Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Archived nominations

1 January 2008

[edit] January 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 00:08, 31 January 2008.

[edit] Future of air transport in the United Kingdom

previous FAC

Self-Nom. A FAC nomination for this article was previously withdrawn after it became clear that the title did not reflect the content. I have now re-worked it and would like to see if this version can stand the rigours of candidacy. --FactotEm (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have fixed all of the dead links in the article, except for one for which I believe the server is temporarily down. No opinion on FA suitability.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help on that. The final link reports that the server is due back online on 28th Jan. I'll check that one again then. --FactotEm (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs cleaning up throughout. For example, in the lead:

"The Future of air transport in the United Kingdom is the Government's strategic framework for the development of United Kingdom (UK) airport capacity up to the year 2030." Now I'm confused: is this a formal title (some white paper?). If so, the opening "The" should be bold too, and "The" should start the article title. No need to spell out "United Kingdom" before the first abbreviation. Where is it referenced? What is the source of this "framework"?
Unsure whether there's a rule in MOS about it, but "p17" is non-standard formatting. Can you dot and space throughout the references? ("p. 17"; "pp. 3–4")
"550ppmv"—space after the value?
MOS subpage on titles (or is it capitalisation?) says to use sentence case for titles, not title case. You might consider doing this.
Check formatting through the refs; I see, for example, a full-stop squashed next to the subsequent character.
"two—fold"—one word, and it would never be an em dash, anyway.
"The industry is currently responsible for over 6 per cent of all UK carbon emissions,"—reference, even though it's in the lead, would be nice for a figure like this. Although I'm unsure: is this figure referenced later? Tony (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your comments. In response...

The white paper is indeed titled "The Future of Air Transport", but I perhaps mistakenly deferred to the WP:MOS and removed the leading "The". I also added "in the United Kingdom" to disambiguate the nationality. Having just consulted White paper, perhaps the correct title (including capitalisation) for the article should be "The Future of Air Transport White Paper". What do you think?
I've addressed all the formatting issues I can find (page numbers etc) as you suggest.
I don't understand your comment about sentence case for titles. All section headers conform to this standard, and I'm not sure where else the article might be at fault on this. Can you provide a specific example?
WP:LEAD leaves the issue of citations in the lead to editorial concensus and personally I do not like them. The lead in this article introduces nothing that is not comprehensively cited in the body of the article. Is this acceptable for you? --FactotEm (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow up...

I've looked at the WP:MOS sub-page on titles and capitalization and can't find anything that relates to this article, other than the possible capitalization of the word "Government", which I have now put into sentence case throughout. Was this all, or have I missed something? --FactotEm (talk) 10:36, 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.

The article was not promoted 00:08, 31 January 2008.

[edit] Apple

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a very comprehensive important historical, botanical, religious, and agricultural topic which relates to nutrition, health and many areas as well.This might interest a great number of Main Page readers because of its universality...A very suitable candidate in my opinion. Thanks. Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Are articles allowed to be up for GA and FA at the same time? Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No WP policy against that. :)Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 21:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they aren't. Please see the instructions at WP:FAC, and remove one or the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ - Lots of uncited statements which could be challenged:

Example: "Some individual M. sieversii, recently planted by the US government at a research facility, resist many diseases and pests that affect domestic apples"

Some unsourced speculation:

Example: "They may also help with heart disease, weight loss and controlling cholesterol"

Other unencyclopaedic language:

Example: "with crabapples or unusually hardy apples in order to produce hardier cultivars"

Guest9999 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back, This topic is unlikely to be accused of having many POV statements, and many paragraphs are sourced. The ones you have mentioned are sourced now , and I had to rephrases some to become more encyclopedic. If you have more comments, please post them. Thanks to all. Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 21:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job fixing the points mentioned, however I think there are a few more problems. The article is a Good Article nominee and I think success there would probably be a good first step before featured article status. Obviously others are free to disagree and I will try to point out more things that could be improved pending further discussion. Guest9999 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Note; articles cannot simultaneously be listed at WP:GAC and WP:FAC. Please remove one or the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The instruction[s] on this page say: "Graphics ( Done or Not done) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time."--Kiyarrllston 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note; To comply with WP guidelines, I decided to withdraw the article's GA nomination. I realize that by doing so, I am taking a risky step, but I believe that the article is ready for FA.

