • No mention of Ubba, or the Battle of Cynuit in 878?
  • I can foresee people commenting on use of words like "whence". See, I just did ;)
  • The last couple of paras of King at War, at least, are very choppy. "They did this. Then they did that. Then they did the other." Could do with a copy-edit to flow a bit better, I feel.
  • In Reorganisation, the use of "we" in "However, these new ships do not seem to have been a great success, as we hear of them grounding in action and foundering in a storm." – I thought this was frowned upon, except in specific circumstances (read something about it in some MOS talk page recently). Some of the MOS gurus out there (Sandy, Tony1, or others) may be able to confirm or refute that.
  • Citation style – seems a mix and match of in-line references, and some sort of Harvard variant , for example (Anglo-Saxon Chronicles) and (Brooks). Who is Brooks anyway? Don't see him in either References or Further reading, although I could have missed it.
  • While talking about references, please check ref#4 - an off-site link, with no supporting text.
  • In fact, the references could do with a thorough going through for full details, formats and so on. Is [www.treasurehunting.tv] a reliable source?
  • Punctuation – there are quite a few commas that I think are misplaced, or not needed at all. Now, commas are a particular weakness of my own writing, so I'm perfectly happy to be corrected here, but again it seems to indicate a copy-edit is needed.
  • "Alfred eventhough he was one of the best kings ever was very close to defeat." – POV, spelling, reference?
  • "It was to remedy these evils that he established a court school, after the example of Charlemagne; for this he imported scholars like Grimbald and John the Saxon from Europe and Asser from South Wales; for this, above all, he put himself to school, and made the series of translations for the instruction of his clergy and people, most of which yet survive." – "; for this ... ; for this". More evidence of a copy-edit needed.
  • "is solely Alfred's and highly characteristic of his genius." – POV. Indeed, POV all over the place: "the noblest of English kings"?
  • Would be it be worth mentioning that Cnut, also called "the Great", doesn't affect Alfred's being the only English monarch given the epithet, since Cnut wasn't English? Or irrelevant? Oh, I see it now, tucked away in a reference. But, going through it again, I don't see anything about any specific reason why or when he got the epithet. Was it for defeating the Danes? His scholarly works? His laws?
  • In Childhood, the article states that the Gaini is an unidentified district, but in Family it refers to the Gainsborough region.
  • Death and burial – October 26th -> 26 October.
  • Images, I would imagine, are hard to come by, but any chance of more? Even a scan of a page of the Chronicles, something like that. If not, no matter.
  • And finally, agree about the Cultural references section. However, looking at them, I see this: "A new biography of Alfred the Great by Justin Pollard was published by John Murray in 2005." And yet not being used as a source for the article, and not mentioned in Further reading.

That'll do for now. Carre (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, now I've checked a couple of on-line sources to try and verify some of the facts here, I notice that Charles Oman (here, p. 426) suggests Alfred may have been only four when he first went to Rome. Further, this (p. 72) states that Asser claimed the trip was in Alfred's fifth year, while mentioning that other sources claim his eleventh year (unfortunately, not giving those other sources). So, two possible things – does "fifth year" mean 5 years old, or does it means 4 years old and some days/weeks/months? And does the alternative age deserve a mention? Just something to consider, not to mention a couple of usable sources for you (although the second of them does seem very hagiographic to me). Carre (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, just striking out the minor issues fixed by either the nominator, other reviewers, or myself. Carre (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is on its way, but it still needs a lot of work to meet the Featured Article Criteria. I don't think it can meet the criteria in the short amount of time available for the FAC process, and I encourage the nominator to withdraw the nomination, spend some more time on the article, and go to peer review or Good Article nominations first. Sometimes it's easier to do that with your first nomination, because you will get a lot of good feedback and learn a lot. I have listed a few examples of problems in the article. This is not a comprehensive list.
    • The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD for advice.
    • Why is the information about Alfred's marriage in the first paragraph of childhood? He would have been about 20 at that time, and then the next paragraph goes back to talking about him at age 5.
    • SEE WP:MOSDASH for when to use hyphens, ndashes, and mdashes; the article does not appear to be using them properly
    • There are whole sections that have no inline citations. This is now a requirement for FAs, so that people can verify the information in the article. There is also a mixture of inline and Harvard-style citations; one format or the other should be used.
    • There is a lot of talk about legends and stories. Do we know how much weight historians place on these events? If they are completely made up, then they probably ought to be left out of the article (or at least put in a separate legends section)
    • The citations need to be formatted properly.
    • The trivia section has to go.
    • The External links section should be trimmed.
    • Not all of the book in the references section have authors listed
    • The prose needs some work. The league of copyeditors might be able to help.

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose The article has a number of issues, and these just are what I noticed doing a quick lookover. I did not go into depth on sentence structure nor on MOS details. So this is not a comprehensive list. I tend to agree that this article needs more work than can be dealt with in the FAC time frame.
  • Sourcing. Entire large sections not referenced to anything. Mix of reference styles. References are not formated in a consistent manner.
  • Pollard should not be in the further reading section, he should be a major source. Also look at Richard Abels Alfred the Great: War Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England Older, and somewhat dated but still useful, Eleanor Shipley Duckett's Alfred the Great: The King and His Kingdom.
  • Clean out the further reading section. No one is going to want to read for fun "Ancestral Roots"... it's a genealogical work, a very dull listing of genealogical information.
  • Same for the external links.
  • Gah, the cultural references section. Axe it. Anything vital should be worked into prose.
  • one picture has no caption.
  • Large numbers of statements read like opinion but have no citations. An example, the Religion and culture section, second paragraph, last sentence say "But the sceptics cannot be regarded as having proved their point." is definite opinion, but is uncited.
  • The King at War section has no citations and reads almost like a novel, especially the last few sentences in the section "The next year (896 (or 897) they gave up the struggle. Some retired to Nothumbria, some to East Anglia. Those who had no connection to England withdrew to the Contintent. The long campaign was over."
  • Lede is too short.

Those are just the concerns that jumped out at me before really settling in to read in depth. Strongly suggest serious work. If I was going to review this for GA, I'd fail it as it stands.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou everybody for all of your comments so far. I would just like to make a hole in one of the points by carre about the Battle of Cynuit. If you read carefully it reads that somebody other than Alfred led tha battle and as such it has no relevance to Alfred. (Electrobe (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, I did know that Alfred wasn't at Cynuit, just thought it could be a nice background addition (it happened while Alfred was stuck in Athelney), Ubba being one of the more significant Danes threatening Wessex. However, having browsed through those sources I linked, I saw they didn't mention it specifically, so it's no big deal. Carre (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The trivia/cultral references section has now been deleted. Other minor problems have also been dealt with. (Electrobe (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Sorry, "other minor problems have also been dealt with": no they have NOT. Just from the first para last section I see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Alfred_the_Great&action=edit&section=1 Editing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alfred the Great (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  1. "Very little knowledge of the Church under Alfred is known" - dreadful prose.
  2. "monasteries being especial points of attack" - ditto
  3. "for this, above all, he put himself to school"
  4. The whole thing is unreferenced

I could go on, but basically, this needs A LOT of work. Sorry to be harsh, but I'd suggest working with it for a bit, then going to peer review--Docg 19:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I see where your coming from. However please note a said a few minor problems had been dealt with. You have just quoted some major problems. (Electrobe (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

  • Oppose. Sorry to oppose, but I think there's still a good deal of work to do here. The points raised by several reviewers above all seem reasonable to me; in particular I think the citations don't make it clear where the information comes from. I agree with Ealdgyth that the Abels bio is worth using too. I haven't reviewed for comprehensiveness because of the other issues, but looking at the history tells me that the article has not been revised all that much in preparation for this FAC. Alfred's a big subject, and there's quite a bit of research to do to get a major article like this to FA level. I'd encourage you to take some time to go through the material in the references in some detail and expand the article substantially. Mike Christie (talk) 23:05, 7 February 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 00:00, 11 February 2008.

[edit] The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening

Nominating the article because I think it fits the criteria, natch. David Fuchs (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Very nice article. Although I might say it would be better if it was expanded with more imformation. Nevertheless, great article; I don't know want to say. --Healthykid (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I would have liked more info, too, of course; I've been looking for more development info but have been unable to dig up more at the moment. Still, I feel it is as comprehensive as it can be. David Fuchs (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support short but comprehensive(the only section that could be larger is Development) and referenced. Seems enough to become the fourth Zelda game FA. igordebraga ≠ 02:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments.
  • In the "Reception" section, could you cite the numbers given in the reviews box?
  • You could probably certainly expand on reviewers comments a bit a good deal (although a bit would still be OK!)
  • Does the game have a legacy? I'd imagine it does, but I see no coverage of that.
  • "In addition, the player would then be referred to as "THIEF" by the inhabitants of Koholint Island for the remainder of the game." - is the ALL CAPS necessary here (haven't played the game, so dunno...).

Please leave a note on my talk page if you want any more clarification (and support ;)). Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Odd that this is a Zelda game and there is nothing about the Zelda timeline. Buc (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are my comments:

  • "IGN rated the title as one of the top 100 games of all time." Why not state the rank specifically? I know it's mentioned in "reception", but why not specifically in the lead also?
  • Remove the external link to the Zelda wiki, as that is just a copy of this article, from the looks of this. I'd also reconsider the Mobygames link—it doesn't seem to offer anything beyond what this article does.
  • "Like all games in the Legend of Zelda series, Link's Awakening is an action-adventure game". Are we forgetting Link's Crossbow Training?
  • "special dungeons". What's that supposed to mean?
  • "The dungeons vary in size and the puzzles needed to beat each one". Maybe it's me, but I can't work out what this is supposed to mean.
    • I've now deciphered its meaning after reading it over another three times, but it still needs rewording because it barely makes sense and is ungrammatical. You don't beat the dungeon. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "special shrine". Again, the word "special" adds nothing to understanding
  • "new game mechanics to the series, for instance allowing the player to jump." This reads awkwardly to me.
  • "This allowed for Link's Awakening". Again, weak and awkward phrasing
  • You use "In addition" throughout the Gameplay section; why not mix it up and cut repetiton by using additionally some times?
  • "The island is also inhabited by strangely aware non player characters who inform". If it breaks the fourth wall, then maybe you could mention it directly instead of implying it. If anything, cut out "strangely aware".
  • Considering it's a relatively short article, I would have thought that it would have a bigger Reception section to balance things out. This is just a suggestion, though.

Overall, a nice article. I especially like the way the plot's been handelled. When my concerns are addressed adequately, I will support. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed all the grammar/prose issues. In the lead, I kept it general because IGN rated the game twice, and it received two different rankings in the 100 list (which is mentioned in reception.) David Fuchs (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support: All my concerns seem to have been addressed. Well done! Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - I read through the article and have no complaints about it after seeing the changes addressed that Ashnard brought up. --ZeWrestler Talk 18:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose: It's not up to the required professional standards yet. For example:
  • "The title is the fourth official installment in The Legend of Zelda video game series, as well as the first game from the series to appear on a handheld game console."—Surely "The game ..."? Use "and", not "as well as".
  • MOS breach: two, not one quotation mark for "Wind Fish" and the like. Or just the initial caps?
  • What earthly use is the Japanese script in an English-language text? Fine for Japanese WP, but here it just clutters.
  • Ref 16 and others: see MOS on the spacing of ellipsis dots. Ref 14: is that a quote? References need attention.
  • "Game Rankings rates the DX version of Link's Awakening at 92%, based on ten media outlets.[23]"—Based on sales figures for the first ?three months after release? Or what?

Please get someone else to scrutinise the whole text. Tony (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: ‘Title’ is a perfectly valid wording and avoids using ‘game’ or the name too many times to redundancy. Japanese script for Japanese games is common and accepted (see Golden Sun and the like.) As to the game quote refs: they follow conventions for in-game text as well (see the Final Fantasy FA’s.) As to your Game Rankings query, I have no idea what you’re trying to say. The score is based on ten reviews. Sales figures have nothing to do with it. As to the other minor things I will fix them. David Fuchs (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
David, when are you planning to work on those issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've addressed his grammar/MoS issues; however I have responded to his other concerns and asked for clarification for the others. David Fuchs (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be so keen to frame these issues as "minor". (I'm the one you refer to as "he" and "his" above.) Together, they add up to a good or a mediocre reading experience. "Ten reviews" is not "ten media outlets", so rather than say you "have no idea" what I'm "trying to say", why don't you clarify the wording, which is clearly faulty. Sales figures were just an example of what it might have meant—who knows? Your justification above of the use of Japanese script does not appear to be substantive; merely resorting to the "it's used elsewhere" line is not going to convince anyone. I'd like to know why you think it's worth cluttering up the text with script that almost no English speaker will derive meaning from. If there are Japanese speakers among our readership (and they're not reading the Japanese WP at the time), I fail to see how it would help them either, having just read the English name. For example, the opening is:

The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島 Zeruda no Densetsu Yume o Miru Shima?, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: Dreaming Island") is an action-adventure game

Isn't it long and contorted enough without the Japanese script? And why do we need a transliteration as well?

  • MOS breach: 'Zelda Whistle Stop Tour'. See rules on quotation marks. Further down, "delux". Elsewhere, italics for titles. I'm confused.
  • Ref 29, no author mentioned, yet there is one. Are the references all accurate and properly detailed? Tony (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the MoS issues, but I guess you're not really credible if you're wondering why I have italics for titles. As for the Japanese script, it's a Japanese game, originally released in Japan. Just because "that's not what I call it" doesn't mean we shouldn't have a non-anglo centric world view with our topics. David Fuchs (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Rudeness to reviewers isn't going to help. You have not yet engaged with my substantive reasons for raising the Japanese script issue. Nor is the article yet up to standard. Tony (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Regarding the Japanese script, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Include alternatives says that "The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliterations and English alphabet transliterations." I interpret this as supporting the Japanese text, since the video game is of Japanese origin. Pagrashtak 02:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Beyond that, WP:VG's guidelines suggest such a use as well (see here). David Fuchs (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, can't argue with that. However, when I have time, I intend to raise the issue of why the practice of cluttering text with non-Roman script that will mean nothing to readers is condoned. Is it purely as an ornament? Is it to show the reader that the English name is translated from the Japanese (we knew that anyway, didn't we)? Is it to display the author's ability to gather together the script symbols on WP? It's different when a foreign name is cited with roman script, since at least it gives us a vague idea of how the original is pronounced. Not so with Japanese script. You tell me; as I've said, no one has offered substantive, direct reasons for the inclusion. Tony (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a valid question for (broader) discussion. We compromised at [[The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages]] by including the foreign titles in a footnote, although this has the unfortunate effect of making it appear that the author is attempting to provide a reference for the title. Pagrashtak 16:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose - While I had fond memories of this game, I don't feel the article is up to FA standards. The development sections is a bit sparse and there is not information regarding the reception of the game in its country of origin. I also think some sales information would help too, though not a necessity. I realize that finding such information on games this old is difficult, but it is needed to be comprehensive. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
The sales info is in there, i just forgot to talk about it outside of the lead. That's rectified. David Fuchs (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that now, the changes are a good step forward. I also added some content from a Japanese newspaper article, so the "Reception" section is a bit more fleshed out. However, I still the feel the "Development" section does not contain enough information to make the article fully comprehensive. The second development paragraph and "DX version" section are fine, but the first doesn't contain much in regard to the creation and influences of the game. I hope you can find more, because the article is shaping up nicely. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC))
I think i might have found some good info, but I will be leaving later this afternoon and will be gone most of the weekend, so I will be unable to add them in until Sunday or Monday. David Fuchs (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Further rejoinder: I see that the reference to "sales figures" and "media outlets" has been removed, thus addressing my query about the confusion it caused. Yet that didn't stop the nominator from smearing my talk page with:

I'm sorry if I'm snippy, but I still have no fucking clue what you mean by the "sales figures" comment, and you insulted me first, how about you clarify and stop throwing stones in your glass house.

I don't quite see where I was rude to you "first" here. But I certainly see your rudeness, thrust in my face. It's unacceptable. If your parents didn't teach you, I need to say now that it's impolite to use "his" and "him" rather than someone's name in such a context. You've said of me that "you're not really credible if you're wondering why I have italics for titles"—nice. In fact, I was critical of the inconsistency in formatting, not of the use per se of italics for that purpose. While we're on that issue: "The Greatest 200 Videogames of Their Time,"—Read MOS on final punctuation, which should precede the closing quotation marks where the quote begins within a WP sentence. There are many breaches of this. And then there's the apparent falsification of sources; take Ref 14, which talks of a "simple narrative", which you've used to support your own assertion that "Although the plot of Zelda is simplistic by today's standards", which is quite a different matter. How many other references are dodgy? "then-Nintendo of America president Minoru Arakawa"—clumsy. And "In it, a wiry-haired, nerdy guy (John Kassir) walks through the dark making goofy noises, yelling out the names of some enemies from the game,"—full of what we call interpersonal epithets, i.e., those that express your attitude rather than fact. Fails 1a and 1c. Tony (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

None of those text strings you mentioned above appear in the article, the Ref you are talking about is not being used to justify a simple narrative, and there is nothing about anything you just mentioned. Are you reading the correct article? David Fuchs (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Tony, I think you were looking at The Legend of Zelda instead of The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. I'd appreciate it if you could double-check and update the above. Pagrashtak 16:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments. The lede delves very little into the plot, in fact just 33 words. I'd like if the second paragraph went further into the overall plot of the game, seeing as the lede should summarize the article. The Wikilinks need to be checked, as I noticed a few that did not go where they should have; in the development section, Crosscountry redirects to a UK rail line, despite the sentence saying it was a North American tour, and Whistle Stop links to a 1946 movie. when a player loses all heart - that's awkward. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, prose/sourcing/MoS issues:
    • Image:Linksawakening-overworld.png and Image:Marin link co.png do not have sources listed, and the rationales do not include all the required elements. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, Necessary Components heading.
    • "Link's Awakening is one of the few Zelda games that does not..." Earlier in the lead you said this is the fourth game, and this sentence says it is one of the "few" that does not feature various things. A few usually means four or more.. so I'm confused.
    • Wikilinking throughout is a mess. Some examples:
      • You wikilink "instruments" in the lead, taking the reader to a disambig page. I was expecting an article explaining instruments in the context of this article.
      • In the Gameplay section, "nightmare" links to a generic article about video game "bosses", requiring a leap of logic for the reader that is not explicitly stated in the article.
      • "Heart container" links to a heading in The Legend of Zelda (series) that.. isn't there.
    • You used single quotes when you mention names of things in the game like 'Wind Fish'. Check WP:PUNC for the correct style on this - I think you should use double quotes unless they are inside another quotation.
    • There are some mentions of in-game characters and places that are not in quotes at all - need consistency.
    • The last para in the lead mixes topics to a confusing result. We went from mentioning the DX release to sales figures for the original game and I had to go over it a couple times to understand that you weren't still talking about only DX. Or were you?
    • I followed the first citation in the Gameplay section, expecting it to support the statement that the subject is "most similar to its predecessor". There are major problems appearing here, and we're not far into the article. First, the source does not even mention A Link to the Past, so it does not support the statement that cites it. This worries me and adds to Tony1's concerns that sources are being applied inaccurately or incorrectly. Second, the connection between the game and its DX version is significantly muddied since this source is a review of the DX version. Should readers assume that Link's Awakening and Link's Awakening DX should be treated as the same game for all intents and purposes? Sources about Link's Awakening DX can reasonably be applied to Link's Awakening without the reader's awareness? I think these are dangerous assumptions to make.
I'm not going to call out further example here - it is clear that someone needs to go through all the sources in the article to make sure they actually support the statements that cite them. Then, the article needs a strategy for discussing Link's Awakening and Link's Awakening DX. I'm sure they don't need their own articles, but you simply cannot assume that something a source says about Link's Awakening DX automatically applies to the older version. For example, if some reviewer gave 'Link's Awakening DX a higher rating, maybe it's because they like the color? The article largely treats the two version as the same, though. Someone also needs to check wikilinks and copyedit the whole article for style issues. --Laser brain (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've clarified the FUR for both images, removed misleading wikilinks, made the use of quotes consistent, and reorganized the flow of the last paragraph so it addresses the DX version after the original's sales figures. Also, I've killed the links that don't go anywhere. As to your worries about citation: as mentioned in the article, the two games are exactly the same except for the color palette and additional features to capitalize on this capability. The other 99% of the game is the same- IGN basically did rate the DX version higher because they "like the color", and it's been mentioned as such in reception. I used the DX references because they still cite the information and were more handy than the original game reviews. I removed the portion about "Link to the Past" because that wasn't supported, and went through again to check the refs, however that was the only issue I found. Tony1 has opposed me for concerns about references not in the article. David Fuchs (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
David, with all due respect (and I do have a tremendous amount of respect for anyone who works toward FA status) I think a third party should review the sources. Sometimes the primary author of a work benefits from a fresh pair of eyes. I say this because the second random source I looked up, just now, is also incorrectly applied. The sentence "The game's background music was composed by Yuichi Ozaki, Kazumi Totaka, Minako Hamano, and Kazue Ishikawa." cites a Gametrailers.com video. I watched the whole video. The video mentions the music in the Zelda series as a whole, but it does not mention any of these composer names. In fact, it doesn't even discuss Link's Awakening except to mention that future videos will cover it. --Laser brain (talk) 22:03, 10 February 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 01:26, 10 February 2008.