Your input is much appreciated. Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 09:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The links to references 10 and 19 (and possibly 3) appear to be dead, something is wrong with the formatting of 14. Guest9999 (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will fix that. Thanks!Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 13:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed them all except number 3. I am still trying to figure out the best way to solve it. Some links were simply outdated, and one was vandalism. I fixed them now. Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 14:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, good job, I hope you don't mind if I point out a few more potential issues. Guest9999 (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Many of them have excellent flavour (often better than most modern cultivars)" - is this sourced by the reference at the end of the paragraph? It sounds quite POV. Guest9999 (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A couple of paragraphs that could possibly do with referencing:

"Although most cultivars are bred for eating fresh (dessert apples), some are cultivated specifically for cooking (cooking apples) or producing cider. Cider apples are typically too tart and astringent to eat fresh (possible NPOV issue without source), but they give the beverage a rich flavour that dessert apples cannot.(possible NPOV issue without source)"

and

"Modern apples are, as a rule (possible unencyclopaeic language), sweeter than older cultivars. Most North Americans and Europeans favour sweet, subacid apples, but tart apples have a strong minority following. Extremely sweet apples with barely any acid flavour are popular in Asia and especially India."

Guest9999 (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Nearly all commercial orchards" - some kind of sourced figure or statistic might be better, nearly all seems a bit subjective. Also is there sourcing for the table of nutritional values? Guest9999 (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixing I am working on them right now. I have rephrased, removed, added, sourced many paragraphs to fix the issues, and the nutritional value's table reference is found here [1]. Guest9999, You are a great reviewer ! Thanks! Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 14:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I would however note that I am not very experienced in this area of Wikipedia. I do not know whether other users will agree with the comments I've been making. Guest9999 (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed All issues reported by Guest9999 have been addressed and fixed. Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 15:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Current Position of Kiyarrllston: Oppose

[done]"Apples as Food" - wouldn't "Human consumption" be a more encyclopedic title?
[done]"Origin and history of cultivation" -wouldn't simply "History" be better?
[done]"~~Different cultivars of apples have a distinct different taste, and this can be separated into two separate factors of flavour and texture~~." is the first sentence of "Apples as food", and it does not in any way serve as an introduction to that section, besides lacking any sort of context.
[still in human consumption] "See also: List of Lepidoptera that feed on apple trees" perhaps fits better in "Botanical information"? it regards a biological "ecosystem" where the rest is about human consumption

- hmmm... I think it is the best article on a fruit so far -Query has any fruit article made it to FA yet?
--Kiyarrllston 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

First issue addressed; "Apples as Food" to "Human consumption"

Second issue addressed; "Origin and history of cultivation" to "History"

Third issue addressed; removed phrase lacking context

Fourth issue addressed; "See also: List of Lepidoptera that feed on apple trees" moved to "Botanical information".

Thanks for the feed back. Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 22:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding :D

The lead should summarize the article, as I understand it. I do not believe that happens in the current article. In fact I believe the lead contains information not in the body - this is highly irregular but I don't know what rule it goes against.

--Kiyarrllston 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Another small thing:

"most varieties of apple can be stored for approximately two weeks, when kept at the coolest part of the refrigerator" - reading the source it mentions a temperature of below 5°C - something like "when refrigerated at below 5°C" might be a clearer standard to use. Guest9999 (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please resolve external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the lead does not meet WP:LEAD, in that it only briefly describes the tree and fruit. It doesn't have any information from Apple cultivars, Growing apples, Commerce, Human consumption, Health benefits, Cultural aspects or Storage. The Commerce section is very stubby - perhaps it should be merged into Human consumption? -Malkinann (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Hopefully the lead now complies with WP:LEAD, I was reluctant to remove the info already there, because this is the kind of thing a real encyclopedia would show _{Not in any way suggesting that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia :)} I just added a small paragraph. Also, I took Guest9999 comment and added it rather than rephrasing the sentence since we will lose an important piece of info if we did that. Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 10:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I saw a list of FA, but I did not see a fruit under "Food and drink", I might be wrong but I believe this might be the first FA on a fruit! Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 10:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

&Fixed The external links have been fixed. Regards. Λua∫Wi se ^(talk) 11:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has garnered no support in eight days at FAC, so I'm closing; I will list some things to address before re-approaching FAC.