[edit] Anna Nicole Smith

I nominate this article for FA, because I really do think the article meets with all the criteria, and has a lot of good references. Thanks.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

  • Oppose per FAC 1e. Article has been semi-protected since October due to vandalism & libel concerns. Caknuck (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not concerned about 1e, which I think is really meant to be about edit warring between contributors, rather than vandalism from anons. Some high-visibility pop-culture topics, like this one, are going to be highly-appealing targets for vandals, but that shouldn't disqualify them from FA status, at least in my opinion. (As testament to its stability, the article has barely changed since November) I believe the article is actually pretty comprehensive too, but I don't think this one is quite there yet. The prose needs lots of work, particularly for flow. It's very choppy, by which I mean there are very few transitions from one thought to the next. I think it would take some time for even a good copy editor to iron out the kinks. (This is common when an article has been worked over by dozens of contributors, and never really copy edited). Since there's an entire article on Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case we can probably reduce the amount of blow-by-blow coverage here. In general, it might be good to think about ways to reduce the focus on legal back-and-forth. The references need a lot of clean-up. They should be in a standard style with publisher information, publication dates, and accessdates. Might want to check if the sources are reliable. (about.com?) The YouTube tribute videos aren't really appropriate. I think it probably needs more work than will be easy to accomplish in a week. --JayHenry (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The prose needs quite a bit of work. I've left some examples below, but this is not comprehensive; the article needs a thorough copyedit. There are also issues of missing citations, and some of the citations cited are not reliable sources. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Every sentence in the first paragraph of the lead begins with "She" (or "Vickie Lynn Marshall"). Can this be varied
    • Early life section issues:
      • Why is she referred to as "Anna Nicole" throughout this section? Per WP:MOSBIO, after the first reference, the subject should be referred to be her surname. In this case, that would be "Smith"
      • "Her father then left the family". This makes it sound as if her father left as soon as they got married, which is not true
      • I would move the sentence about her older brother to the end of the first paragraph, and I would reword it to something along the lines of "Smith has an older half-brother, David Luther Tacker, Jr., born to her mother in 1966."
      • Need a citation for Virgie's later marriages and divorces
      • Prose does not flow in this section at all, not from sentence to sentence and not from paragraph to paragraph.
    • There should not be 2 infoboxes in this article. Please pick one and remove the other.
    • "Smith's career took off" -> too colloquial
    • "Becoming one of Playboy's most popular models, Smith was heavier and larger than the typical Playboy model" -> These two clauses appear to have nothing to do with each other
    • Need a citation for when she decided to be "Anna Nicole Smith"
    • Need a citation for fact that her Guess photos were inspired by Jayne Maynsfield
    • Need a citation for "maintained that she loved her husband, and age did not matter to her"
    • Further information tags go at the top of a section, not in the middle/at the end
    • Need a citation for fact that E Pierce MArshall died from an aggressive infection, since that is a quote.
    • E. Pierce Marshall does not need to be wikilinked twice in one section.
    • There is an overlinking of some common words - will, heirs, film, produced
    • Need citations for fact that film appearances were highly publicized in 1994 and that little was done to further her acting career
    • Need citation for fact that Smith's performances were panned, that her career stalled during her litigation, and that she was fodder for late night tv
    • Need citation for fact that The Anna Nicole Show was cancelled for "creative differences"
    • Need a citation for "fried chicken" Even if it is covered by the next citation, it should be immediately after a quotation.
    • Need citation for fact that " Tabloids speculated that Smith was under the influence of pills or some other controlled substance. Her representatives explained that she was in pain due to a series of grueling workouts"
    • There are a lot of very short paragraphs. This can lead to the text seeming choppy
    • Need a citation for "Mark Hatten aka Mark "Hollywood" Hatten also came forward to claim that he was the father of Anna Nicole Smith's little girl, Dannielynn."
    • Need citations on Daniels's cause of death
    • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations should not be offset if they are under 4 lines
    • Need citation for: "Smith was finally buried March 2, 2007 at Nassau's Lakeview Memorial Gardens and Mausoleum in a plot adjacent to her son, Daniel."
    • Need citation for "Daniel's father reportedly wants his son exhumed and reburied in his home state of Texas."
    • I think you should exclude the following information from Appearances list, as it is pretty much trivia. If any of it is that important, it should be incorporated into the article.
      • Comedy Central Roast of Pamela Anderson (2005) - Herself (in audience)
      • On the NBC soap opera Passions, a character based on Smith by the name Hanna Nicola Smythe made an appearance.[90]
      • An animated version of Smith appears as a playable character in the video game version of Celebrity Deathmatch.
      • In 1993, Smith appeared in the music video for Bryan Ferry's single "Will You Love Me Tomorrow".[89]
      • In 1997, Smith did a remake and music video of the Marilyn Monroe song "My Heart Belongs To Daddy", the video made by Nicolaï Lo Russo in France.
      • In 1997, Smith appeared in the music video for Supertramp's single "You Win, I Lose".
      • In 2004, Smith appeared in the music video for Kanye West's single "The New Workout Plan".
    • Is it original research to use Ancestry.com to find birth/marriage/divorce dates?
    • Please use named refs, so that the same reference does not appear multiple times (for example, "high school remembers Anna Nicole - barely"
    • Some references are not formatted properly - no publisher, no date, no author, no retrieval date
    • About.com is not a reliable source
    • I don't think iamscruelty.com or furisdead.com are considered reliable sources
    • There is a misformatted reference (currently ref 58 - Court Disses Virgie; Larry and Baby to Leave Bahamas"
    • Soapcentral.com is probably not a reliable source either
    • There are too many external links. I would definitely remove the 3 Youtube links
    • I don't know that gawker.com is considered a reliable source

Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 8 February 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 01:26, 10 February 2008.

[edit] Odyssey Number Five

Nominators: Dihydrogen Monoxide, Keilana

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide (most of the work) and I (copyediting and referencing) are co-nominating this for FA status; it covers pretty much everything out there (that's important). Any constructive criticism will be acted on. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks Sandy. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, thanks. For the record, all Tony's comments on the previous page (link above) are being dealt with as a I speak (and should be done soon). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per comments on old nom. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 02:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a very good article, but I still found a couple of issues when I looked it over:
  • "the group's next album would be similar to Internationalist" - specify what Internationalist is (preceding album?), so as to avoid readers unfamiliar with the topic having to click on links to individual articles to fully understand the article.
  • "Powderfinger's efforts were not completely in vain" - sounds like an editorial comment, is there a source for it?
  • "The music video for "My Happiness" also achieved some popularity" - "some popularity" is vague. If you mean the video started to be liked by the many people, it should be "The music video for "My Happiness" also gained/increased in popularity"
  • I removed that statement, unsourced etc. Not sure what the deal with it was. [21].
  • ""Waiting for the Sun" was written by Fanning as a devotional, gospel style song, stating that "It’s about being in a relationship and being really heavily happy with it."" - check grammar.
  • "received well by Ear Medicine" - Ear Medicine should be wikilinked or given some background (concerning what type of publication it is), as it appears a not-too-well-known website
  • It's not "notable", I've removed it. [23].
  • "was nominated for "Best Group" but failed to win" - delete "but failed to win", mention of the failure is not needed, if the article doesn't say it won the award, then readers know it didn't.

- PeaceNT (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 :) A bit more stuff to consider:
  • "Powderfinger bassist John Collins hinted that the group's next album would be similar to the recently released Internationalist" - WP:RECENT issue; "recently released" is also inccorect in reported speech as the verb "hinted" is in the past tense. You could consider replacing it with "previous album", since this is the first time Internationalist is introduced in the article; then explanation for later mentions will not be needed.
  • "The band spent much of the time" - "much" is vague.
  • A few sentences before ref 28 need rechecking. e.g ""The Metre" spent one week on the ARIA Singles Chart, at #31."" Should it be "peaked at #31"? It appears from the source that the song peaked at #31, not spent the whole week at #31. (I'm not familiar with a music chart so my interpretation could be wrong; just tell me ;))
  • The way the chart works is that every week you get a "rank" - in this case, The Metre got the rank of #31 in that week, and never got another rank (according to the source). So saying that it peaked in a field of one (so to speak) would sound pretty odd. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "He ended the review by noting" - sounds a bit too detailed a description. Perhaps change to "He concluded by noting" or something.
  • Concerning the Reception section, I'd prefer the previous order, it's strange to start the section with saying the album won numerical awards, then have a following paragraph beginning with "Odyssey Number Five mostly gained positive reviews,". More common way is to discuss the reviews first, then conclude the section with the awards achieved.
  • Article is a bit overlinked --> delink familiar terms like:love, manager, boxer, United States, Europe, record label
  • Dates in the refs are not consistent (e.g July 12, 2001; 2007-12-23)
- PeaceNT (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: Is Devon Powers identified as a male reviewer? I think "Devon" could be a female name. :-? - PeaceNT (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

done. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose on 1a grounds, grammar/punctuation, and OR issues. Some examples follow, but many sentences need complete rewriting due to incorrect grammar or clarity issues. Please have a copyeditor go over the whole article. The prose is not what I would call compelling or brilliant.
    • Grammar and punctuation examples. There are many spots where commas and semicolons are used incorrectly or awkwardly, or incorrect verb tenses are used. The following are some example, but please check the whole article:
      • "The album also featured, 'These Days', which topped..." Check comma usage.
      • There is a hyphen used in the lead where there should be an em dash.
      • "Many critics lauded the album as Powderfinger's best work with one stating the album was "the Finger's Crowning Glory," however others were critical of the "imitation" contained in the album." Grammar, punctuation.
      • "John Collins hinted that the group's next album would be similar to their previous album; Internationalist..." Punctuation.
      • Check punctuation in quotes throughout. There are some places where you've placed a period outside the end quote of a sentence, but if that sentence ended in a period I believe it is proper to place the period inside the end quote.
    • Prose examples:
      • The word "spawned" is too informal.
      • "The band spent this time ensuring high quality in the songs, something they had previously neglected in Internationalist, resulting in out of tune guitars on 'Passenger'." Rewrite for clarity. What does "high quality" mean? Artists don't do things "in" records, they do them "on" records. Out of tune guitars? This sounds like someone's POV. the band actually admit that their guitars were out of tune on the track, or was that some journalist's opinion?
      • "The focus of the album centered on restraint, with lyrics generally more simplistic than previously..."
      • "Like Powderfinger's previous album Internationalist, Odyssey Number Five discussed..." I don't think "discussed" is the right word choice here; an album doesn't discuss anything.
    • OR/sourcing examples:
      • "This success was assisted by the band appearing on Late Night with David Letterman, and by supporting Coldplay on tour." What is the source for this?
      • I have an issue with the "Oi" trilogy thing. Nowhere do you cite a source explaining that this was done on purpose or that there is any meaning behind it. The article Powderfinger's Oi Song Trilogy does not cite any sources. So, this is original research as it stands. You need at least one reliable source where someone has written about the trilogy and made some useful statements about why it is relevant.
      • "The song was heavy in political sentiment, akin to "The Day You Come" on Powderfinger's previous album, Internationalist. " Source? It is OR as it stands. --Laser brain (talk) 20:53, 9 February 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 16:18, 9 February 2008.

[edit] Ralph Bakshi

previous FAC
previous FAC (02:20, 1 February 2008)

I am renominating this article once more that this article was not given enough notice to the point where it would have a serious chance at FA status. The two reviewers that opposed the previous FAC commented on flaws that had, in fact, been addressed by the time the article was nominated, and the FAC ended sooner than it should have. I really feel that this should be a FA. It is well referenced, citing valid printed and online sources, it is well written, and there are no significant problems for it to not be featured at this time. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

  • Comments
    • "Bakshi first attended the Thomas Jefferson High School then was transferred to the School of Industrial Art..." Are you sure its "the" Thomas Jefferson High School? You need to disambiguate Thomas Jefferson High School. Why the passive "was transferred"? Begs the question: who transferred him and why?
      From the 1981 NYTimes interview: I was a street guy - you know, black satin jacket, stickball, hanging out. From the time I was a little kid I always loved comics. But I never figured I could be an artist or a cartoonist until I was in high school. Then it hit me, and I transferred from Thomas Jefferson High School to Industrial Arts. So a quote here, adding how he had an epiphany and realized he didn't have to wait until after high school to be an artist or a cartoonist; he could act immediately upon these dreams. I believe it is the Thomas Jefferson H.S. in Brooklyn, NY he went to unless there are other Thomas Jefferson H.S. nearby? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillDeanCarter (talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "By age 25, he was directing these shows..." What shows? You refer to characters in the previous sentence but no shows.
    • "At 28, he saved the jobs of the studio when he attended a series pitch meeting with the CBS Television Network, and improvised a superhero spoof cartoon proposal called The Mighty Heroes when the network rejected all the studio's prepared ones as well as directing it." Long, awkward sentence. (Try reading it out loud). Needs restructuring for better flow and logic. Unclear what is meant by "he saved the jobs of the studio".
    • "So he paid for the film's completion out of his own pocket..." Fragment
    • ""animated characters interacting with real-world people" Citation for this quotation?
      • It's not a quotation, and did not need a citation. Rewritten for clarity. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
    • The prose sometimes veers into informal, un-encyclopedic language at times. For example: "always coming up with new ideas", "really thought", "rip-off".
    • "Bakshi is quoted as saying that" Wordy, passive attribution. Try something along the lines of ""A lot of people got freaked out," recalled Bakshi. "The people in charge...""
    • In general, the text needs a polish to rid repetition and redundancy. BuddingJournalist 06:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I previously opposed this article for several reasons and, no, not all of the issues had been addressed or have yet to be addressed. The article has still yet to receive a proper copy-edit and is poorly written in spots. I still suggest waiting to nominate this until after a thorough copy-edit has been done. María (habla conmigo) 14:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As in the previous FAC, I oppose on the grounds of comprehensiveness. A biography of the subject (the first comprehensive biography of the subject) is being published in April, and this FAC is premature until after the information in that book has been considered. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Another leftover issue:
      • The image of Fire and Ice directing is not properly used in the article. Under Fair Use, the article needs to be discussing what is going on in the picture, and it does not. Either that text needs to be added, or the image should be removed from the article. Karanacs (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
        • As discussed in the previous FAC, it IS properly used in the article. The section discusses Bakshi's career during the 1980s. This image is represented by a behind-the-scenes image from the production of a film he directed in 1983. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
          • I don't agree with that. His directing style in this film in particular would need to be discussed for that image to be fair use. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentOppose I will do a copy-edit myself. This was a pretty interesting article when I read it last year. I don't think the nominator should have to wait until April to have this article featured if it is comprehensive based on what is known currently. It might even be a good idea to feature Ralph Bakshi on the main page on the book's publication date.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Bakshi went to work for Terrytoons Animation Studio (11, 12) in New Rochelle as a cell polisher, graduating to cell painting. Practicing nights and weekends he quickly became an inker, and then directly to animator (by claiming an empty desk on the animators floor and, claiming that he was promoted to animator, (13) asked for scenes to animate for characters such as Mighty Mouse, Heckle & Jeckle, (14) Deputy Dawg, Foofle & Lariat Sam. By 25 he was directing these shows as well as Sad Cat, James Hound and others. This is too direct a copy of the biography on Bakshi's web site. Are there other articles that talk about this information?
  • At 28, he saved the jobs of the studio when he attended a series pitch meeting with the CBS Television Network, and improvised a superhero spoof cartoon proposal called The Mighty Heroes when the network rejected all the studio's prepared ones as well as directing it. The reference you use for this information doesn't mention any of these pitch meetings with CBS.
    • Removed. Was added by an anonymous editor without adding source info. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Have you found every existing interview with Bakshi and article about him? Have you gone through the Google News archives as far back as possible, and maybe bought a couple archived articles from newspapers? I don't subscribe to the wiki-philosophy that every article has to be accessible for free, or within five clicks of the mouse.