WP:GTL, see also, further, etc. templates belong at the top of sections.
MOS:CAPS#All caps, reduce all caps in citations.
Extensive cleanup is needed in citations: there are missing publishers, unnecessary parameters English and htm (Controlled Atmosphere Storage (CA) (htm) (English). Retrieved on 24 January 2008. ), incomplete information (who is Mark? Mark. ORIGIN, HISTORY OF CULTIVATION (.htm) (English). Retrieved on 22, 2008. Retrieved on January 2008.) as examples.
Unformatted entry in External links.
See also needs pruning: in a comprehensive featured article, most see also entries are incorporated into the text, and see also should be minimized (see WP:GTL).

I suggest a comparison to the featured article saffron for comprehensiveness, addressing all of the issues raised, and re-approaching peer review before re-submitting to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 00:08, 31 January 2008.

[edit] 2007 ACC Championship Game

2007 ACC Championship Game is a recent addition to the ranks of the Good Articles, having recently been called up from the B-list. Well-cited, and following the example of his predecessor FA-class article 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl, "Champ," as he's known to his friends, promises to be an excellent addition to the Featured Article starting rotation if he can make it through tryouts. He's been 'coached' by some of the best in the business, and has the potential to make a real impact in the majors. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support as nominator. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Again, a couple of WP:MOS issues...

WP:HEAD should be followed (capitalisation issues).
Is the game called "Championship Game" or "championship game"? Consistency required.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

done JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process.Tony (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the dead links: Check external links SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, SandyGeorgia. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 00:08, 31 January 2008.

[edit] 2008 Orange Bowl

2008 Orange Bowl is one of the finest articles to yet come out of the knowledge factories at Wikiproject College Football. Crafted with the finest in citations, photographs, and content, the raw material was mined from the richest veins of Internet ore and forged in the fires of [insert impressive-sounding, yet humorous name here]. Okay, okay. This article has been through a GA review and is the second (of hopefully many) Featured Article candidates to come out of the 2007-2008 College football bowl season. It's got plenty of photographs (and I'll be adding more once I work out some computer issues), and the post-game effects section will be filled out as events mandate.

This article is a comprehensive, complete, and impartial look at one of the five most important postseason bowl games during the 2007 season, and easily meets all the FAC standards. It was built in the mold of 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl, itself a featured article and former main-page participant. Please look over this article and let me know if you've got any questions, comments, concerns, or slanderous accusations of impropriety on my part, and I'll do my best to address them. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support as nominator. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

At a first glance I can see a couple of manual of style issues that need to be resolved before this can be considered for WP:FA status.

En-dash should be used to delimit scores, not hyphen (see WP:DASH).
Headings should follow WP:HEAD.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

done JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process. Tony (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the dead links: Check external links SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, SandyGeorgia. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 00:02, 30 January 2008.

[edit] King Lear

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a very good article. It has one of Shakespeare's best plays, a great amount of good pictures, well referenced & follows Wikipedia's criteria. Warrior4321 02:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The films section is listy. A lot of references are needed, and the article could benefit a lot by following the guidelines at the Shakespeare Project better in order to make sure everything is covered. Wrad (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Wrad. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC))
Oppose Compared to the recently-promoted Hamlet, this article is sorely lacking in solid research on which to draw a comprehensive description of the play's dramatic style and themes (along with much else). It is also poorly written in spots and not as well organized as it could be. I think with a concerted effort by the editors or on the part of the Shakespeare Project, it could become better, but much remains to be done. Awadewit | talk 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles cannot be simultaneously listed at WP:GAC and WP:FAC (see the instructions at WP:FAC; which would you like to withdraw? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 00:02, 30 January 2008.

[edit] Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)

Self-Nom - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the Featured Article Criteria. jackturner3 (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Title is misleading, only deals with North American Lutheranism. Why is "color" capitailsed in a heading? Jimfbleak (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed the second comment by chaing the capitalization to conform to sentence case. In the second instance, I have added large sections regarding the calendars during the Lutheran reformation in Germany and Sweden, as well as in the modern period. I have also re-arranged the article to make it "flow" better. -- jackturner3 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment web references need improving, e.g. any authors, dates, publisher, accessdates. Peanut4 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently addressing this by including the web pages in the bibliography, where it will have all that inforamtion. -- jackturner3 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - while there is much material here and it is obvious a lot of work and effort have gone into this, it does not meet Featured Article criteria in my opinion. Some specifics (not a comprehensive list) follow:

It is not Comprehensive (Criteria 1b) - given the title, this article should be about all Lutheran liturgical calendars, but the focus is on North American Lutheranism (and even there it dismisses the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod with one sentence: The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has [a] different, somewhat minimized calendar when compared the LCMS and especially the ELCA.[56]) and a convoluted note (The majority of WELS congregations utilize The Service Book and Hymnal or Christian Worship: A Lutheran Hymnal, neither of which have extensive calendars of commemorations ~~in them~~. The LCMS prayerbook[,] Lutheran Worship, is available through the official WELS publisher, Northwestern Publishing House ~~through their website~~, which would ~~obviously~~ provide congregations ~~utilizing that resource~~ a larger calendar to select from. Unlike the ELCA and the LCMS, the WELS does not maintain an official Sanctoral Cycle, but they do have congregational resources available for the full Temporal Cycle on their official website). ~~This sentence and the note are also examples of less than well written prose (1a).~~ I show my suggested [additions] and ~~deletions~~.

I have implemented the suggestions you have made. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I added an "a" and a comma ;-) to the sentences in question. The article is still of two minds - the title seems to indicate a general look at all Lutheran liturgical calendars, while the modern focus is much more narrow (nothing outside of North America and Europe that I could find). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem to be neutral (1d) - I see this focus on North America as an NPOV issue. Within North America, the focus is heavily on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). For example, nine of the eleven references are published by the ELCA and the other two are LCMS hymnals (so all the commentaries cited are published by the ELCA). Canada is mentioned twice in the lead, but never again in the article - not even in the subsection The calendar in North America.

I would ask that you read the article again. There is more emphasis on the calendar at the Reformation as well as on the calendar in the modern period in places outside North America. So, a significant portion of the article doesn’t even concern North America at all. As for not mentioning Canada again after the introduction, you will notice that I never say “United States” once in the article. However, if the concern is that the ELCIC isn’t mentioned subsequently, I can certainly couple ELCA and ELCIC in every instance, along with LCMS and LC-C. I have not done so to this point because I thought it would be understood from the lead section that both pairs of churches use the same service books and therefore there is no difference between the two. Perhaps I was mistaken on that point. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the history discusses the calendar in Europe (although given this is Lutheranism, it would be hard not to ;-) ). However the modern calendar, which is the focus of the article, pays relatively little explicit attention to Europe. In The calendar in Europe (why not In Europe or even just Europe?) there are two sentences on modern practice: In the twentieth century, Lutherans in Europe came under the influence of the Liturgical Movement and many Lutheran churches adopted new calendars and rubrics similar to the Roman Calendar as revised by Vatican II. .[49] The Swedish Church also experienced a similar reform of its liturgy can calendar during this same period. Compare this to two sentences just on Dec. 13 and St. Lucia in The calendar in North America (again, why not a shorter header name here?). We still do not know if modern Swedish Lutherans observe St. Lucia's day, but we know all about ELCA and LCMS practice. Do you see the difference in emphasis? That is the problem I am trying to make you see. Oh, I know! Look at Liturgical Colours as a Lutheran - it gives lots of details on Roman Catholic practices (three lists) and Anglican practices (one BIG list) and a short paragraph on the ELCA in with all the Protestants lumped together. As to the Canadian issue, ELCA is only in the US, right? So even the US is not explicitly mentioned, every time ELCA is, I think US. I don't think you have to couple ELCIC and LC-C at every mention, but one or two per section would be nice. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead does not begin to meet 2a: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections. My rule of thumb is that every section and subsection should be mentioned in some way in the lead (even if it is just a phrase or a word). Three of the sections are on History, Liturgical colors, and Saints - none of these are in the lead.