This article does need work but it should stay here for a while longer as it would be a nice addition to Wikipedia's featured content.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Ibaranoff could do two things: (a) get a hold of all possible sources and provide a competing biography of Bakshi to the upcoming biography or (b) wait until the upcoming biography is published, digest it, rewrite the Wikipedia article, and then a month or two later come here to FAC. I can't see (a) happening just because either you don't have all possible sources or the sources don't provide enough info. So do (b) and you'll have something excellent that will help promote the upcoming book on Bakshi.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note; Closing for the second time this month, with multiple opposes. Please allow sufficient time to address these issues and work with the Opposers before re-nominating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 9 February 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 16:18, 9 February 2008.

[edit] Missionary position

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is pretty comprehensive by this point. Sarsaparilla (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Question You licensed Image:Down scaled missionary.jpg under the GFDL. I could not find any mention on the site that the contents were licensed under the GFDL. Could you explain? Nishkid64 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Could you also replace [30] with another source. The link is currently broken. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Done Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Graphical check mark things aren't allowed in FACs anymore.-Wafulz (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this article should've gone through a thorough copyedit before FAC. There are too many direct quotes, and I'm running into lots of minor errors like a sudden change in person, capitalization, quotations not being close properly, brackets where a comma suffices, etc.-Wafulz (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Arg, it looks like you didn't delist this article from GAC. The citations are also not templated consistently.-Wafulz (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "While many states outlaw oral sex," Oral sex is linked but provides no further information on the illegalization of it or other sex acts.--Kiyarrllston 00:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it supposed to include that info? Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The comment is regarding the acceptance of different types of sex acts, yet the link allows for no greater examination of this comment. I believe this would be wp:overlink, as the link is not helpful. Is there no article regarding legality of sex acts or similar?--Kiyarrllston 14:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Please replace Image:Missionary Sex Position1.png or can someone edit it to remove the teddy bear? Having a sexually explicit image where the girl's teddy could have the symbolic implication she's a child is not acceptable in featured content. I'm afraid I'll have to enter an objection, but will remove it contingent on that being fixed.--Docg 09:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Replaced. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A few comments from the History section:
  • First paragraph – although the referencing in the article is pretty good, I think the last couple of sentences of this para need citations, since they're ascribing beliefs. (Not just asking for references for the sake of them - for example, I see no need to reference the 1st para of Basic Position)
  • Second paragraph – the note of "(14 or 15 years of age)" doesn't sound like "rather young girls" for the period (pre-2nd century, from the context of the sentence). Marriage ages of even younger than that, I'd have thought, were pretty common all the way into the middle ages and possibly even later than that.
  • Same bit – I don't see how the female being 14-15 years old would particularly make the missionary position less convenient, and what was it about the bed that did?
  • Third paragraph – "Although the Bible did not mention sexual positions"; it does now? Or should it be "does not"?

That's it for now. Carre (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a citation for the "fact" that women were commonly married off at a younger age in the old days. This is one of those assertions that gets insinuated into relevant articles as if it were as obvious as the sky being blue, but there's quite a bit of evidence to show that early marriage wasn't universal. According to author Liza Picard, although rich women were usually married off young (and of course their marriages were the ones to end up in the history books), the average age at marriage for women decreased by two months between 1400 and 1970. Yes, decreased. Poorer women worked before marriage to save up money to set up the household. --NellieBly (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, found lots by a simple google search, but not particularly authoritative in the main. However, there's always Britannica – search for "early modern Europe" and you'll see "Medieval girls were very young at first marriage, barely past puberty". Many more about ancient Greece and Rome, which is the era discussed. Carre (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah ancient Greece/Rome are very different beasts from Europe from 1400-1970. However, can we get more information on citation #11 ("Sex In Ancient Greece Views Towards Sex Positions")?-Wafulz (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Citation #10 at the moment, but no publication details, which is another reason to comment. Carre (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The age difference created a height differential. Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that is a very strange rationale. You could also say the gender difference results in a height differential. The missionary position must be very rare indeed. Carre (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose There's still a lot of work to do. Prose is still way short of the standards for featured articles. I gave the first two sections a semi-thorough read and I still found a few cases of unreferenced or nebulous assertions. The text is also bizarrely underlinked. I don't see how one can hope to fully understand the article without links to cervix, fornix, G-spot, clitoris, Doggy style. In contrast, there are wikilinks for pillow, German language, French language and Spanish language... I also think a case could be made that links to articles on ancient civilizations would make sense in the first section, though I understand there may be disagreement on that front. (How many people know about Trobrianders?) Other small points

Who is Artemidos?
Who is Nicholas Venette?
Who is Malinowski?
The bit about beds and height in Ancient Greece sounds like speculation by a single author and not some well-known truth that has been clearly established. The article should reflect that.
Disambiguation articles for grip, anvil, plough, etc. should probably include mentions of the sexual position.

Pichpich (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article mentions that bonobos use this position but not that among all extant primates it is unique to humans and bonobos. This was proposed by some evolutionary biologists as a synapomorphy establishing bonobos and humans as sister species. --Una Smith (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment will need a G rated image if ever featured on the main page--68.45.82.237 (talk) 06:58, 9 February 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 16:18, 9 February 2008.

[edit] Hans-Joachim Marseille

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

After the article has passed three separate A-class reviews I feel that it is ready for the "featured article classification".

The feedback initially was mixed in nature. Criticism was mainly about footnotes in the middle of sentences and comments about tables in the second half of the article. I believe that a number of editors that have worked on this article, feel comfortable with how the information is being presented now. The reason for this is mainly in the nature of presenting contradicting sources. We therefore broke down the information as much as possible in order to avoid generalizing statements about him over-claiming aerial victories. Thus you will find a number of citations in the middle of sentences.

MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support As I said at A-Class review, please try to address the hidden comment requesting clarification of "His mother married again and took the name Reuter, which adversely affected Marseille". Why and how did it adversely affect him? Because he didn't like the sound? Because he didn't like his stepfather? Because he disapproved of divorce? Because he was proud of his Huguenot ancestry? I would also move the "Memorials" section up to above the tables and redraft it as prose. DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I gave an explanation. Please have a look and see if it adequately addresses your request.MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Its a nice article and has many good points, not least the excellent referencing, but I have a number of problems with it which prevent my support at this stage.
  • My biggest issue is the quality of the prose. Throughout the article, but especially in the early parts, the prose is very disjointed and stilted. Lots and lots of very short sentances constantly break up the flow and can hinder understanding in places. I have changed some obvious grammatical problems myself and noted some others below, but I think the entire article could use a copyedit to turn this prose brilliant. If this is still a problem in a week or so I could even have a go myself once my RL calms down. Its quite frustrating, because the tactical discussions are interesting and well-written but the biographical chronology tends to break up. (See below for a reappraisal)
  • I also feel that the insertion of references into the middle of sentances is a little disconcerting and breaks the prose up further. This only occurs a few times in the article but I would recommend placing references at the end of sentances rather than after commas unless they follow a quote or a fact likely to be challenged.
  • There are an awful lot of commas before words like and and but, often when they shouldn't be there. I have zapped a few myself but the punctuation in the article as a whole needs revising.
  • There are a lot of very short paragraphs, which further break up the text and look a bit listy. Merging some of the related paragraphs together, particulaly in the "Military service" section might help the flow.
  • The first reference has no page number and probably isn't necessary as there is no requirement for facts in the lead to be referenced provided they are referenced further down the page (and if this fact doesn't appear elsewhere in the article, then it should).
  • Not a comment on the article per se, but Siegfried Marseille could be red linked as he looks to be notable enough for an article of his own. (struck through as not relevant to the FAC review).
  • "While performing a slow circuit,": This sentance has no context, when? Where?
  • "Marseille's kill rate was slow,": we've just seen that it wasn't, so this sentance needs context or rephrasing.
  • What exactly is "an abnormal amount of milk"?
  • "On 1 September he was even more successful,": this paragraph comes in at least two paragrpahs early as the paragraph following it is talking about June of the same year.
  • "Marseille flew four different Bf 109F-4/Trop aircraft": This is a list, and as such it has to be better introduced and formatted.
  • "Many of the other top Luftwaffe fighter aces like Adolf Galland and Erich Hartmann regarded him as "the best"." if so then please reference it.
  • "Memorials": Can this list be turned into readable prose instead? (a query rather than an essential change)
  • The many lists and appendices at the end of the article are a curious choice and I think several can be usefully merged into the prose above instead, particulaly the ranks, absences from the front and the timeline. (again, just a query)
  • Lose the external links not used as references in the article (if they are interesting on their own stick them on the talk page instead).
  • Link or explain Wehrmachtsbericht.
  • I think the family information would actually work better dispersed chronologically through the text, with the events which happened after his death merged with some of the memorials into an aftermath or legacy section. As it is it seems detached from his life whereas in reality it wasn't. (struck through as I am bowing to your judgement on this one).

There are a few other things (I don't like I'm not convinced by the victories table where it is for example), but this list represents most of the immediate problems I have with this article. Fundamentally the prose would be good if steps were taken to make it flow more evenly, and the referencing is first class, so the article is not as far from FA as the list above makes it seem. Good work and regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Page ranges need en dashes. Epbr123 (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the text that refers to Hartmann and Galland considering him the best was indeed referenced at the end of the Death section. I definitely don't agree that "the family information would actually work better dispersed chronologically through the text". The article is chronologically sound, the mention of his family after the Early life section is mentioned where appropriate (during his leave; June-August'42). An abnormal amount of Milk? It's exactly what it says, allot of it!!!! There is not a reference that can tell us exactly how much he drank! Marseille's life is not that well documented!! Dapi89 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been discovering that a lot of what I typed last night was poorly explained, guess I was more tired than I realised. Just to reply to your comments, if his highest total is referenced elsewhere then you don't need to reference it in the lead. I still feel that presenting the family information in chronological order is a better way of incorporating it rather than a seperate section on its own, but if you have decided otherwise then that is fine. What I meant to say about the milk thing is that saying "he drank large quantities of milk" is a more encyclopedic way of indicating his milk consumption than "an abnormal amount of milk" - after all, what is a "normal" quantity of milk? If there are any other issues with what I said then please bring them up here or on my talk page, sorry I was so incoherent.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

fair enough, I will remove it from the lead. true about the milk drinking this will be changed also. Dapi89 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I read through the article once more, as I wasn't sure that my late night review last night was really a fair reflection of the article. To summarise my feelings, I still feel that the article's prose is stilted in places and could flow better, but I think that I was too harsh before in judging it; much of it is fine, its just in places where it doesn't quite work and I have pointed most of these out above. I'm not convinced by the article's layout, as I mentioned before, but I think this is really down to personal taste and will not base my oppose on this factor alone; if the prose is improved then the layout won't matter as much. So my biggest and really only issue here is 1(a) pertaining to the prose. Improve this and the article will come much closer to FA. Regards and sorry if I was unclear before.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The prose is really not up to FA-caliber yet. I've listed out examples of prose issues from the first section, but the prose quality is roughly the same in the rest of the article too. (Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC))
    • Need nonbreaking spaces between numbers and their units or qualifiers (ex 29 days)
    • Prose issues in Early life section:
      • "a family of French Huguenot ancestry" -> did both of his parents have French Huguenot ancestry? If so, I'd reword this to, "both of French-Huguenot ancestry"
      • "His father Siegried" is redundant, since his father is mentioned by name in previous sentence; pick one.
        • "later left the armed forces....Siegried later" -> too much "later" too closely together
        • Of the 5 sentences on Siegfried, four begin with "He" or "Siegfried" or "His father Siegfried". Can this be changed a bit?
        • The sentences on the death of his sister just don't flow well. It is also not clear if she is his full sister (daughter of Siegfried) or his half-sister (daughter of Herr Reuter)
        • "Marseille initially carried the name of his stepfather at school, a matter he had a difficult time accepting, and he retook the name Marseille in adulthood. " - sentence is clunky
        • During his Luftwaffe career was he considered a "rebel" or to have a "lack of discipline". In terms of a military career, I would think these are pretty different.
    • There are several one-sentence paragraphs throughout the article. These should be minimized if at all possible.
    • "received a good report for a term with the " - what does this mean?
    • "This was a humiliation for him, suspecting that his abilities were being suppressed so the squadron leaders could take all the glory in the air" - verb tenses don't match
    • what does this mean "wrote off four aircraft "
    • "failing to carry an order" - should that be "failing to carry out an order?"
    • Block quotes should only be used if they comprise more than 4 lines (see WP:MOSQUOTE)
    • The memorials section needs to be converted from a list into paragraph form
    • Are all of those tables at the end really necessary? I would remove the "Absence from the Geshwader" and "Dates of rank" at the very least. If that information is important it should be incorporated into the prose.

Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 7 February 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 16:18, 9 February 2008.

[edit] Tropical Storm Alberto (2006)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it passes most, if not all of the FA criteria. It is a self-nom, as I rewrote the article a few months back, and I'll do what it takes to take care of any concerns. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Is it possible to get any aftermath? Also, there appears be quite a few red links. I don't know if that matters, but it would make the article look better. Other than that, it looks good. Juliancolton (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Given how minimal the storm was, I never came across serious aftermath (such as aid or reconstructing), but I'll check. Also, I only count three redlinks, which are all for locations that might get articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with redlinks unless they impact the comprehensiveness of this article; redlinks is not a valid FA oppose and is not an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Some image caption don't require full-stops.
    • "with 45 mph winds in Taylor County, Florida" - conversion missing. Epbr123 (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks, got it. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I made some copyedits, but I think someone needs to go over the article again more closely. The prose does not flow as well in this article as in some of the other storm FAs, and I've found a few grammatical mistakes (missing verbs, clauses that don't match). I've fixed what jumped out at me, but I'm not the best copyeditor and I probably missed some. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 7 February 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 02:51, 6 February 2008.

[edit] Ayyavazhi

previous FAC (03:19, 20 December 2007)


Nominator - PAUL RAJ 13:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support This article is previously nominated here by User:Lalu Hrishikesh; The article is currently a Good article and now all suggestions made during the previous nomination are done, Thanks. - PAUL RAJ 13:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Object per last time. Are there ISBNs for those books? Who are the publishers? Are these people qualified religious experts. Also the refs need to follow MOS, "pp" for multiple pages and "p" for single page and not caps. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding citation in Ayyavazhi article, all contents other than beliefs (related to facts) and certain statements interacts with outside-ayyavazhi matters (history, sociology, impacts of it's teachings in the society) are all cited with Historian books, University papers, Government publications, mostly online (From that of two states, Tamil Nadu & Kerala) etc. Note that the sections, "History" (almost every lines of this section is cited with University papers) "Teachings and Impact", "Worship centers" ect carries large number of citations from Creadible third party sources. And the rest, (i.e) belief related things are only cited with Ayyavazh based publications. And for even that the publications are listed over there. And these books are from creadible authors (inside Ayyavazhi belief) and their works are the largest selling ones among Ayyavazh community. Regarding ISBN, Many books in India doesn't carry ISBN status. One example, note that even a reserch Paper (Religion and Subaltern agency) from one of the three oldest and Creadible Universities in India lack ISBN.
And the MOS corrections for "pp and p" will be done today. And thanks very much for your valuable suggestions - PAUL RAJ 13:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
DONE. - PAUL RAJ 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is no such word as "censeii", perhaps "censuses" is meant.--Grahame (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: This was addressed in GAN as per my comment. On further research (Plûrâlitâs Latîna and Latin Fourth Declension Nouns ) the Latin plural of census is census as the word census is a masculine noun of the fourth declension. The word census is not pluralized similar to these words platypus - platypi; octopus - octopi; syllabus - syllabi. There is usage amongst English speech of the word censuses, and so the purist plural of census to census has now become censuses in dictionaries of common terminology. So it does seem that the plural can be census or censuses.SriMesh | talk 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
DONE. - PAUL RAJ 13:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The article had gone through a vast and overall improvement since the last time. - White Dot...!!!® 12:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This article gives an excellent overview of the subject. It has only gotten better, and with the editors prompt and patient attention to all concerns it will continue to improve. SriMesh | talk 15:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose:
  • This article is difficult to understand for a person who is not conversant in Tamil. Here are some sentences which are difficult to comprehend:
... "to worship Vaikundar (historically known as 'Mudisoodum Perumal' and 'Vaikunta Swami')[28] (1809 C.E – 1851 C.E)[29] at Swamithoppe, the then poovandanthoppe." What is meant by poovandanthoppe??
  • Reply: Poovandanthope is the then name of Swamithope. - PAUL RAJ 08:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you mention that in the article..
  • Have alredy mentioned in the article as "Swamithoppe, the then Poovandanthope". - PAUL RAJ 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
One change could be: Ayyavazhi began to be noticed initially by the large number of people gathering to worship Vaikundar (birth name 'Mudisoodum Perumal' )[1] (1809 C.E – 1851 C.E)[2] at Poovandanthoppe. Presently Poovandanthoppe is known as the town of Swamithoppe.[3] SriMesh | talk 05:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. - PAUL RAJ 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
... "Nizhal Thangals under guidance from Akilattirattu Ammanai arose across the country to also recognise Ayyavazhi." What does this mean?
  • Reply: It means that, As per the instructions of Akilathirattu (Akilam) the Nizhal Thangals are established across the country. In that way they regognised their belief and scriptures. - PAUL RAJ 08:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Nizham Thangal is a Tamil word. If it means a temple, please mention that in the article..
  • It was told in the very first sentence of the section Worship centers. (If needed please re-word it. - PAUL RAJ 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The other sentence of the article was...Nizhal Thangals, compared with Pathis generally, were simple small structures built for the purpose of worship and for learning the teachings of Vaikundar.
so a reword of the quotation in question... Nizhal Thangals under guidance from Akilattirattu Ammanai arose across the country to also recognise Ayyavazhi.[4] could be
As per the instructions of Akilathirattu (Akilam) the Nizhal Thangals (small pagodas) are established across the country for worship and study of scripture. SriMesh | talk 05:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. - PAUL RAJ 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
... "The mythical narration of akilam about the eight yugas is often viewed philosophically as eight chakras." What does this mean?
  • Reply: It means that, the narrations about the 8 yugas as in Akilam is viewed by certain theologians as Eight Chakras, where the path of one's (human being) atman is divided as eight yugas, each yuga are suggested to be achieved by oneself. The 'for and against' forces in each stages (of his path) is Devas and asuras and their leading powers, and on - PAUL RAJ 08:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Incomprehensible. Can the language be simplified and made devoid of non-English words as much as possible.
  • Please do. My english may not be up to the level. - PAUL RAJ 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
For more information about each individual yuga see the template Ayyavazhi. For chakras there is more information at Chakra. Theologians have interpreted the 8 yugas mentioned in the Akilam as correspondences to the eight Chakras. SriMesh | talk 16:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
... "The reigning power in the final Dharma Yukam (Sahasrara) is Ekam or the supreme absolute." What is reigning power?
  • Reply: Ayyavazhi's believe Akilam and Akilam says that one's foremost achievement is Dharma Yukam and the supreme self is the reigning power(ruling authority) over there. This is a belief of Ayyavazhi and it was noted in the appropriate section there in the article. - PAUL RAJ 08:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This statement also relates to the yugas or chakras which was not understood. Will comment more.
The highest spiritual center of enlightenment is the Sahasrara. (which would also be a re-word
Done. - PAUL RAJ 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

of the same statement. This would explain reigning power in other words. 70.64.182.182 (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes rightly told; Dharma Yukam was compared to the Sahasrara. - PAUL RAJ 12:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
... "1008 M.E", what is M.E.?
  • Reply: M.E notes Malayalam Era. - PAUL RAJ 08:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. - PAUL RAJ 08:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
... "This spirit (regarded as evil) has been destroyed by Vaikundar, who will transform the world to Dharma Yukam, the 'world of righteousness'[80]". We are not proselytising this religion through Wikipedia, are we? There are more like these. The above ones are just examples...
  • Reply: This is the belief related article and so it was noted like wise. I don't believe this is proselytising something, because only the sections which are based on the belief of the people (Ayyavazhi's) carries such statements. Also, in that case any thing like, 'Akilam states that' 'said to be'(by akilam) (or) 'As per the Ayyavazhi belief' will be noted at the entrance of the section. Note that the sections, History, Etymology, Scriptures and Holy places, Worship centers doesn't carry any such statements. But in case something related to the 'belief' is needed to be noted, then every such sentence begins with 'as per Ayyavazhi belief' or 'Akilam states etc. - PAUL RAJ 08:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This spirit (regarded as evil) has been destroyed by Vaikundar, who will transform the world to Dharma Yukam, the 'world of righteousness

This statement could also be re-worded to...

Kali Yuga, a mundane world separated from spirituality will give rise to a time known as Dharma Yukam, a spiritual world. SriMesh | talk 05:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Can the authors comment on the reliability of citations from websites like cinesouth.com, tsi.org.in, kheper.net, poongaa.com, nadar.org, nairs.org, tamilstar.com?
  • Reply: tsi .org: is a website noting Tourism in Chennai(Tamil Nadu) noted Swamithope among other Important temples. It calls Swamithope as the headquarters of Ayyavazhi. This is infact not a major issue. There is also another citation for that in the article.
  • That does not answer its reliability. Needs to be removed...
Okey, if needed. - PAUL RAJ 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • kheper.net: is just cited for the Hindu view of the Sahasrara. The same website is cited in the Hindu article Sahasrara.
  • Hindu view? Is kheper.net an authority on Hinduism?
  • The view on Sahasrara is made on the basis of the teachigs of a Hindu Guru. Also the Sahasrara article(Hindu) crries this as citation. - PAUL RAJ 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • poongaa.com: There is no such website there in the article. Possibly removed.
  • Citation 76 is poongaa.com.
  • Sorry, I don't find it. And, this is purely belief related and a POV based on belief. I(an Ayyavazhi) believe Akilam, and it states that "God is within you". And it was mentioned there. This need not be weighed from a reliability scale. - PAUL RAJ 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • nadar.org: This is just a POV. And it was noted in the sentence as "is believed that".
  • Does nadar.org represent the community and is a reliable source?
  • The site includes that message from the works of Herodotus. - PAUL RAJ 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • nairs.org: This is just an outside view over Vaikundar. Note that they don't believe Vaikundar as a God but instead as a saint. It was independent to Ayyavazhi. It was cited just to say the outside view about Vaikundar.
  • Whose outside view? What authority does nairs.org have in this context?
  • Chattambi swamikal hails from Nair community, and he is considered as the guru of them, also in the website (see the image). Chattambi swamikal is a Hindu(an Adavaithic) (Also noted in the other wiki articles. That site itself calls Chattambi swamigal as a successor of Vaikundar. - PAUL RAJ 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Nairs.org home page also states. Run by Udayor, in association with Sree Vidyadhiraja Vikasa Kendram (regd.), Thiruvananthapuram, India SriMesh | talk 05:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • tamilstar.com, cinesouth.com: These are leading cine websites from Tamil Nadu. A movie was recently launched based on the life of Vaikundar. This cinema websites made reviews about the subject of the film. And they had also noted the impact of the subject (Vaikundar and Ayyavazhi) in the society. This sources are cited here because they are the leading sites from Tamil Nadu and also independent to Ayyavazhi. They are reliable. - PAUL RAJ 08:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Leading sites dont make them reliable. Example, orkut is a leading site but its hardly reliable. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 16:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Leading sites are reliable. But orkut is not since it is a forum where any one can pass a comment. But the sources cited in the article are from authentic reviews from experts in the subjects, and hence become a lead. These sources are similar to leading news papers. Compare News papers vs Forum!!! - PAUL RAJ 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles needs a thorough copy-edit for grammatical errors and MoS issues. More later
  • Reply: If there is any such Copy edit faullts still as per Mos, it will be cleared soon. - Thanks for your valuable suggestions. - PAUL RAJ 08:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • More comments: I will restate that this article is incomprehensible. Can someone tell me what this means: "One because Kaliyan bought all the Vedas and the powers of all God-heads as boons from Siva, the then supreme of all Devas.[167] So all Gods and the scriptures have to obey him. Secondly, Kaliyan performed several additions to the true scriptures for his comforts and so it could not be identified that, which parts of them are genuine. So for this time, all true scriptures had gone awry and the god-heads get bounded to Kaliyan and remain unhelpful." and this "The Santror are given a historical background in Ayyavazhi mythology as seven boys who were made to born in Ayodha Amirtha Vanam by using the seven seeds from seven upper worlds, by Thirumal, to the Seven virgins through their instrumentality. There is also a view that these seven boys are the ancestors of the whole human race, and hence the term 'Santror' refers to the whole Human race.[159]" and this "Many of the deep-thinkable philosophical concepts are merely mentioned with their names in Akilam and the description is left to be found from somewhere so, it is unavoidable to refer Hindu scriptures for undergoing a religious study on Ayyavazhi theology.[125] For example the 96 properties of Human body, Tatvas is just mentioned in Akilam while saying about the qualities and features of Kaliyan.[126] It is essential to understand each one of the 96 tatvas to understand about Kaliyan." This article needs a complete rewrite -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 02:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • These are all based on the belief of Ayyavazhi. And these are the reasons stated by Akilam for the existing (Hindu) scriptures. And was mentioned in that section. But the last sentence ("Many of the deep-thinkable...") states that why Hindu scriptures are needed to be refered to Understand Ayyavazhi and Akilam. And was stated so in the article. That too is an Ayyavazhi view and was cited with Ayyavazhi based book. And if it was needed to be re-worded(copy-edit) to make it more clear I accept it to be done. In such case pls do it since Iam not well-versed in English and any my further edits will make further clean-up. Thanks - PAUL RAJ 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Quotation 1: "One because Kaliyan bought all the Vedas and the powers of all God-heads as boons from Siva, the then supreme of all Devas.[167] So all Gods and the scriptures have to obey him. Secondly, Kaliyan performed several additions to the true scriptures for his comforts and so it could not be identified that, which parts of them are genuine. So for this time, all true scriptures had gone awry and the god-heads get bounded to Kaliyan and remain unhelpful."

Could be re-worded as ...

Kaliyan was a part of the mundane primordial manifestation who spread maya or illusion upon the scriptures. In Kali Yuga, all true scriptures are bound to maya and are unhelpful.
Done. - PAUL RAJ 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
'The other Quotation 2...The Santror are given a historical background in Ayyavazhi mythology as seven boys who were made to born in Ayodha Amirtha Vanam by using the seven seeds from seven upper worlds, by Thirumal, to the Seven virgins through their instrumentality. There is also a view that these seven boys are the ancestors of the whole human race, and hence the term 'Santror' refers to the whole Human race.
Could be reworded possibly as...

Santror, (Chanars) are those who have the ability to see 'the invisible' constantly. The Santror are given a historical background in Ayyavazhi mythology as seven boys who were made to born in the mythical river Ayodha Amirtha Vanam by using the seven seeds from seven upper worlds, by Thirumal, to the Seven virgins. Their lineage started at the end phase of Dvapara Yukam and continued through the Kali Yukam into the Dharma Yukam.

Done. - PAUL RAJ 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
And Quotation 3...Many of the deep-thinkable philosophical concepts are merely mentioned with their names in Akilam and the description is left to be found from somewhere so, it is unavoidable to refer Hindu scriptures for undergoing a religious study on Ayyavazhi theology.[5] For example the 96 properties of Human body, Tatvas is just mentioned in Akilam while saying about the qualities and features of Kaliyan.[6] It is essential to understand each one of the 96 tatvas to understand about Kaliyan.
Could be reworded possibly as...
As Joseph Campbell said,

myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human manifestation.

[7] The philosophy and myth of the Akilam scriptures and terms are the basis of religious study on Ayyavazhi theology.[8] For example, if the 96 tatvas are understood, then the Kaliyan is understood. Therefore theologians and philosophers in the day of Kali Yuga turn to Hindu scriptures to further their understanding of the tatvas as properties of Human body. [9] SriMesh | talk 05:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. - PAUL RAJ 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply:Actually from these 3 links ( original research, POV, notability, RSness of the sources) provided by you above, I don't understand anything.
  • This comment (original research) was made some 20 months ago when the article was like this. The contents heavily varries. Please compare to the present version. Not even that section is there in the article presently.
  • This comment (Tagged_as_NPOV) was made some 11 months ago when the article was like this. Here too the article varries considerably (i.e) Religion vs sect. Many Newspaper reports are added afterwards as citations for that. If needed I'll revert to this version which carry vast referencing.
  • This comment (POV) may be the greatest comedy ever in the wikipedian history. Calling such a cited article(from including government reports and university papers) a hoax. I've nothing more to tell about that.
But still I sense a uniformity between them regarding the issues raised on the availability of the Book, "Religion and Subaltern Agency" and relaibility of it's author and publisher for which I've replied many many times.
Once more here, Publisher of the book: Department of Christian Studies, University of Madras. One of the leading and oldest Universities in India, and hence the source is reliabile. For availability, the book is even cited online in one of the link you provided here(But not found now; that's pity) when the same issue was raised by them, then. And if needed I'll scan the book for proving it's availability.
Overall Idon't understand one thing;
Once it was told that Ayyavazhi is a long hoax saying no citations for the article at all. When I add third party citations from several leading University papers, Kerala Government reports (School syllabus), Tamil Nadu State Council(Education), All the leading news papers from Tamil Nadu, independent websites etc, it was commented that "The article was over referenced" See this link." And so, I removed all citations(almost 50 % of them out of 50 citations in the lead section alone) from leading news papers from Tamil Nadu which all proves Ayyavazhi's existence from the lead section. Please see the vast number of citations in the lead, then. When all those were removed for the readers comfort, now the same, very old, near useless issue that no citation, Original reserch, and POV are raised up.
And the remaining citations are all belief related matters. And they are all cited from top selling(Among Ayyavazhi readers) Ayyavazhi books. Note that thses books are not considered as citation for society related matters which tells the impact of Ayyavazhi or Vaikundar outside Ayyavazhi universe. I've told that Iam ready to scan each and every book I used as citations; I've told this too to many users many times. Once again Iam telling, If needed I am ready to do that.
And you are telling that "All these concerns still remain and little or nothing has been done to address them." I've replied to every one's every comments, cited with appropriate sources and made several changes to the article. What more? - PAUL RAJ 13:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You dont get the point. Or you dont want to get the point. The point is not that the author or the book is a figment of your imagination. The point is -- "Who is this Pastor G Patrick? What are his credentials? He's a 'pastor' (a Christian, I presume).. so what is it that qualifies him to write a whole book about Ayyavazhi and how is it that you expect us to take a non-expert's words at face value? If Pastor G Patrick is indeed a subject matter expert, then prove it to us from third party reliable sources. Writing and publishing books doesnt make anybody an expert on anything.
And then, the question of notability. The Hindu, based as it is, in Tamil Nadu, is the only newspaper that can plausibly afford any coverage for this religion/sect/cult. And all that a google search on The Hindu turns up is a measly single hit -- and that too, on a closer reading has nothing to do with the subject of this article. There is nothing, not so much as even a passing mention of this religion/sect/cult in any leading newspaper or magazine from anywhere in India or the world.
Now, we ought not grudge an article about an obscure subject becoming FA... but it has to, at the very least be sourced from reliable sources. These are things that editors like Blacksun, Parthi, Sundar, Indianstar, Balajivishwanathan, myself and others have tried to impress on you over and over and over again and you have only stonewalled. Please stop taking this discussion around in circles. Sarvagnya 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Considering as my fate Iam repeating my replies once more which I've told 99999... times earlier.
  • G. Patrick is a proffessor in the department of Christian studies, University of Madras. And the book, Religion and Subaltern Agency is his theisis (academic reserch) for his 'PH.D.' Do any body here, feel that every Tom and Dick may become a Proffessor is a creadible University in India.
  • Then, leave Patrick, Mind that the book is directly published and recognised from a leading and one among the Oldest Universities in India. So are you telling that a reserch work from such an University is increadible?
  • And regarding notability, If you think that The Hindu, is the only reliable source in India then sorry friend, I don't believe so. For me there are several Leading News Papers in Tamil Nadu(including a daily, one among the largest circulated in India). I proffesionally is a News Agent for Newspapers in Tamil, English and Malayalam languages. I very well know which newspapers will cover (news coverage) news from deep interior regions and which of them will not even hear any such news.
  • Even Tamil Nadu as well as Kerala govt publications and several Universities noted Vaikundar as a reformer and the impact of his movement in the society. If none of these sources are reliable for you and other editors (you noted) ... Friend, I am not here to tell anything to you. - PAUL RAJ 20:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As the main member of the assessment team of WikiProject India, I'm curious at how this article was even passed as a GA with the references it uses (the quantity is impressive, the quality is what is in question). So, I may reassess the article in terms of GA assessment, and although this will not directly interrupt the FA process, it may influence the result in the FA process. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Will you let me know what was the fault with the 'quality' of the references? Note that all the citations (including those related to Ayyavazhi belief and other social related) are discussed many times earlier including here. If needed I'll explain all of them once again in detail, Thanks. - PAUL RAJ 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Um ... where do I start? Let's look at the opening. First, newspapers are not admissible as proper sources, since their objectives are different from research-based ones that we are used to seeing as supporting evidence for information in WP articles. Even if they did survive in the second sentence, the fact that they appear before "academic research" is odd. Which Indian census? Year? Why say "a majority of" when you could furnish us with the actual percentage? "Therefore" isn't quite the basis of the logical inference you're assuming here. And then you tell us that it has been considered a Hindu sect since the 19th century ... why do we need the (modern) census as proof, then? Jumbled. And the claim is repeated more vaguely at the end of the lead. Remove "its" before "mythology". No comma after "followers". You don't "surprise" a system. "Although" is better than "Though" in formal writing. You "present" to the doctor, not throughout a country. I can see lots of MOS breaches and generally faulty prose, just flicking through the rest of the article. Not only linguistic glitches, but issues of logic and flow pervade the article. This is definitely way below the required standard. Tony (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


"First, newspapers are not admissible as proper sources, since their objectives are different from research-based ones that we are used to seeing as supporting evidence for information in WP articles. Even if they did survive in the second sentence, the fact that they appear before "academic research" is odd."
Reply: Ayyavazhi is cited as a religion from both several leading newspapers and Academeic reserch (a book cited there from Madras University.
"Which Indian census? Year? Why say "a majority of" when you could furnish us with the actual percentage?"
Reply: Indian census does not collect datas on subsects and hence lack of the actual precentage. On the other hand still there are references presented from both leading Newspapers and Academic reserch for the large number of followers.
"And then you tell us that it has been considered a Hindu sect since the 19th century ... why do we need the (modern) census as proof, then?"
Reply:It was not noted that Ayyavazhi is considered as a Hindu sect since 19th century and provided with a citation. But that, Ayyavazhi began to be considered as a Hindu sect and cited there and seperately mentioned that now there is a view that Ayyavazhi as a sect apart from that of a religion and cited eith different source. Again here I am telling, that Indian census doesnot collect datas on Subsects.
"And the claim is repeated more vaguely at the end of the lead. Remove "its" before "mythology". No comma after "followers". You don't "surprise" a system. "Although" is better than "Though" in formal writing. You "present" to the doctor, not throughout a country."
Reply: Actually I don't understand the above comment. But what I understand is what you told, then see that all of them are cited over there with University papers, Leading news papers etc. If any MOS correction needed please comment on. - PAUL RAJ 09:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is definitely well below any standard, even without references, which is why it failed the GA reassessment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply: If the article still lack any MOS corrections, standards written prose and appropriate Image licencing ect, it will be done soon. All other than that including the relaiability of sources are very much answered many times over here. Thanks - PAUL RAJ 09:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear somewhere in the review, so I will make myself plain: clearly, despite having 'answered many times over here', there is still no consensus between editors on the reliability/verifiability of the references used. The doubts are very logical, reasonable and valid, and I don't think the answers eliminate these doubts. Until consensus is reached on this issue, this article will not achieve a grade that is higher than a 'B'. In other areas, the article certainly is no where near FA quality, and will need a lot of work to even come up to a GA standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Leave the reliability of citations. Regarding the other reasons for which you feel the article does not fits the FA status, can you help on those issues (MOS, prose etc), Thanks. - PAUL RAJ 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Object:
  • Earlier today, this article failed as a GA during the GA reassessment (reasons cited on the articles talk page). In terms of FA criteria (which are the more narrow GA criteria anyway!), the article has not been professionally written and fails to comply with the Manual of Style guidelines. In addition to this, there is a reasonable and significant doubt as to the credibility/reliability/verifiability of the sources used to reference this article. This article is clearly no where near the required standard of a FA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply:Overall, All issues including the MOS and the Image licencing (if there is any) will be solved soon. But when the credibility, reliability etc.. is raised as an issue, then I respectfully disagree with those who consider even citations from publications from two state governments, Leading Universities, and leading News papers etc as not reliable or creadible. - PAUL RAJ 14:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I cannot help in fixing the other issues with the article due to other committments. In any case, these issues cannot be fixed 'soon' as it will require a lot of time, effort, and hard work as the article(s) needs to be improved drastically in some areas.
Unfortunately, I cannot "leave" reliability as it is a major issue when trying for FA or GA. Without consensus on the references issue, like I mentioned earlier, this article has no chance of achieving a grade higher than a 'B' either now, or in the future. So on behalf of the WikiProject India Assessment Team, I wish you the best in attempting to achieve consensus so this article has a chance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply: Iam not telling that "reliability isn't a major issue". But that IMHO I've cited authentic sources for every things with including Leading University papers, Leading News papers, and from publications of two State Governments, except belief related statements. And those 'belief related statements are cited from leading theological publications from Ayyavazhi. And so, by now I don't feel that i need to convince somebody for who even these University, News paper and govt sorces are unreliable.
And regarding the Tamil terms there in the article, those are names. Names should be names; what ever the language. Then several terms which are mentioned in Tamil in the aritcle are called so in scriptures and by the people. So it should be mentioned so. For example "Chakra" is not a English word; But it was mentioned as so. May be, if needed its appropriate to describe a bit.
And Regarding Vaikundar, no need for any confusion. Vaikundar is mentioned throughout the article as if the view point of the article Ayya Vaikundar. Apart from these if any MOS correction needed please specify and will be done soon. - PAUL RAJ 07:27, 6 February 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 00:07, 6 February 2008.