I will attempt to rewrite the lead to more adequately encompass these issues. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From experience, (re)writing the lead is usually best done at the end (see what is in the final version of the article, then summarize it). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It fails 2b - according the WP:MOS, section and subsection headings should not repeat the article title or substantial parts of it. This has, as one example, History of the Lutheran liturgical calendar and repeats "calendar" or "liturgical calendar" four more times (although Differences from other calendars is hard to formulate without using "calendar" and so is probably OK).

This has been corrected. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I still have a problem with "Saints" in the liturgical calendar. Why not just "Saints" or perhaps Commemeoration of "Saints"? I would also be consistent on geographical headers in the Historical development section - I like the "In X" headers better than the "The calendar in X" headers. We already know it is about the calendar, no need to repeat it needlessly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It fails 2c - "consistently formatted inline citations" - current notes 4 and 5 are "Phillip Pfatteicher, Lutheran Book of Worship: Manual on the Liturgy, p. 22." and "Pfatteicher, Lutheran Book of Worship: Manual on the Liturgy, p. 22." As noted, internet sources do not include date accessed or other standard information (publisher and author if known).

I was unaware that his was “inconsistent.” Perhaps I’m simply more used to academic writing, but it is customary to not mention the first name of a cited author after the first instance; at least, that is how I was taught in grad school and what I absorbed from reading texts in this field. If it is a major issue, and the first name absolutely ‘’must’’ be mentioned without fail to pass FAR, then I will see to it that it is done, but if you could provide some sort of reference stating that references should be copied precisely the same throughout an article, I would be most grateful. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But you don't even do that - the first three cites give his full name (Phillip Pfatteicher), then it switches to just his last name. I really don't mind whatever style you use as long as it is consistent and provides all the information needed to look up the material to check it / read more. The ref name = trick is detailed at Wikipedia:Footnotes Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions - it is often possible to polish an article in FAC, but this has so many issues, I doubt that is possible here. I would either narrow the title to focus on the ELCA or try to widen the scope of the article to fit the title. I would see if you can get some more images - how about some pictures of clerical vestments or altar paraments for the liturgical colors section? I would also use the "ref name" system (ask if you do not know how to do this) so there are not nine (or more) separate cites to "Pfatteicher, Lutheran Book of Worship: Manual on the Liturgy, p. 22.". Other refs could be cited this way too. Not a bad article, just no where near FA status at this time. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason that there are so few images is because, for one thing, the article was recently (yesterday) include a significant amount of new material (if you check the history, you will see that yesterday I increased the size by nearly 10K). As a result, I have not had an opportunity to go looking for new images. And, as to the images you suggested, I don’t know that I’ll even be able to find those already uploaded to wikipedia. If you have any leads on the subject let me know, but I searched for just these types of images when I first wrote the article and came up only with the one you see, and that was thanks to a referral from a member of Wikiproject:Lutheranism. I will consider using the ref name system, as suggested. However, I also don’t understand, specifically, why the article is “nowhere near” FA status when most of your objections are already corrected or can be done in relatively short order. Perhaps you could explain that in a little more detail? -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant can you or someone who has a digital camera go to a Lutheran church and take pictures of paraments and perhaps vestments? Get them out of the sacristy if need be, hang them up and take them down again. I see Awadewit has graciously offered to try and do something similar below. I looked on Flickr but there were no free paraments photos (forgot to check vestments). I have some more detailed suggestions, but don't have a lot of time now to add them. I will say that a Featured Article should tell a story and clearly explain the subject. I know some things about liturgical calendars and Lutherans already (and I learned more from the article, thank you!) but to me it really doesn't tell a clear story yet. It may be it can be fixed in FAC or it may take longer - I am willing to change my oppose if the changes merit, but I think that a major overhaul of the article is needed and am not sure it can be done on the fly, as it were. I am trying to help - there is a lot that is good here, but it has not yet cme together in a cohesive whole. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

More suggestions These are ideas to try and help - not a requirement. In general I think an overview would help introduce the subject. I think that it is good to go from the general to the specific, and to stress things that are common to many denominations before things that are rare or unique. If you can give an idea of the basics and why they are done first, I think that will help with the specifics later.

I think the article should start (after the lead) with an introduction to the idea of the liturgical calendar, specifically the seasons. I would start with Advent and explain it is a prepatory season, then go on to Christmas, then Epiphany, then on to Lent, then Holy Week, Easter, Pentecost, then the Sundays after Pentecost, and finally Christ the King. I would explain how this models the life of Christ and the church (birth, life, passion, death, resurrection, the church, return). I would then explain how this basic seasonal pattern varies depending on Easter and how this is common to pretty much any church that uses a liturgical calendar. From here there are several ways to go, perhaps into the idea of the two cycles, then more detail on the Festivals, on to Lesser Festivals, etc? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I'm afraid that I have to agree with the previous reviewer. I think that this article has a lot of potential, but some pretty substantial polishing needs to be done.

The first paragraph of the lead is too detailed - find some way to summarize that information or allude to it, such as "The Lutheran liturgical calendar is laid out in a variety of worship materials" - or something like that.

Sure, I’m rewriting it anyway -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead is not a summary of the article per WP:LEAD - large swaths of the article are not mentioned. Give us a hint of the excitement to come! The colors! The saints!

See above -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Temporal Cycle" and "Sanctoral Cycle" need to be more clearly defined - the definitions offered at the end of the first paragraph of "Structure" would better help the reader at the beginning of the paragraph.

Maybe because I’m closer to the article, I don’t get what’s unclear about it. Please describe what you are talking about. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, move the definitions - "The Sanctoral Cycle is the fixed daily commemorations of individuals and events not related to the Temporal Cycle of Sundays, Festivals, and Seasons. [6] It is the Sanctoral Cycle which is sometimes thought of as being the “Calendar of Saints” of a Church" - to the beginning of the paragraph and integrate them with the early sentences about festivals, etc. These sentences help the reader better understand the difference between the two cycles. Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

However, the Lutheran Book of Worship does permit the celebration of a Lesser Festival on Sundays where the normal color of the day would be green (that is, seasons after Epiphany or after Pentecost) or on the Sundays in Christmas. - This sentence arrives before the reader knows anything about the colors used for the vestments. Watch for this kind of "introduction" before the reader has been introduced.

OK, good point. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is necessary to list the "white" festivals. If anything, put these in a footnote. Perhaps you could make an entirely separate page, listing all of the festivals by color. That would make a lovely featured list.

Good, you can vote in favor of Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) the next time I bring it up for featured list status :) This article was actually the result of splitting the narrative section (which is more or less what you see today in the present article) and the list section of the original Calendar of Saints article. However, I can put the “white days” among the festivals in a footnote if that is more appropriate. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Names of colors should not be capitalized in the "Liturgical colors" section.

Done -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Could there be more images, of vestments, perhaps? I might be able to help out with this, but it would take me some weeks. (My dad is a Lutheran pastor.)

That would be awesome. At present, the article is lacking images because I recently expanded the article significantly (that is, I added about 10K of material on yesterday) and so haven’t had a chance to seek out additional images yet. -- jackturner3 (talk)

As I said, this could take me awhile, but I promise to work on getting them. Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The page seems to be about the American Lutheran Liturgical calendar - is that correct? If so, it should be renamed. Or, if the editors want it to be about the entire world, it needs to be dramatically expanded.