[edit] Christian metal

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria: it is stable, extensive, contains in-depth info on the sub-genres, has a neutral point of view, is factually correct, contains 154 reliable sources, and it was recently accepted as a good article. The Peer review did not bring up anything to add to the article. Azure Shrieker (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nom restarted, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:

1. Basic criteria met?:
1a. Well written? Not bad, but I think it needs a solid once over by a copyeditor, perhaps someone from WP:LOCE. Also, it may help to invite someone unassociated with the article to go through it, or for an involved editor to read it aloud. There a many minor grammatical issues (comma placement, parallelism, subject/verb agreement, poor use of passive voice, etc..) that don't ruin the article, but cause it to fall short of FA quality. Some of the phraseology is odd, and sometimes just wrong. Here are some examples just from the lead:
  • ",...was pioneered by United States' Resurrection Band and Sweden's Jerusalem. "
  • "In the actual essence of the term, ”Christian metal” is a musical movement, but it has moreover established itself as a cross-genre term."
  • "which is contrary to general belief that Christian metal represents..." - maybe try "the general belief"
Also, there are some redundancies, like "For example, All Music Guide defines Christian metal musically as..." - why "musically"? That is presumed. Or here "Musically, Christian metal has all of the heavy metal's trademarks..." Maybe you mean sonically?
Other examples of odd phrasing (some of the bigger ones):
  • "It is not sure which one was the first, but..."
  • "it is comprised by almost..."
  • "...and then began to drag more fans worldwide."
  • This sentence needs major grammar attention: "The lyrical approach depends on bands: some emphasize in pointing out the positive aspects of faith matters, others iterate the teachings of Christ, and part of the bands keep their message gentle and covered in metaphors."
  • "The album made highest debut..."
  • The first few sentences under Origins are very redundant.
This just needs a thorough copyediting.
1b. Comprehensive? Yes
1c. Factually accurate? Very good referencing. However avoid weasel words like "and is cited as" or "was put as". If the statement is true, simple present it as a fact and add the citation (ie. Band X is an early Christian metal band.[source]). If the statement is an opinion, be specific about who said it and, again, add the citation (ie. XYZ Music Guide said XYZ Band revolutionized Christian metal.[source]).
1d. Neutral? Yes
1e. Stable? Yes
2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:
2a. Concise lead section? Yes
2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes
2c. Well-structured table of contents? Yes
2d. Consistently-formatted inline citations? Really good job here, which contributed to the good NPOV tone of the article. Even still I added a few fact tags for some opinions. Also, I recommend separating the two footnotes into their own section using the {{cref}} / {{cnote}} system. That way, it will alert the reader that those notes contain actual content, and aren't just bibliographic.
3. Properly placed, captioned and/or rationalized images?: They look good. But the music sample for "To Hell with the Devil" needs to be reduced to 10% of the song's length.
4. Appropriate length?: Yes

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far.— Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I left a copyedit request on the WP:LOCE page. As a major editor of this article, I am incapable of correcting the grammar because English is not my first language. --Azure Shrieker (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As another major contributer, (albeit, mostly small issues now, I used to work on it frequently) I edited the examples stated by Esprit15d. I'm not done yet, but I'm still working on correcting what I can. WP:LOCE can get to it if I do not finish in time. IronCrow (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose (per previous nom):
  • Poor prose ("Following Heaven's Metal, there were began appearing other less-known fanzines such as White Throne.", "In 1984, California, pastor Bob Beeman saw this problem and soon started the ministry called Sanctuary - The Rock and Roll Refuge.", "Saint was compared to the British heavy metal band Judas Priest mostly due to the Rob Halford sounding style vocals of lead singer Josh Kramer")
  • Insufficient summarising (article could be chopped down further: I reiterate that those lists of fanzines add nothing to the article cause aren't even wikilinked: it can be replaced by "there were many fanzines" with the cite providing the list. Eric Wagner's whiny blockquote about being called white metal can be removed.)
  • Uncited statements and POV ("However, Barnabas broke a lot of ice for the heavy Christian music scene in terms of sound, appearance, and lyrical content. (actually that entire paragraph is POV)", "Two years later, the band followed up their debut with Last Train, another critical success. The commercial success of Last Train, however, did not live up to its critical acclaim,")
  • MoS errors (All Music Guide is unitalicised, references are consistently formatted.)
  • Typos, puncuation errors: I see a "Banabas" and "albums The Hand is Quicker Than the Eye (1983) Surrender (1985), and Intense Defense (1988)."
  • Questionable references (imperiumi.net is just some guy gushing over Christian metal, Metal for Jesus is some fan's homepage)
  • Unsuitable lead (half the lead is denoted to the usage of the terms "white metal" and "christian metal"; that this genre features religious lyrics is mentioned thrice)
The article pretty much needs to be rewritten. Don't bother with just ticking off my points one-by-one, the problems with this article will better be addressed off FAC after a finding better sources, a careful copy-edit etc. indopug (talk) 05:27, 1 February 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 00:07, 6 February 2008.

[edit] Tyrone Wheatley

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a very complete and well-sourced article on the career of a notable athlete. It will hopefully be the first modern NFL biography to achieve FA (only Jim Thorpe is a FA now).TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It also appears he will be the first College football player bio to achieve FA if successful. This claim like the NFL claim above is based on talk page project tags. Articles like Gerald Ford do not have college football project tags on them. There may be others like Ford, but it is impossible to tell. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Object - The article actually suffers from too much writing... the lead is too long, and the page in general is too detailed. I'm not saying it's bad, but it needs to be trimmed down a bit before it reaches FA status. Anthony Hit me up... 18:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment WRT, the article is too long: Are there many facts in the article that are irrelevant to a complete description of the subject? In all honesty, if I were to change the article there are more things I would add than subtract. The article is probably below average in length for an internet era athlete bio FA.
    • Comment WRT, the lead is too long: The lead is written so that the first paragraph is a stub version of the entire article and the other three paragraphs are expansions of the first. The lead could be shortened to three paragraphs without the first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I have rearranged the lead per some comments below. Please revisit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Keep in mind that according to WP:LEAD the lead for a long article is suppose to be 3-4 paragraphs. I have rearranged and trimmed the paragraphts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Object (revised) MECU≈talk 13:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the images used are fairly un-involving to this player. They mostly include stadiums he played in. The first (and only) image of a person is a coach he had: seems odd. I think a free image of the person should be possible; he was a fairly recent player. At the very least, some of the images should be moved over to the left to avoid being redundant.
    • Also, I think the 100-yard game list/table at the end looks funny as is. Should just be a regular table. I don't think it needs to be sortable, but the style it is in is boring.
    • Some language isn't all that inspired and factually could go out of date,
      • "Wheatley now ranks fourth in career rushing at U-M, as shown in the following chart:[15]" should be more like "As of January 2008, Wheatley currently ranked fourth in career rushing at Michigan.[15]" U-M is awkward, and "as shown in the following chart" seems redundant. This type of thing occurs several times.
      • "shared the rushing load"
      • "before he began his run with"
      • "Wheatley claims to have dunked from just inside the foul line against his high school rival Inkster High School.[6]" So? I claim to have been to Mexico. Does it matter in a biography on the person?
        • The fact that a person who was state athlete of the year in two sports relishes telling stories about dunking on his high school rival in a third tells you something about the guy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
          • What does it tell us? He's a guy that likes to relive the glory days? This makes him an "everyman"? MECU≈talk 13:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There are 4 paragraphs in a row that start "In (year), ".

It's quite clear a lot of work has gone into this article, but it still needs a fine toothed comb to resolve these issues that remain before it's a FA. MECU≈talk 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose Thank you for putting in so much work on the article, but I think it needs a good amount of work before it reaches FA status. I only made it through the lead, and these are some of the problems I noticed there. I suspect they exist throughout the article.
    • Why is the table of contents at the top left corner? That is not a normal WP practice.
      • I chose to do so because few articles have as substantial a lead. In many display settings the TOC would not be visible without scrolling down otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I have moved the TOC to the standard position.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Thank you!! That realllllly bugged me. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Birthplace should generally not be in the lead. Instead, mention it in the body of the article.
    • Per WP:MOSNUM, try to avoid mixing written out numbers and numerals in the same sentence (ten NFL seasons, 6500 all-purpose yards, four times should be 10, 6500, and 4).
    • Per WP:NBSP, the article needs a nonbreaking space between each number and its qualifier/unit (6500 yards needs one, for example)
    • "turning the football program around" seems a bit colloquial to me
    • Second paragraph has 2 sentences in a row that begin "Wheatley". Can they be varied a bit?
    • Article mentions twice that he played 10 NFL seasons in the first two paragraphs. Seems a bit of unnecessary duplication to me.
    • "tardy dawdler" made me laugh but it sounds too much like an inventive insult.
      • Those terms come from the refs. He was described as regularly tardy and as a dawdler in the refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd use quotes then, because it really doesn't sound like a phrase that most people would say or expect to read. (I think it would be a great pirate quote – "Avast ye tardy dawdler; 'tis the plank for ye!") Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I am using the uncited lead option. Where the lead refers to facts that are well cited in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
          • It's not a cite issue, it's a quote issue. You are quoting those terms, which together sound realllly odd. Can you just find a new way to say that (paraphrase, not quote)? Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The sentence "His time with the Giants was unproductive..." is a little unwieldy. I think there is too much information in it.
    • The lead is a little out of order, which is confusing. If you look at it as:

1= high school career, 2 = college, 3=NFL, 4=post-NFL, then the lead is broken up this way

first paragraph: General sentence, 1, 2, 3, 1/2, 4
Second paragraph: 3
Third paragraph: mostly 2 with a random reference to 1
fourth paragraph: 4, 1, 4

That is way too much jumping around and needs to be organized a bit better

    • Do high school and head coach really need a wikilink? Alma mater is linked twice, as is Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) (and why use the abbreviation the first time if it isn't used in subsequent references?), and Big 10....etc. They should be linked once in the lead and then once in the body of the article, not every time.
    • The prose also needs work, as sometimes it sounds more like a list of statistics rather than good flowing paragraphs, and sometimes there is just too much information crammed into a sentence. Lead now reads MUCH better. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, in a non-lead note, the references are not formatted consistently. Some list a newspaper name in italics, some have it in bold, some don't have either, and the NYT ones list the company, not the newspaper.

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • More comments from karanacs
    • Prose: In early life section, three of four sentences begin with "Wheatley" (even if one is really about his father). First paragraph of high school section: 6 sentences, 4 of which begin with he/Wheatley. I know some of the paragraphs you aren't going to be able to fix completely because they are full of stats, but try :)
      • First paragraph sounds great now, but second paragraph is too casual. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Early life section: Since his mother was never mentioned, I thought at first that the half brother was Wheatley's sibling by his father, which confused me. Is his mother still living? How much younger is his sibling, and why does he have custody of his cousins? (I know you probably can't find all of this, but if you can expand at all it would be helpful).
      • I think I found what you want.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • That is good information! The first paragraph of that section sounds good, but the second sounds too casual. Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Citation for why Leslie is Wheatley's ward?
      • Nothing more than what is in the current version of the article, but this is more than you had before and might be satisfactory to you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you provide context for his ability to slam dunk? How rare is that for high school athletes?
      • Wheatley is a state record holder in the long jump. He has extraordinary leaping ability. I have been fighting with a statement that I had originally included of a boast about dunking on his high school rival. The toned down sentence is hard to make sense of in context. Can you look at the history and tell me what you think of earlier versions of this topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • How about moving that sentence up and adding a little more context? If you can work it in close to one of the Long jump sentences, then the sentence could read something along the lines of "His jumping abilities were futher exhibited in basketball; Wheatley played for his high school basketball team and was able to slam dunk." (this sentence is not great either) Karanacs (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I am not so sure about moving it up since the high school section essentially flows football, track, basketball and putting basketball in the middle of track might have other broader stylistic implications. However, I added a lot more context and hopefully you can back me up against the objection above. I also placed a separate section at Talk:Tyrone Wheatley so that a coordinated discussion of this topic could be had.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There's a "currently" in the sentence about his 110 metre hurdles time; please replace with "As of...." so it doesn't get out of date without people noticing
    • College section doesn't need to begin with "After becoming a nine-time MHSAA champion" because that has been explained pretty clearly in preceding paragraph.
    • Do you think it might be better to summarize his football college records with a table rather than try to put it all in prose?
      • I am in the midst of rearranging this. I am not sure what kind of table I would use, but stay tuned. I should be done revising the college section by the end of the day on the fourth.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Who is Elvis Grbac and why is Wheatley compared against him? A little context might help
    • Were his career rushing yards a record at Michigan or NCAA as a whole? There are a few other stats in that paragraph that I weren't sure if it was supposed to be for Michigan players or Big 10 or NCAA as a whole.
    • Did his freshman average yds per carry set a record when he was a freshman, or was he 4th then and has remained fourth?
    • "left the door open " is too colloquial
    • I think I would mention his college track experience first in the college section, since that is what the article talks about in the preceeding paragraph, and the paragraph just after that is NFL (football again).
      • Wheatley is best known as a football player. Thus, both in the high school and college section I discuss football first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The information about 2006 and 2007 season rankings for his track times is confusing. I think I understand what it means, but I think it might be able to be presented better.
    • Herschel Walker "received a lot of the attention in passing downs", but isn't Wheatley a running back, so why did that affect him a lot?
    • If Reeves didn't want Wheatley, why didn't they draft Rashaan Salaam instead?
    • The paragraph on his intro to the Giants is clunky
    • What was the controversy about the weight limit? Was he not allowed to be more than 235 pounds? Did that apply only to Wheatley (those offensive linemen ought to weigh more than that)?
    • Is "cancer in the locker room" a quote from somewhere? It is an odd bit of phrasing.
    • "The Giants were quickly remiss about how..." -> I am not sure what this sentence is trying to say
    • The article says "attempting rehab", which implies that he failed. Is that true? The article doesn't mention any other addiction problems (either before or after that)
    • I don't think you need to include the information about Leslie's future career.
      • Actually, this is a part of the story that Wheatley kept his brother out of trouble enough to get him committed to going to college (a big deal for an Inkster lad) and got him up to a high enough athletic level that it was necessary that he sign a letter of intent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Since both the personal life and early life sections are so short, it might be wise to combine them into a single "personal life" section where the early life section is.

16:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

      • I have been told the opposite in other reviews. Are you sure? Compared to many professional non-All-Star athletes, both sections are actually fairly substantial.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment — I'd suggest trimming the lede down some, then restoring the TOC to its default position. To me, the lede should be something that gives you the quick highs and lows of the subject; this one's a bit too long. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply O.K. I shortened the lead. However, recall the lead for a long article is suppose to be four paragraphs according to WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Four paragraphs is just the maximum suggested by WP:LEAD. I think there are too many details in the lead still, so I suggest it be shortened. If you wish, I can try shortening it as well. I have had similar issues on some of my articles, but I have now become experienced in knowing what details should and shouldn't be included. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • It says three to four for long articles. I'll take another look and of course anyone else can too.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Note the complainant below is satisfied. I don't think removing much more would "be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" as WP:LEAD suggests.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply I have moved the TOC to the standard position.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support — Thanks for the quick response. This article is a well-cited, comprehensive, and accurate look at a player on the Michigan Wolverines football team, the winningest program in NCAA history. It's worthy of Featured Status, and I'm happy to give my support. My only two requests are that you somehow find a picture of Wheatley (If possible ... I know it's tough to find a free use one) and that you expand the early life section (again, if possible). Keep up the great work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This sentence: "Based on graduating high school class year, Leslie is about 13 years younger than Wheatley" appears to be OR. The entire article could use a copy edit by someone who can write, overall very poorly written. I suppose you don't take comments from anonymous editors, as if you all aren't anonymous. But that's my take on reading the article. 69.137.246.61 (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Example of poor writing: "his local public high school", wordy and vague to the point of being meaningless. It isn't "his" high school. Just name the school, what public high school isn't local? A sentence like TW attended Hamilton J. Robichaud High School in Inkster MI, or something like that. There are plenty of other poorly written sentences but I am not going through this with a fine toothed comb for you, that should be up to the person who thinks this article is ready for featured status (it's not)69.137.246.61 (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Noticing a comment above, I agree the intro is simply too long. I skipped it, too long didn't read (TLDR) syndrome here.69.137.246.61 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 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 04:25, 3 February 2008.

[edit] Xena: Warrior Princess

I'm nominating this artice for FA is because it has good references and it meets with the FA criteria. Glitter1959 (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

  • Strong object — It's a good article length-wise, but even with a cursory glance, it needs a lot of work on citations and picture captions to name the biggest two things that jumped out at me. I'd suggest making a run through the Good Article process before submitting it to FAC. You've got a good start there, but I can't in good faith support it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, introduction does not meet WP:LEAD at all, excessive plot, does not fit the TV project MOS, its full of trivia, has excessive non-free images, and it is badly referenced with a TON of broken references. In short, it fails all of the FA criteria. Collectonian (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Motherhood 18.jpg needs fair use rationale for each article it appears in, including this one. — brighterorange (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Article is a 100 miles from ready. Glitter - it is admirable that you are interested in certain articles and topics but please try and remember that FA is about being the best, and that articles that pass do so because they meet all of the stringent criteria. If you put up articles that are not ready for this process you actually slow the process down. Far better for you to spend time on the article - I mean real blood sweat and tears time getting it to a much higher stage and others will see what you are doing and join in. At the same time you will learn more about what it requires to get an article to GA and then to FA standard.--VS talk 22:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not ready - does not have much in the way of scholarly resources, many of which can be found via http://scholar.google.com -Malkinann (talk) 01:20, 2 February 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 04:25, 3 February 2008.