What do you think needs to be expanded? I ask specifically because there’s a lot of information the calendars during the reformation and more information on the calendars in Europe than there was even a few days ago. I think that gives it a sufficiently broad scope without becoming too weighed down. And, as I indicate, much of what take place in Europe hasn’t changed much since the Reformation. Furthermore, I feel that if the article is change to focus solely on the ELCA or even on North America that some will feel the article is thus too focused to be an FA, so I’m kind of feeling like I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t. And, just so you know, I'm the only one working on this article, aside from a few individuals who have made some minor edits along the way. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is divided into two parts, essentially, what Lutherans today use and the historical liturgical calendar. The "History" section does indeed cover most of the Lutheran world, but the the "Lutherans today" section - the first half of the article - doesn't do that. What do Swedish Lutherans today do, for example? I understand that you feel overwhelmed - I have been the near-sole author on a number of large articles myself - it is a lot of work. However, sometimes that just means that it takes more time to do them than if you had a choir of helpers. :) Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please add appropriate links in the "History" section - many names, places, and things need to be linked for the uninformed reader.

Done and done. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Wisconsin Synod mentioned so little? While it is smaller than the ELCA and LCMS, it deserves space here.

In part, because the WELS doesn’t have much of a calendar to speak of. I did make some mention of that fact and attempt to explain how there could be variation within congregations in note 56. If there is something specific you think should be there, please let me know and I will include and do my best to source it. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But what is on their minimal calendar? We need to describe it a bit more, I think. I would put the information from note 56 into the article itself. Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there differences between the LCA, ALC, and the AELC (before they merged into the ELCA) that need to be mentioned in the history section?

Only based on the service book they were using, and the differences in service books are covered in the article. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Differences from other calendars" section is repetitive - it has good information, but it repeats ideas that have already been mentioned in the article. Some cutting is in order here.

I will see what I can do. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest reversing the order of the paragraphs in the "Saints" section - explain the position of saints in Lutheranism and then explain their place on the calendar - again, it helps the uninformed reader. (There is also some repetition here - judicious cutting can happen).

Again, I will see what I can do. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

While the sources for this article seem like a good beginning, are there any non-Lutheran sources that you can turn to? That way any POV that may exist in the sources could be balanced out by more academic sources.

Senn’s book is an “academic” monograph, published by a reputable academic publisher in the field of religion; I wouldn’t recommend it to my students if it were not. Pfatteicher’s books are a mix of academic and practical, but always scholarly. Any charge of POV would be, in my opinion, would be an instance of coincidence that both happen to be Lutheran rather than any actual bias. Problematically, the primary academic authorities on Lutheran liturgy just happen to be Lutheran, as might well be expected and thus should not give any reason for concern. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That is my concern - a Lutheran POV. Are there any other sources on this topic at all? Also, while I'm thinking about it, haven't there been controversies over some of these calendars and over the colors? I have a vague memory of that. Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a little wordiness in the prose - a few unnecessary phrases - do you know a good copy editor who could go through the article?

I did submit the article for peer review before I submitted it to FAR, but no, I don’t know a copy editor. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, once all of the major revisions have been done, I suppose I can do that myself, then. Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Website references are not formatted correctly in the notes (see WP:CITE).

I am aware of this, and I am diligently working on it… -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a red link in the "References" - take that out or create a stub.

Also done… -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The notes are not formatted consistently - for example, some use "p" and some do not; some have the author's first and last name, etc. Choose a style and stick with it.