[edit] Invader Zim

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is a high quality article summarizing thoroughly the events and mature of this show and follows FA guidelines. For anyone who protests or wishes to revise this article prior to candidacy, please do so. :)Leslie Granger (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think a lot of work needs to be done to this article before it can be a FA. For a start there's a lot of citations that aren't properly formatted. Some of the non-free images don't have fair use rationales. The characters section probably goes into too much detail when there's sub articles already made. In the Format section, only one item is sourced. The article needs a copy edit for grammar and formatting issues. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 02:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm afraid. As per BillPP, you need to use correctly formatted citations (e.g. using the {{cite web}} template, you need to be consistent and accurate on their placement (see WP:CITE) and you need to check there is a valid and correctly formed fair use rationale for images used in the article. The Setting section and Supporting characters section have one citation between them. Trim the external links as well, per WP:EL. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment it says "GA-class" on the talk page but... based on what, since it's not in the good articles? igordebraga ≠ 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've rerated the article as no formal process (I'm aware of) declared the article as a good article. I do not think it is one anyway. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 03:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think all the components needed are there, but it's currently a mismash of stuff. Here's what needs to happen:
The lead section needs to be expanded to another paragraph (see WP:LEAD)
The Characters section needs to have all the FUR images removed or reduced in number
The Awards and nominations section needs to be turned into paragraph form.
Finally, general layout (sloppy images, bad reading of prose) needs to be improved and references need to be expanded and added, and used consistently. (see the Rambling Man's comments above) David Fuchs (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Erm, just how would the awards section be paragraphized if Avatar is a featured article with table-form awards list?
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 04:25, 3 February 2008.

[edit] George Washington

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's been through three peer reviews, is a GA, and isn't the best, yet is somewhere there ranking among some of the much better. Basketballoneten 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose The lead needs to be expanded. It should serve as a standalone outline of the entire article. Also, I would like it if you used more book references, instead of online sources. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is IMHO Good Class but not yet ready for FA
    • The lead sentence "Washington has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the top three U.S. Presidents" needs a reference.
    • The overview section is not satisfactory, that should go into lead or into main article.
    • Several sections are weakly sources (prominently the American Revolution; and the Presidency: 1789–1797 sections, but many paragraphs in other sections are hardly referenced as well).
    • Also the flow of the article has to be considered. Legacy is mainly after his death, while personal life and religious belief are during life. It seems logical to move legacy section backwards. Arnoutf (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not a bad article but not up to FA class yet
    • The first reference for his birthdate appears adequate - why the other two in the lead ?
    • The lead is too short - mentioning little about him at all. Needs to summarise the article
    • Not an issue but I think Image:George Washington 1795.jpg is better for the lead. Crisper and cleaner than the current one
    • The overview section breaks the flow of the article. This text should be in the rest of the body, summarised in the lead per WP:LEAD Peripitus (Talk) 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Well referenced, well written. The lead's a bit short, but the article is otherwise excellent. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Oppose - would love to support for our first president, but I just can't. The lead is not a sufficient overview of the article (see WP:LEAD). The overview section seems like what should go in the lead; just trim it down, but all the majors are in there. I found it to be oddly placed and it would be much more weel suited for the lead. Another big problem is cites, which the article lacks to a certain degree for its size. Also make sure the images follow MOS guidelines, i.e. no specific thumbnail sizes. Happyme22 (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I've moved much of the overview section into the lead to compensate for it's lack of information. I still feel that more citations are needed before it can become featured, however. Happyme22 (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks better but unfortunately the lead lacks summarising information on his first 23 years - Peripitus (Talk) 06:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • NO edits to the article or feedback on the FAC from the nominator since the nom started; unless someone else is taking over this FAC, I will close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Basketball110 let me know he's still following the nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 31 January 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 04:25, 3 February 2008.

[edit] The Wiggles

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe its quality deserves this designation. The Wiggles are important enough internationally to have a high-quality article on WP. This article has also successfully passed through the GA-nomination process, and as its primary editor, I believe it is now ready for FA-status. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think some work on the captions is due. The captions of the pictures in the Characters section should be redone; they were all taken at the Verizon Centre on November 8. For example, when using the this image the caption could state something about the big red car, rather than just "The Wiggles at the MCI Center". Spebi 08:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Not well-written. Please have someone else thoroughly copy-edit the whole thing. Here are random examples from the top.

  • Are you working on the prose? The first para, for example, has: "According to Business Review Weekly, The Wiggles were Australia's "richest entertainers" for the year 2005, earning more than AC/DC and Nicole Kidman combined.[1] In 2006, it was reported that they earned AUS$50 million.[2]". Why is the source explicit for one but not the other? And was it the report about the $50M or their earning of it that occurred in 2006? Remove "the year". "AUS" never. "A" is fine, "AU" if you must.
  • "A school project led to the recording of their first album and tour in 1991. Their basic act expanded to include other characters (Captain Feathersword, Dorothy the Dinosaur, Henry the Octopus, and Wags the Dog) and a troupe of dancers." So was that expansion on the tour? Need to say if so. It's vague.
  • "By 2002, The Wiggles became the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's most successful pre-school property."—"Had become"; "property" is very colloquial in this sense.
  • "In 2006, founding member Page was forced to retire from the group and was replaced by former dancer Sam Moran." "Founding member Page" doesn't read smoothly. "One of the founding members, Greg Page,"? If he was forced, that's unusual and requires a short explanatory phrase, even in the lead.
  • Caption: tell us where the MCI Center is, and we won't be put off by the US spelling. Don't use a hyphen as an interrupter: "on 8 November 2007". It's fine without the auto-lemon blue date, but MOSNUM says to use the raw format prevalent in the country of origin.
  • "Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)"—Why is the acronym used on second appearance? Don't abbreviate at all unless you're going to use the abbreviation exclusively at least a few times through the text.
  • I see redundant "also"s.
  • "Early on"—rather informal.
  • "In addition, the group has always had a strict code of conduct based on zero tolerance of drug use, drinking, smoking, or bad language by any employee or crew member." In addition is like "also"; rarely required and usually better killed off. "From the outset, the group has had a ...". And, not or, both times; "by employees and crew members" (but aren't crew members employees?). Tony (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Images in the "characters" section are cluttered. Article exhibits several writing problems per Tony's notes. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC))
  • I have made the changes as suggested. This article has been copy-edited, by LOCE, to get it to GA-status. Is there another resource to copy-edit more thoroughly? This article suffers from the same thing many WP articles experience: it truly has been written by lots of people, so the prose can tend to be choppy, uneven, and rough. Obviously, it needs lots of help, and as its main editor/contributor, my writing weaknesses really show. So we need lots of help. I changed the image captions and moved around the images in the Characters section to make it less cluttered. I'm not sure it was effective enough, so if someone with more experience with that kind of thing can help, that would be wonderful, as Henry the Octopus would say. Someone, please re-assess. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we get a picture of a Wiggle doing the finger-wiggly thing that is mentioned as a mechanism so that they don't touch the children? That part is really awkwardly written - I spose it is an awkward topic, though. -Malkinann (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There are all kinds of photos of the guys doing that move out there, but none of them are free. All the images that are currently in the article are the only free images available. Photos have been a problem for this article, as discussed on the talk page. It took some kind souls to donate what we have. I need to get to a Wiggles concert with a camera, but in the past few years they haven't come close to where I live to make it worth it. ("Hey, guys, stand all together and do that finger-wiggly thing!") Anyway, I wrote the finger-move stuff, and I haven't been able to make it less awkward. If someone wants to give it a try, feel free. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, blow me down! (I need to stop saying that!) I found a picture of the finger-wagging move and placed it on in the article, as requested. It was donated by a lady who runs a scarily-obsessive fan page of Jeff Fatt on MySpace. Although what would be perfect is all four guys doing the move, I think this is adequate. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:46, 2 February 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 04:25, 3 February 2008.

[edit] Boston Celtics

previous FAC

Nominator:This article has gone through several additions and edits since its last nomination in November. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, same reason as last FAC. The lead section is totally inadequate, the references are totally inadequate, and most of all there is horrible WP:Recentism and WP:Undue weight: the section on the epic Russell years is pathetically short, the section on the Cowens years is too short as well, while the sections on the 1990s and especially the 2000s are given way too much space by comparison. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wasted Time R brings up a number of valid points. When people think of the Celtics, they either reminisce about the days of Bill Russell during the era of Auerbach or Larry Bird during the 1980s. There is too much emphasis on recent years. The lead needs to be developed, so that it serves as a standalone overview of the entire article. It fails to do this at the moment. Also, more sources need to be used. Stick to book references (I am sure there are many out there) for the older history, and authoritative sports news sites for more recent history. Please do not use sources like this, because they do not meet our policy on reliable sources (note that Armchairgm is a wiki, so using this as a reference is a definite no-no). Toronto Raptors is FA. I suggest you use this to model the Boston Celtics article. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • The lead needs extending as per WP:LEAD
    • There are thousands of changes needed as per WP:MOS, particularly numbers (incl. ordinals) and dashes.
    • Not enough references
    • I'd get rid of the season-by-season record list and instead create a separate article. Peanut4 (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Good Article, good amount of references. Warrior4321talkContribs 04:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose short lead, lacks references (and the ones there are badly formatted), you don't need the images on the retired numbers... it's detailed, but doesn't have the quality of the NBA team FA. Make a huge cleanup, see if it passes the GA and then try the FA again. igordebraga ≠ 14:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. It's GA, it's at the level of the Raptors (FA), and it's very well referenced. Basketballoneten 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The pre-2007 history section is completely unreferenced. That itself is about half the article! Nishkid64 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 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 04:25, 3 February 2008.

[edit] All Blacks versus France at rugby union

I believe this article meets all the FA criteria. It is well referenced, well written, comprehensive and illustrated where appropriate. Has been through a pretty helpful peer-review and this should have fixed any major problems. Both All Blacks and France national rugby union team are FA's so hopefully can get this up there as well. Thanks. Shudde talk 10:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - I haven't read past the lead yet, but being ignorant of rugby, I found the lead very confusing. For example, I do not know what a "Test" is. I would also suggest some discussion about the title of the article, as it is confusing. I can't think of anything better at the moment that isn't absurdly long, though. Maybe something like "History of All Blacks versus France rugby union matches". --Laser brain (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Comments addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the moment.
    • Per the peer review, I also dislike the name, it's very clumsy. If there are other articles like this in the rugby league or union wikiprojects, perhaps a centralised discussion on how best to name such would be useful (assuming this title is the result of such a discussion!).
Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man
Do you think you could write a short article about Test status? I still don't get it and it seems like a major part of understanding the lead. There is no explanation in the lead and the wikilink goes to a disambiguation page. --Laser brain (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll get around to it at some point. Basically it's an international recognised as full strength by either country. - Shudde talk 05:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I've created something, doesn't go to disambig any more. - Shudde talk 07:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I did some of the minor changes. --Stormie (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please remove the green check mark images.--Laser brain (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read the instructions at WP:FAC, avoid breaking up reviewer commentary and the use of graphics, and please remove the green check marks. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Is this rivalry notable enough to have it's own article? Buc (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. There are very few test strength rugby union teams in the world so there's no reason to doubt the notability of this article. If you're doubting the notability of this summary of 50-odd matches over the past 100-odd years then check out articles like Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 1995-96 - there are hundreds of them of which I guess you'd question the notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The lead is not engaging. As a non-fan of rugby, I need more than a brief resume of scores of various matches as to why I should continue on and read the rest of the article.

There is no context. Is Fr v NZ some of the best rugby in the world? As a reader, inform me. Where are comments by the French re NZ rugby & vice versa? How are the two teams different, physically, tactically and administratively? How is the rugby culture different in France to NZ? Are there players who save their best for these matches? Which are the classic encounters?

The writing is pedestrian; too many sentences start with “Due to”. Mix it up a bit. There are way too many short sentences: eg:

France toured New Zealand in 1989 and played a two Test series. They lost both Tests; the first 25–17 at Lancaster Park, and the second 34–20 at Eden Park. The All Blacks reciprocated by touring France in 1990. Again there were two Tests and again they were won by the All Blacks; 24–3 at Nantes, and 30–12 at the Parc de Princes. The next tour was when France came to New Zealand in 1994. They won the first Test 22–8 at Lancaster Park. The second and final Test on tour was at Eden Park on 3 July 1994.

Look at how many sentences there are in this one short paragraph and review the overuse of semi-colons. Too many sentences start with the word “despite”. Where is the administrative background to the matches? Eg. Why did Fr tour NZ before the other home nations? What happened when Fr was banned in the 1930s.? I don’t understand the section on the 1986 match & the absence of players who toured SA: what is the context? The para on the ’07 WC reads like excuses for NZ’s loss and isn’t balanced. Why does the article adopt the familarity of the “All Blacks” and “Blacks”, yet it doesn’t use “tricolours” or “les blues” for Fr?

Phanto282 (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Further comment on the para quote from earlier, this is extracted from the article, further on:

25 1989-06-17 Lancaster Park Christchurch 25 17

26 1989-07-01 Eden Park Auckland 34 20

27 1990-11-03 Stade de la Beaujoire Nantes 24 3

28 1990-11-10 Parc des Princes Paris 30 12

29 1994-06-26 Lancaster Park Christchurch 8 22


Explain what's the difference between this info contained in the stats section and the para of prose quoted in italics, above.

Phanto282 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I need to clarify a few things, and hopefully address some of the things you have bought up.
  • What should be added to the lead; specifically. It's supposed to be a summary of the article, but I'm willing to add something if you can be specific.
  • Context? Where should this go? Their respective places in world rugby is something that is discussed in their articles, and is outside the scope of this article.
  • I think we have to be careful here. This is not an article comparing and contrasting rugby in New Zealand and rugby in France. This is an article on the history between the two teams. Certainly the administrative differences between the two teams is outside the scope of the article (unless it has had a direct and clear impact on a particular result, and it hasn't).
  • There are comments/quotes within the article; "We are strongly of the opinion that the game will spread in their country and that in the course of time they will put a team in the field which will command the utmost respect of any other." from Billy Stead and Dave Gallaher, "Your forwards gave us a lot of bother. Your three-quarters were not so good" from Cliff Porter, and "We wanted to play them in the final because we wanted revenge" from Wayne Shelford. I actually try to not have to many quotes due to fair use concerns. A few is ok, but I do agree that a quote from a French player would be good. It's prob harder to find (because they don't speak English) but will see what I can do.
  • Rugby culture? Like I said above, this is about the teams. The team culture would be something to discuss (otherwise would be outside scope of article), but there is a problem here. Each team is different, and the generalisations that people make are often wrong. The culture of an All Blacks team playing in the amateur era of 1905 during a tour of many months and the culture of the professional All Blacks of today who may only be in a country a matter of days is one example. An attempt to do this would be full of holes, and most likely WP:POV or more likely WP:OR.
  • If you find me a test player that says they save their best for certain matches then let me know, but it's unlikely. I know what you are implying, but it's not something that really occurs.
  • Classic encounters. To have a list of classics would be POV. I would prefer to deal in facts (which is quite different to a lot of the things you are suggesting, and may be the reason for all your comments, ie the generalisations and opinons), I have intentionally not said this is a great match and that is a great match because that would be POV. You could prob find an equal number of people that say X was a classic as would say Y was a classic or Z was a classic. People can make up their own minds.
  • Administrative background to the matches! They aren't rigged. What exactly are you asking for here?
  • I don't know why they toured before the Home Nations. See above (in Rambling Mans comments) for that. The most likely reason is that the Home Nations did not want to tour due to them participating in British and Irish Lions tours, but this is not 100% clear, and is something I can't verify.
  • When France was banned they didn't play the All Blacks (what else would banned mean?). The ABs only toured Europe once that decade so the impact on their relationship was relatively small.
  • The Cavaliers article is now linked. "due to the rebel Cavaliers tour to South Africa, most of the top All Blacks were banned for two matches" should now be more clear. The Cavaliers were an unsanctioned team, so the players were punished. The context is that the team was then missing experienced players.
  • The section on the 07 game is balanced. It does not offer excuses. The links support what is said. I tried very hard to keep that section NPOV, and believe it's fine.
  • Because All Blacks is their most common name (they aren't refered to as Blacks at all btw). That is why their article is at All Blacks and not New Zealand national rugby union team. “tricolours” or “les blues” is much less common, also their strip has changed (hence the two French nicknames) so it's a little confusing to include those.
  • Are you suggesting I simply turn that into a list? Delisting the information is encouraged.
Anyway that should clarify some things. Your comments on prose are generally valid, and I'll try and get the text copy-edited. Some of your comments about the content are on things outside the scope of the article. I have, as much as possible, tried to stick to facts and let them speak for themselves, rather then filling the article with opinions, and POV. Unless there are things with near universal agreement, or with a large consensus, but in sport, this is very hard to find. - Shudde talk 12:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I simply turn that into a list?. No, I am suggesting that the article is a list in prose form and therefore is not engaging to read, so it fails on criteria 1a. Some of the details you have listed above could go into the article to provide clarity and context. I found that reading the article, it raised more questions than it provided answers. Most of my suggestions were elements that could be worked into the text to make it more interesting, such as famous encounters (in the vein of "Battle of Nantes"), the players who have excelled in these matches, a better explanation of the rebel tours, etc. You have misintrepreted what I wrote: I am not suggesting separate lists, a different structure or new sections, just ways to improve the existing text.

Phanto282 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is not a list in prose. It has sections which are though. However, by and large, it is not. Be more specific, what exactly do you want added to the article? Players that excelled in matches can be POV, it's a team sport, obviously individual contributions are important, but often they don't warrant a mention. A better explanation of the rebel tours? The tour was of South Africa! Completely outside the scope of this article. If you want to find out more about it read New Zealand Cavaliers. If you are not going to be specific then your objections are not going to be actionable. You are saying "some of the details listed above". Which details? - Shudde talk 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate that the oppose is based on criteria 1a - that the prose is not well written and doesn't engage the reader. It needs a substantial re-write to improve the flow and get rid of "the list in prose" format. The rest of the suggestions I made were things that could be incorporated into the text to make it more engaging and informative by giving the various matches some context and clarity. What you choose to put in is up to you, you are the editor with the knowledge to do so. Writing prose of a high standard is not a matter of creating a check-list and ticking off things as you go. Perhaps an independent copy-edit and some input from other editors with an understanding of the game is the way to go.

Phanto282 (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is, if it gets copyedited by another editor, I don't want you to come back and say: you need to do this, and add this, etc etc. That is why a detailed list is useful, and is what most people prefer at FAC. Also prose is different to content, and that is why I'm asking for details. Context exists in the article, but you just keep repeating the same generic lines. Saying you don't like the flow is one thing, but what is lacking in clarity? With the knowledge I have, I have added everything I believe is relevant, but you oppose because you want certain other things included, then you say "What you choose to put in is up to you, you are the editor with the knowledge to do so". You see why this is confusing? There has been input of other editors at the peer-review. If your only opposition is prose then fine, but if it's content then your opposition doesn't just come under 1a. - Shudde talk 07:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Have added a French player quote (there was another already there), and have expanded some of the paragraphs you were unhappy with. Roger Davies has said he will copy-edit the article in a couple of days—if you have any specific requests please post them before he does this. - Shudde talk 10:44, 31 January 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 04:25, 3 February 2008.

[edit] Gifu, Gifu

I'm nominating this article for featured article because, over the past year, I believe that it has covered all the necessary topics with appropriate references to become a featured article about a Japanese city. I've gone through peer review on WikiProject Japan. (Self-nomination) Douggers (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Thoroughly covers the topic. Cla68 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the picture. I don't think the whitespace was coming up in my Firefox browser. Douggers (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Image:GifuUniv logo.png has no fair use rationale for use in the article as required by WP:NFCC. Since Image:GifuFlagArtAIDS.jpg encorporates the whole of what is likely a copyrighted work I'd question the right of the uploader to release it into the public domain (although I would be very happy for someone who knows better to correct me on that). Guest9999 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC) - problems resolved Guest9999 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the information regarding the pictures. I've replaced "GifuUniv logo.png" with a picture of the hospital on the university's campus to remove any questions of fair use about the logo. As for "GifuFlagArtAIDS.jpg," I uploaded in last summer in good faith. I've blocked it out with <!-- --> until its status can be determined or an appropriate replacement can be found. Are there any other concerns preventing this article from reaching Featured Article status? Douggers (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have concerns about the quality of the existing citations and the lack of citation sfor many statements. The prose is mostly adequate, but it is not compelling. I have highlighted a few especially clunky sentences here, but I recommend geting someone who hasn't looked at the article to try a copyedit. Karanacs (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Last sentence in first paragraph of History section is a little clunky. Can it be reworked a bit?
    • First paragraph of Sengoku period section is not organized well. I'd move the first sentence to be the last sentence.
    • It's usually best not to start a paragraph (or even a sentence) with a quote. The first sentence in Sengoku period section could be "Gifu's location in the center of Japan led to the phrase "control Gifu and you control Japan" during the Sengoku period (15th to 17th century)."
    • Reading that first sentence about controlling Gifu made me ask..."made it a desirable location" for what? to launch an attack?
    • This sentence is clunky: "As Nobunaga had a vision to unite all of Japan, much like Dōsan did, Nobunaga rebelled and overthrew Dōsan in the mid-sixteenth century, much like Dōsan did to his retainer"
    • I expected to read more about people "controlling Gifu to control Japan". I am not familiar with Japanese history, so it may need more context to help explain the cute.
    • Need a citation for: "With Gifu being easily accessible to much of Japan through the Nakasendō, the area continued to prosper."
    • Need a non breaking space between a number and its qualifier/unit (ex: 245 dead)
    • What does the municipal street car service have to do with the earthquake? Perhaps these ought to be different sentences?
    • Need to have a metric conversion for acres
    • There are a couple of instances where a sentence has a string of numbers, with some spelled out and some as numerals. Please be consistent within a sentence.
    • This sentence is clunky: "Additionally, there is public space at the top of the building, which will allow residents a second 360-degree view of Gifu,[22] with the first one being the view from Gifu Castle."
    • Need a citation for " For a long period of time it rivaled Tokyo and Osaka to lead the Japanese fashion industry"
    • Need a citation for "Over the past decade, though, as Gifu's fashion industry has declined steeply, the city has begun looking for other industries to prop up the local economy."
    • Need a citation for " has become a prosperous area for many metalworking, mold and die, and parts subcontractors.'
    • Need a citation for "Its ease of access to neighboring areas using public transportation and highways has allowed companies to set up many factories and facilities in the area."
    • Need a citation for "Approximately 30,000 fireworks are set off at each festival, with crowds of 400,000 and 120,000 visitors, respectively."
    • Need a citation for "Each set of displays revolves around a different theme (such as the beauty of Gifu or AIDS Awareness) or are created by specific group of persons (for example, local school students or local artists)."
    • Need to convert m to ft or yds (329 m)
    • Need a citation for "Also, its close location to the Nagaragawa Convention Center and various high class hotels make it a popular area for guests."
    • Full dates in references need to be wikilinked
    • Not all of the references have publishers listed
    • As a general rule, you should not use anothe rwiki as a source (ref 12)
    • I see a few sources that don't look reliable (refs 13, 20)
    • I'm especially concerned that the vast majority of the sources are self-published. Can you find more information in third-party sources? That would include books, newspapers, and magazines. The sources can be in Japanese; I know it will be difficult to find English-language sources for a smaller town.

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Several reasons/concerns include: 1) References are terrible (e.g. nos. 2, 4,6, 11, etc. What are these?). Non-English references need to identify language. How is http://www.geocities.jp/yuutarou19800126/ a reliable source? 2) Weasel words, e.g. “Some have long histories”. 3) Unprofessional prose quality. 4) Why is there an external link to a bus company? Much work is needed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 19:38, 1 February 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 04:25, 3 February 2008.

[edit] Preuss School

previous FAC

This is a self-nomination for an article that failed to be promoted in November, here. Then, the only objection that was not acted upon were multiple calls for a copy edit. Since that nomination, SandyGeorgia supplied me with a number of MoS changes to make, which I did. More recently, Finetooth did a complete copy edit of the text and made some reference recommendations. Now that both of these processes is complete, I am unsure on how to further improve the article. Hence, I am here once more. SorryGuy  Talk  00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Conditional Full support Find a substitute reference or references for the items supported by <ref name="Warren"/>, which deadlinks, and I'll be willing to switch to full support. Ameriquedialectics 17:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That was actually a format error, when I removed the www. there was no conflict with .doc and it can now be opened. SorryGuy  Talk  03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, looks good to me, but if I were to edit that google doc. and save it that wouldn't affect the source text would it? Not that I'd be one to try that. Ameriquedialectics 05:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I had google docs set as my default doc. opener. Ameriquedialectics 05:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments: I see some stylistic issues; why not just "Student life" instead of "Preuss student life", and "Dr. Doris Alvarez" should just be "Doris Alvarez" per WP:NCP. The article should be moved to "Preuss School UCSD" or "Preuss School" -- per WP:NCD the school doesn't consistently refer to itself with integral definite article 'The', nor does the press[31], or even the district. [32] – Zedla (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I made the first two changes and agree that the needs to go, and am leaning towards Preuss School, even if I was the one that moved away from that title nearly two years ago. Anymore input before doing so is welcome, though. SorryGuy  Talk  22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: How is "Preuss" pronounced? I'm guessing "pryce", but "proos" and other mangled-Alemannic options come to mind as well, and "proyce" would probably be more true to its apparent heritage. An IPA guide would help. RossPatterson (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have lost home internet and may get it back soon. In the meantime, though, if anyone could help me out here it would be great as my time is short. The school rhymes with choice. SorryGuy  Talk  16:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I do indeed now have internet back at home and apologize for the delay. I have no made all suggestions, moving to Preuss School and asking Ross Patterson for help with the IPA guide. SorryGuy  Talk  04:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Comments
    • There are several paragraphs that are wholly are almost completely unsourced. I'd like to see documentation on which classes the students are required to take. (Two paragraphs in the Academics section)
    • Need a citation for the fact that the school switched from trimester to semester "to improve the quality of its students' college applications"
    • In the clubs section, you need citations for the fact that over 200 students stay late and that Robotics is popular
    • Do you have more information on what the organ donation club does? I assume they aren't donating organs ;)
    • Would an urban dance league really be considered a "more traditional club"? Perhaps there is a better way to describe these clubs?
    • The Classic Cars for Classic Kids information seems overly detailed to me. Do we care which place they rent, how many donars are invited, that the organizations give presentations, and how much each person is asked to donate?

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: I have seen the suggestions and will be making them as soon as time permits. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  06:57, 31 January 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 00:09, 2 February 2008.

[edit] Romania national football team

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a quality article about the Romania national football team. Mario1987 (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. Mario1987 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - simply put, insufficient referencing and a template requiring an article to be cleaned up must result in FAC opposition. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose – not a single reference; MOS breaches throughout; 1/2 the article is made up of lists, overlinked, writing is mediocre, POVish in places. Carre (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, get rid of that Trivia(!) section, too. Carre (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose No references. The history section is badly written and badly structured. The second half of the article is POV really; Important players? Famous players? You need some sort of strict criteria and not personal opinion. This would be helped with references. There are far too many lists in the second half of the article as well. I suggest a good peer review first. I am sure that WP:FOOTY would help out. Woody (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thanks for your hard work Mario, but the WP:Featured article criteria say that an article needs references, and this one doesn't have any. WP:SOURCES can give you some more information on the kinds of sources that are acceptable. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Totally unreferenced, scores of MOS breaches, poorly sized sections, incl one of just one line and a number of POV lists. Peanut4 (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 02:20, 1 February 2008.

[edit] Manga

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because it is an excellent example of what can be done when people with disparate ideas put their minds together and work to greatly improve the article. This article gives an excellent overview of manga, and directs those interested to further information in sub-articles and related articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Nominate and Support for reasons laid out above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've only skimmed the article and it certainly looks good. I do have a curiosity. Why -- in an article about a visual medium -- are there so few images? Is the issue availability? --JayHenry (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • There are at least a couple reasons: one is fair use. There are some editors here who flip out if you have more than 2-4 fair use images in an article (even really long articles with a lot of solid content). With manga, it kind of requires you to have fair use images to give examples, but we went to the side of caution to avoid said editors from going into conniptions. Additionally, there's been a lot of discussion about which images should be included (see the talk page (and archives) for several long discussions about it), but outside of the images already in the article, people didn't reach consensus about the specific images to include. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
We do have commons:Category:Manga. -- Ned Scott 09:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good. No serious problems. Well referenced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Comment The article indeed is very good but I think the section on International markets need to be expanded. For one example I will take my country, Brazil. Where during the last 6 years we went from 2 titles been translated and poorly, to the rise of 4 different publishers specialized in licensing and translating manga. Was this to the lack of English sources for that? Samuel Sol (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that is the most likely reason for lack of information. If you know of some good sources, and can read them, you are welcome to add some information. Please keep in mind, though, that the most important information for the article is English-language and Japanese language releases. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose — I feel the article suffers from many issues to prevent it from being of FA quality.
  1. "History and characteristics" is overly long (over 50% of the article) and merges two seperate concepts. It is also set up in a confusing format that isn't exactly chronological and keeps resetting itself for each demographic it talks about. The level of detail for this section is more fitting for History of manga. The main manga article needs a tighter summary of its history.
    I have addressed this issue now by trimming the History section even more than before. I think it works better now as a summary. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. The characteristics of manga and how it differs from comics from other nations takes a backseat in the previously mentioned section, when it really should be the focus of the article if anything. Core aspects of the average manga that the article completely ignores include the following. (Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics is a major source for much of the following information).
    1. Pacing. The average manga can go on for years, and things generally take a long time to be resolved. This is in contrast to American comics, which feel a need to have a resolution after every issue (long story arcs don't come around for much later). A theory on this is due to the publishing method: since a manga chapter is printed with chapters from many other manga, the reader's enjoyment isn't reliant on one story, and lack of a conclusion is less of an issue. However, the single issue format of American comic books, in which that issue may be the only one a reader picks up, causes a focus on quick resolutions.
    2. Use (and lack) of detail. This is where manga is more similar to European comics (such as The Adventures of Tintin). The average manga (from a talented mangaka) has characters with low facial detail, but highly detailed backgrounds and objects (for example, in this image from Yotsuba&!). This technique is used to trick the reader is relating to the characters, as the lower the amount of detail there is for a character, the more able the reader is able to relate the character to himself, or to someone he knows. This is less true the older the demographic gets.
    3. Use of screentones. In a modern-day context, the use of screentones is nearly non-existant outside of manga. Alternative comics in other nations (which usually must be in black and white for cost reasons) use other shading techniques such as hatching, and even "original-language manga" usually lack use of screentones. Nearly all manga make use of screentones; the exceptions being the extremely simple (generally family comics like Sazae-san), the expirimental, and the traditionalists (Osamu Tezuka used them only rarely).
    4. Artistic control. The vast majority of manga are done by one person (and a bunch of uncredited assistants). The average American comic has around five (writer, penciler, inker, colorist, and letterer), which may rotate out constantly. The fact that the copyright for manga stays with the creator and not publisher (which is/was the norm in the US) is never even touched on.
    I will borrow this book from a friend and see what I can do to address these points. If you have a bit of time, please feel free to add in some of this information as well. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. There doesn't seem to be any logic as to why "Shōjo manga" and "Shōjo manga and Ladies' Comics from 1975 to today" are two seperate sub-sections.
    This has been addressed by completely doing away with the History section subsections by merging them all into one shorter History section. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Random examples that don't justify their presence. Example: Rose of Versailles, which does not describe how it was important to the evolution shōjo manga in any way.
    This part has been removed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. The "International Manga Award": two-line section that doesn't warrent a section at all.
    I expanded this section a little into a more general Awards section. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Much of the content of "Publications" (e.g. the issue of "flipping) belongs in the "International markets" or "Localized manga" section.
    I moved the flipping section, but I think the rest is fine where it is. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. "Some relatively well-known publications are:" This violates Wikipedia:Embedded list. It really doesn't even need to be in prose form, as simple example lists are not useful for understanding manga as a whole.
    The list has been removed. 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. What is the following doing in "Dōjinshi"? "Some manga artists will produce extra, sometimes unrelated material, which are known as omake (literally, "bonus" or "extra"). They might also publish their unfinished drawings or sketches, known as oekaki (literally, "sketches"). "
    This has been removed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Manga culture isn't touched on at all. The fact that "otaku" appears only as a "see also" concerns me. Such a section could incorperate the "Dōjinshi" section.
    Do you have some sources for manga culture? I'm happy to incorporate them if you do. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the very structure and content of the article fails the "Comprehensive"-ness required of featured articles. I see the article as only being good article quality.--SeizureDog (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment An interesting set of criticisms from one of the people who has worked on this article (as I have myself). The history section was edited down considerably, and much of it was transferred to the History of manga article a while ago. One question -- you wrote:
"Example: Rose of Versailles, which does describe how it was important to the evolution shōjo manga in any way."
Did you mean "which does not describe"?
Timothy Perper (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. Yeah, I meant "does not describe". Lot of text, slipped up. As for the history section, I still feel that it is too long, even with the editing. Ideally, such a section shouldn't have subsections and be capable of single, large summary. The size of what is currently the lead of the section is about the size I feel it should shoot for in order to bring itself more in line with WP:Summary style. The basic problem with the section is getting distracted away from the basic history of the medium and focusing on specific demographics/genres thereof. This amount of detail belongs more in History of manga and the Shōjo, Shōnen, etc. articles. It's also this excess detail that causes the timeline to keep resetting.--SeizureDog (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentOppose, I'm inclined to agree with much of SeizureDog's comments, and looking at the History of manga, I see a lot of that content is mirrored in the main manga article. They either need to be merged, or the separation made more distinct (I'd personally rather see it merged unless the split was purely for size reasons). Along a similar vein on the culture, I was rather suprised to see the entire scanslation issue reduced to nothing but a see also. Considering the legal ramifications, I think it deserves at least some mention, even if the main scanslation article is a hideous mess. International Manga Award could be expanded into a more general Awards section discussiong the various types of award programs for manga (surely IMA isn't the only one?) Collectonian (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing comment to oppose. The article fails FAC #1a and b - it is not well-written or well-organized, and it is not comprehensive. Several core aspects are ignored or left to a see also, while other aspects are overly detailed, most especially the history section which is almost a complete repeat of the History of manga article. The responses from one of the primary article editors regarding this issues have been less than satisfactory. Indeed, they seem rather aggressive and defensive (and borderline uncivil in the discussion moved to the talk page), and as some of these issues came up before the FA nomination, it seems very unlikely that they will be adequately addressed before the nomination closes. If they are, however, then I will reconsider my oppose.Collectonian (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I should note here that the History of manga article is taken from the former section in the Manga article before I severely trimmed it (dropped 30K+ off it, IIRC). I agree that the History of manga section is larger, but it is an important section. Would you be willing to help edit the section to reduce it further? When I edited it, I tried to remove as much detail as possible (because the detail should go in the History of manga article instead) without making it too trimmed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Tim Perper. I'm very sympathetic to the ideas expressed by Samuel Sol, SeizureDog, and Collectonian. They are each pointing to significant topics and asking that the article include more than a mere mention of those topics. But --

The "but" is space.

This article cannot, in my opinion, cover everything, nor cover the topics it does cover in anything like equal depth. There is simply too much material. For example, the history section of this article used to be much longer, but it was summarized for this article and the complete section moved to the History of manga article. (Which explains why there is overlap -- this repeated use of material is legitimate on Wiki.)

Another example is SeizureDog's discussion, above, of aspects of manga drawing and its stylistics. SeizureDog is describing the kind of material that belongs in the existing article on Manga iconography but cannot, IMO, be included in any depth at all in this article. The same holds for otaku and dojinshi -- and as the wikilinks indicate, there are articles on them too. That's where the description SeizureDog wants should go.

We simply do not have room for everything in this article. Material on manga in Brazil -- a fascinating topic, because Brazil has a large population of people of Japanese descent -- certainly deserves discussion, but the present article cannot do justice to that topic AND to differences in stylistics of American comix and manga AND discuss manga fan cultures (like otaku, dojinshi, and YAOI) AND do a halfway decent job discussing legal, moral, and ethical issues raised by scanlations AND include a dozen more images AND --

I hope my point is clear. We cannot do everything in this article. Cross-references (as wikilinks) exist in virtually every paragraph, sometimes many of them in the same sentence. What this article forces us to understand -- not "force" in a bad way, but makes us recognize as an opportunity -- is that we need to start in on those more specialized articles and improve THEM. Many of them are quite short (shōnen and seinen for example), and they could all use a good cleanup plus a lot more referencing and sourcing. But no one should expect that the present article can deal with them all. It simply cannot.

But that's why Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not one huge, overgrown single article on Everything Anyone Ever Thought of About Manga (or Anime, or Chemistry, or -- you name it). That's why many separate articles exist. So please, folks, go write those articles. SeizureDog, I don't think there's room left in this article to discuss screen tones. But that topic does belong in the Manga iconography article.

Maybe some new articles will be needed, and that's fine. When several of us were un-redlinking entries in this article, about a dozen new articles were created. That is a good thing -- that's what Wiki is for.

But I think this article has about reached the limits of what it can reasonably be expected to cover in the space we have. So, up above, Nihonjoe suggested that we've all done a good job on that, and the whole thing can become an FA -- and then we can do the same kind of thing all over again with all the other articles that need improvement.

That's where I see this article at present.

Timothy Perper (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not that it doesn't cover everything in equal depth; it's that there are some things that are not covered at all. This is the core article: it's supposed to have short summaries to all issues relevent to it. This does not mean that every aspect requires a subsection−in some cases, single sentences are enough—but neglecting them isn't the answer. Your excuse is a lack of room, but this just means that the level of detail we have needs split off and the amount in the manga article needs to be lowered. Remember, the basic goal of an encyclopedia is to summarize the subject, and right now, the history section is too long. As a casual reader, the length bores me and takes me too long to get the basic summary that I seek. I suggest you take a quick look at Wikipedia:Summary style#Levels of desired details (I fall in the middle). --SeizureDog (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This discussion does not belong here. I am moving the last comment and my reply to the manga talk page where it belongs. This page is for discussing the FAC of the manga article. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Considering how the discussion is my specific rationale for opposing the nomination, I fail to see how it's not on point.--SeizureDog (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SeizureDog in that this discussion does belong here, and we should take the comments and suggestions here and use them to improve the article. That's my plan, anyway. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments do not belong here because they deal with specific issues that you want changed in the article. None of those things are relevant to deciding the FA status of the article as it is. You have cast your vote about that and made your point. This page is not a pulpit for airing your theories of manga or screen tones or your belief that the article needs to be split up. I will not discuss these issues further here, but on the manga talk page instead. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, have you actually read "Supporting and objecting" at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates? I'm doing exactly what I'm supposed to do. Also, nothing I've stated were my theories, but other established art critics' theories.--SeizureDog (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The comments are relevant to supporting the Oppose and belong on the FAC; please focus on the article issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

After a side discussion on procedures, this is a good time to bring the focus back to the article. Fg2 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose: I'm inclined to agree with much of SeizureDog's comments, especially about the organization and balance of the article (and his/her comments are indeed entirely relevant to the discussion here). I'd like to see the history section be more of a summary-style synopsis of History of manga; the demographic discussions could also, possibly, be split off summary style, with this being more firmly used as the main article for the sub-subjects. In addition, I'd like to see an image in the lead, say a photo of some tankobon volumes or a page illustrating the art style and layout. As is, I feel this is a GA-class article, but not FA. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    I should add, there's LOTS of really good stuff here -- the editors have done a tremendous job taking it this far the past few months. I just think there's more to do. None of the new material should be lost -- I'm thinking moved. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 02:20, 1 February 2008.

[edit] Ralph Bakshi

previousFAC

Self nomination. This article has improved greatly since its last FAC, and I believe it is ready for another chance. There are enough references, the context is pretty in depth, there is only two fair use images in the article, and the article itself covers a significantly important subject. Article is currently listed at requests for copyediting, and as such, any problems perceived by FAC reviewers should be fixed before the time the article makes it to FA status. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

  • Strong oppose - Despite the superficial impression this article this gives of being adequately-cited, NPOV and well-written, it has a large number of problems:
NPOV
This article passes off lots of POV as fact:
  • "with legendary painter Frank Frazetta", "Hunter S. Thompson's legendary novel Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, done in the style of Ralph Steadman's legendary illustrations."
  • famed fantasy illustrator Frank Frazetta, famed underground comix legend Vaughn Bodé.
  • Hubert Selby Jr.'s controversial novel, Last Exit to Brooklyn.
  • this famous cartoon studio during what were to be its final days. - also, awful prose.
  • This is a mistake. It should have read "Famous Studios", the name of Paramount's animation devision. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC))
"unquestionably aimed primarily at adult audiences" - bad prose, POV; and... no mention of why it was controversial at all. Fun fact: this sentence is a remnant of the very first draft of the Ralph Bakshi wikipedia article from way back in 2002.
Citations
  • "While Ralph's Spot and Bakshi Productions studios were in production, Bakshi and his crew were always coming up with new ideas for films. Whether it was an original idea or an attempt at portraying an existing story that Bakshi really thought could be animated and make a great film, the ideas were explored to the fullest potential and then most were scraped for other, more immediate, potential projects." - large block of uncited stuff.
  • "Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi" - Why not wait until this book comes out before attempting for FA? As of now, I see zero offline refs and that can be a problem for info from the 70s and 80s.
  • Comment: This is incorrect. There are several offline references. All of which are reputable books on the subject of the history of animation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
  • "produced several experimental animated short cartoons, although none of them had a major impact with audiences. Paramount closed its cartoon studio for good in 1967. In 1968, Bakshi founded his own studio, Ralph's Spot, and headed a low-budget but distinctive animated series for television based on the Spider-Man comic book; new episodes appeared until 1970. After 1970, Bakshi left the world of television and went into full-length animated feature films." - big block of uncited, badly-written, opinionated text.
  • Uses forums as a reference multiple times. Some of the refs are "Bode died in an accident related to autoerotic asphyxiation." and "Bakshi's daughter." Should be incorporated into the prose.
  • References aren't consistently formatted.
Prose
Lots of redundant wording, flow problems etc.
  • during the span of his career.
  • Top animators of the era took a full page ad out in Variety telling Bakshi to "take [his] garbage back east." - This is followed by a blockquote by Bakshi himself. This is very confusing as first you're taking Variety's opinion then suddenly followed by a big Bakshi quote the attribution of which is right at the end.
  • "members of the Congress of Racial Equality, led by a young Al Sharpton, none of whom had seen the movie." - That assumes we know Sharpton as an adult; the sentence itself could be improved: none of whom shouldn't come after Sharpton, it reads absurdly.
  • "Sharpton charged up to the screen," What?
  • Lots of past/present/future tense issues - Eg: "Bakshi asked why Sharpton didn't come in and see the movie" - use wouldn't.
  • "who saw Bakshi's film Wizards as being a rip-off" - to whom does "who" refer to here; Vaughn or Mark? Rewrite.
  • "The script he wrote was hysterical, something about a Don Juan Lizard with a wooden dildo because in those days lizards had no balls. At any rate, I loved Vaughn and his family very much and never speak of him because of what he did to himself." - what does all that mean? What did he do to himself? What do you mean in those days lizards had no balls? "I try to erase that whole part of my life out of my mind." - What part? Really, what are you trying to say in that paragraph? It starts with plagiarism accusations and ends with mourning.
  • "Noted fans of Bakshi's include directors Quentin Tarantino and Spike Lee,[39] who are both credited as being big fans of Bakshi's 1975 feature Coonskin." - you use fans twice there.
  • Is "stagings" even a word? Does it need to be used twice in the same sentence?
  • Yes, it is a word, and yes it does need to be used twice. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC))
  • "cited as an influence on director Peter Jackson's adaptation" followed by "After initially denying having seen Bakshi's film" seems contradictory.
  • Re-read the sentence. It makes sense. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC))
  • "he wasn't initially inspired to read the books.". Bakshi or Jackson? And what does that quote actualy mean in conjuction with the rest of the sentence? Also, two "initially"s.
  • "Bakshi attributed Jackson's change of tone towards the film to his own vocal complaints through interviews." What? Again ambiguous "his"? "vocal complaints through interviews" - huh? I just can't understand.
  • "One approach I used at the time because it was hard to sell a picture was like shooting ducks in a barrel. I knew what picture I wanted to make cause I could see it visually, so I knew they would work." - again no clue what Bakshi is trying to say. Why not convert some of these quotes into prose?
  • ". Though Bakshi pursued the project, the person holding the rights, a girlfriend of Thompson's, presumably producer Laila Nabulsi, refused because she wanted the film to be made in live action (and it eventually was in 1998)" - Rewrite.
  • A sequel, The Nine Lives of Fritz the Cat was produced in 1974, without Bakshi's involvement. - remove, not suitable for Bakshi's article.
These are not exhaustive but merely representative of the problems with this article. The prose is very very choppy throughout and the rarely, if ever, does the text actually flow logically from one thing to another. Also I also doubt that image is free; at the very least the actual photograph you based it on would be copyrighted. indopug (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I worked on the things you pointed out. It should be noted, however, that the film is currently at requests for copyediting, so the article should be up to standards by the time it is passed as a FA. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Oppose: I agree with everything Indopug has pointed out, including the POV issues. The last sentence in the lead, for example (He encouraged the public to look at animation in a new way by creating worlds that are sometimes familiar and sometimes alien, whose power and strangeness are completely absorbing), comes off as wishy-washy and superfluous. I also take issue with the image; it looks like a copyrighted portrait that has been doctored up in Photoshop. If that is indeed the case, then the license is incorrect as you would not be the copyright holder. It may be better to just do without an image. On a side note regarding the supposedly imminent copyedit, it seems rather optimistic to think that reviewers will want to review this article for FAC if they know that the prose may be drastically altered sometime later. How can we judge an article if someone is soon going to go in and change it all around? I suggest closing this nomination until the copy-edit has been completed so that reviewers can review the version of the article that you want reviewed. That is better than the nominator expecting reviewers to imagine the merits of the article after it has been (hopefully) copy-edited. It may take a while for this article to be seen by someone from the LOCE. María (habla conmigo) 14:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment — I created the image. There are no copyright problems with it. There is, in fact, enough of a difference between the image it is based on so that it would NOT violate anyone's copyright. The image as is, I own 100%, and have released it into the public domain. I deleted the sentence that you believe is not NPOV. The article is very high quality as it is, and the issues Indopug has referred to have been cleaned up. There is no reason for anyone not to support this FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC))
  • I am not completely up on the image use policies, but you are not the copyright holder of the original image, which is a version of what I found here via a Google search. According to Wikipedia:Image use policy, "Simply re-tracing a copyrighted image or diagram, however, does not necessarily create a new copyright — copyright is generated only by instances of "creativity", and not by the amount of labor which went into the creation of the work." Also, Indopug did state that their suggestions were "merely representative" of the problems throughout the article, and not an exhaustive list. María (habla conmigo) 22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but there is no reason why I would not own the image I uploaded to Commons. Andy Warhol once created a series of collages based on previously copyrighted images of Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, etc. Warhol's art did not infringe on these copyrights. The copyrights were entirely separate. I created the image, thus I own it, thus I released it into the public domain for use in all WikiProjects in various languages. I fully understand copyright law, and I published this specific image with that understanding. There is no reason why the image would be considered a violation of any copyright law. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC))
  • You own the rights to the creative work you did, but the image is still a derivative work of someone else's copyrighted photo, and as such your image is a copyright violation unless you obtain permission from that other person. (Warhol's work is not a defense, as he could have claimed fair use; you may wish to read Jeff_Koons#Copyright_litigation for comparison.) When an image has been deleted from Commons for copyright reasons, as this image was, you should not simply ignore that and upload it again; you can take your case to commons:Commons:Undeletion requests. --Davepape (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Again, I must state that the article is very high quality and there is no reason for anybody not to support this FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC))
Could you address my comments individually (marking as done) so that I know which ones you've addressed? Thanks, indopug (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Strongoppose. Thank you for your hard work, but I do not feel that this article is ready for FA status at this time. As mentioned above, there are some POV issues and a copyedit is needed. Furthermore, some of the sources are questionable, and the article does not use a recent biography of the subject as a source, leading me to think it would fail the comprehensive criteria. Karanacs (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Per WP:MOSBIO, place of birth should not appear in the lead, but should instead appear in body of article.
    • Reference issues:
      • Do you have page numbers for the information from the Cohen book?
      • Animation Room (ref 3) appears to be a self-published personal website, meaning it is not a reliable sources
        • Fixed to clarify that the actual television program is the reference, not the website, which is only linked as immediate proof of accuracy. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC))
          • I replaced the personal page with a page from Channel 4's website. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC))
      • Ralph Bashki Forum (ref 13 etc) - forums are usually not considered reliable sources. In this case, are the comments made by Bashki or by someone else? I think you should explicity state who made the comments (and their forum name) so that people can verify more easily.
        • It is very clear that the comments are made by Bakshi. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC))
      • Ref 28 does not have a publisher listed (Finan, Christopher M.)
      • Ref 42 does not have a publisher listed (Mark Bode?)
      • Ref 46 (Film fest) does not have a publisher listed
      • Full dates in references need to be wikilinked (see 5 for example of an unlinked one)
    • I agree that this article has POV issues. Any types of extraordinary claims must be sourced appropriately to reliable, independent sources. They cannot be sourced to his website, his forum, or personal websites.
      • Sourcing the potentially disputed text "Bakshi tried to bring change to the industry and pioneered adult animation using political commentary and satire" to his website doesn't cut it.
      • " Bakshi's films have been ranked among the greatest animated films of all time" is sourced to a personal website (unreliable) and the Online Film Critics association. The lead (and article) needs to make it clear who voted on this (the OFC) so readers can decide what they think of that)
    • Mighty Mouse doesn't need to be wikilinked twice in one paragraph
    • The article needs a thorough copyedit. The prose does not flow well, sentence beginnings need to be varied, some sentences are overlong or clunky, and there is unnecessary repetition. Following are a few examples, but this is not a comprehensive list.
      • First paragraph of early life section does not flow well. Five of the first 6 sentences begin with "Bakshi" or "He". Please vary and try to transition better.
      • "saved the jobs of the studio" is not very clear, and that sentence as a whole is unwieldy
      • "he started trying to convince people " -> which people? This sentence is vague and does not sound encyclopedic
      • "In 1967, Bakshi moved to Famous Studios, the animation division of Paramount Pictures, where he was placed in charge of Famous Studios during what were to be its final days." - unnecessary repetition and unneccessary clunkiness - could be simplified to "In 1967, Bakshi became head of Famous Studies, the animation division of Paramount Pictures. Here he hired.... and produced several experimental animated short cartoons. The studio closed later that year, and the following year...."
      • "tagged on " is too colloquial
    • The image of Fire and Ice directing is not properly used in the article. Under Fair Use, the article needs to be discussing what is going on in the picture, and it does not. Either that text needs to be added, or the image should be removed from the article.
      • It clearly DOES illustrate the text next to which it appears. The section describes Bakshi's career during the 1980s. This is represented by a production photo from the making of Fire & Ice. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC))
    • Why aren't you using the book Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi (The Force Behind Fritz the Cat, Mighty Mouse, Cool World, and The Lord of the Rings) as a source? You reference the book in the article, but it isn't used at all. If the article hasn't consulted a biography of the subject, then I think it can't help but fail the comprehensive criteria.
      • It hasn't been released yet. I think that the article is very high quality as it is, and there probably won't be much to add from the book. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

Karanacs (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the book hadn't been released yet. I still think, however, that you should wait until the book is released and see what is in there. At the very least, it can help you to remove some of the more questionable sources, and I suspect it will have a lot of worthwhile details. I will strike the "strong" part of my oppose, but I can't support knowing that an ideal source is soon to be released. Karanacs (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I just went and looked at the article, and you haven't made any edits since yesterday, so none of the things you've marked fixed have been fixed in the article. I assume you are in the process of working on them; please reply here when you've saved your edits so I can revisit the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 02:20, 1 February 2008.

[edit] Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow

Nominating for featured status after a large rewrite and recently acquiring GA status. I will do my best to answer all concerns, comments, and fixes. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are my comments:

  • Ref 52 leads to a site that is reserved for registered uses; is there anyway that this can be bypassed? If there's another site with the same info, I'd replace the ref.
  • "The game takes place in 2035". Perhaps it's me, but wouldn't "is set in the year 2035" be better? The phrase "a game taking place" is ambiguous to me. This may be a persoanl thing, though.
  • The first sentence of the third page is too long, is quite awkward, and is hard to understand, especially "including Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance, which Aria of Sorrow was produced alongside and its predecessor on the Game Boy Advance"
  • Personally, I'd refrain from using "Many" twice in the last sentence of that paragraph. I don't know, try "multpile".
  • The first sentence of the fourth paragraph could be changed to the view-point of Konami (active?). For example. "Konami released", instead of "AoS was released by".
  • "including but not limited to". I didn't mind this phrase when I first read it, but after the first, it just seemed redundant to me. I don't think you'll be misleading readers by omitting "but not limited to".
  • "The possibility of acquiring a soul from an enemy is random, and the acquisition rate varies between enemies". If we were to use the Wiktionary definition of random, this statement would be oxymoronic. I may be wrong in this interpretation, though.
  • The plot seems too long to me; I feel that alot could be cut out while still retaining the meaning. For example: "Soma is initially unwilling, but leaves when Arikado reveals that he will protect Mina for him." Sentences like these really should be cut out.
  • The first sentence of "reception" could do with a reference.
  • Unless I'm missing something, shouldn't media publishers like Gamespot and RPGFan be italicised? Forget about this one; it seems thatb that only magazines are italicised. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Metacritic, a website that averages scores from various video game publications, gave Aria of Sorrow a 91/100 composite based on twenty-nine reviews." I feel that the verb is inaccurate here, since they are not giving or assessing anything, but just calculating scores.
  • "Famitsu, widely considered to be the most respected video game news magazine in Japan,[50][51] and known for its "extremely harsh" reviews," There seems to be a bit of bias here. I've interpreted it as "Famitsu is extremely harsh, but this game got a good score, so it must be great". It just feels like you're trying to sway the readers' minds with this sentence.
  • "with many considering it the definitive Castlevania game for the Game Boy Advance." This needs a ssource.

Well, I hope that this helps. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - After doing a bit of copy editing, I believe the article meets the FA criteria. It is well written, comprehensive, and well sourced. It also appears that Sephiroth has addressed Ashnard's comments. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC))
The "random" thing hasn't been sorted out, neither has the last prompt. I still feel that the plot's too long for what's being said, but I won't hold that against this article looking at the plot lengths of other FAs. I just prefer it deeply summarised rather than "X meets Y, and then X goes to destination 1, and then X beats boss Z, and then C consults Y about the mysterious death quote of boss Z". See Fire Emblem (video game)#Plot, a game which has a much vaster plot than this game, yet a shorter article plot length. Don't worry, I won't oppose as a result of this, as many other FAs seem to have the same style. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments I only read the lead, but what I saw suggests another proofread might be helpful.
    • The use of "garner" with "sales" is odd.
    • The second paragraph is repetitive. All three sentences start with "The game('s)" and the first two begin "The game is set in".
    • "which Aria of Sorrow was produced alongside" Usually I'm not too picky about ending sentences with a preposition, but here is a case where doing so is actually more awkward than the alternative. But either way, the clause is still somewhat vague; what does producing alongside mean?
    • "Aria of Sorrow introduces several new features to the series, including the "Tactical Soul" system, and a new, original storyline placed in the future, as versus the medieval setting of many other Castlevania games." Lots of redundancies and "as versus" is quite awkward.
    • The lead doesn't mention when the game was released. BuddingJournalist 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - fixes made per the above comments. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sepiroth, have you asked BuddingJournalist and Ashnard to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Ashnard has noted that he will not support until the plot section is tailored to his liking, but notes that it is a stylistic change that he will not oppose either. I have left a note on BuddingJournalist's talk page. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a strangely worded sentence in the lead: "It was released in North America on May 6, 2003 and released in Japan on May 6, 2003." Perhaps a date was altered in the sentence? Maralia (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.