In reference to author first/last name or last name only, I’m using an academic style. I was unaware that this was…inappropriate for Wikipedia I don't think I've noticed anything in WP:Cite about it. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm an academic, too, and I don't know of any style that looks like this. Most styles that introduce a citation first, introduce the entire citation first, and then subsequently refer to the last name of the author and the page number (title, if need be) (see, for example, Anna Laetitia Barbauld). What style is this? If I could see a website outlining the rules, I would be reassured. Awadewit | talk 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And this is what I'm doing, sort of. The convention I'm aware of is that the entire citiation does not need to be referenced complelty in the first note if it is listed in a bibliography. So, that is the style I'm following. I've always been lead to believe that it is Chicago, but it could be my first undergrad professor taught me a bad habit years ago (although in scholarly monographs, I see this same style where footnotes are used, though not in scholarly journals which only rarely have a seperate bibliography). -- jackturner3 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the 15th edition right now and I don't see that style. If a bibliography is included (as it is here), we are supposed to use one of the shortened forms listed in sections 16.41-16.45. I don't see your style listed there. In fact, 16.44 says only the last name of the author is needed. Awadewit | talk 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good article, I just don't think that it meets the featured article criteria yet. Awadewit | talk 17:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Jack, you have done some great work on this article. Is there a reason that it reflects the LBW usage instead on Evangelical Lutheran Worship - to go along with the update to the LSB for the LCMS? I think some good concerns have beenraised above - I would like to see a broader range of works used for the citations. I think it is also, in part, a little provincial, in that it focuses almost exclusively on North American usage. I realize that you have already split this once. Perhaps making this a general article about the usuage of liturgical calendars in Lutheranism, then moving to more specific ELCA and LCMS articles would allow you to put in the detail and specificity and take some of the mud out of the waters? Pastordavid (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 00:02, 30 January 2008.

[edit] Victoria Wood As Seen On TV

I'm nominating this as a Featured Article as I believe it meets the FA criteria. It has been passed as A-class by Wikiproject Television who said "It comprehensive, well structured and well written. In its current state I'd be more than happy to support it at FAC"... Bingo99 (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Nominator bingo99, 22 January 2008, 07:05 (UTC)

Comment—Some minor concerns I see right away:
- Too much boldface.
- Too many single-sentence paragraphs, including in the lead section.
- Some of the humor may not translate well (outside the UK). What does "ten minutes longer and I've splashed out on a new bra" mean, for example?
- Use of hyphens instead of em-dashes. Also there are spaced em-dashes; the spaces should be removed.
- What is a "northern couple"?
- Most of the images (Image:Marjeryandjoan.jpg, Image:Kitty1986.jpg, Image:Susieblake.jpg, Image:Onthetrolley.jpg, Image:Gailandcarl.jpg, Image:Ena Sharples Parody.jpg, Image:Walterswaitress.jpg and Image:Acorn1985.jpg) are missing a "Fair use rationale" for this article.
Overall though it seems pretty decent and may be close to FA quality.—RJH (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1c.

Please minimise the use of bold face in the main text, apart from the very opening.
Some of the references look dodgy. Ref 41, for example: who is the author? Why should we trust it? Ref 49 looks very unauthoritative. Needs a thorough audit of the refs. Tony (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 01:27, 28 January 2008.

[edit] Slipknot (band)

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Many of my original comments still stand and the prose throughout the article needs a heavy copy-edit to meet the required "professional" standard. An FA should not be riddled with simple grammatical/punctuation/spelling errors. Unfortunately, the problems in the writing go beyond these simple errors; repetition, awkward phrasing, run-on sentences, etc. mar this article. BuddingJournalist 02:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Per my last nom (awful prose). Have BuddingJournalist's or my concerns even been addressed? indopug (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Support: Article doesn't appear to have any major problems. Writing and references look very good. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
Comment What the hell are you doing? It's clear that the problems brought up in the previous FAC discussion have not been addressed and you have overwritten the old FAC discussion, you're a moron. Rezter ^TALK 11:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, there. Please be civil, Rezter. The nomination has been restarted for one reason or another, but the old nom comments are still available here, which is where Raul linked to. Besides, is the nominator allowed to oppose their own nomination? María (habla conmigo) 13:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I never nominated it this time. I am opposing because it's clear that the previous problems brought up have not been addressed, which certainly need to be the least of things achieved before it's re-listed as a FAC. I apologize for appearing aggressive. Rezter ^TALK 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a new nomination; it is the previous nomination restarted by the FA director. So, yes, you are the nominator. :) The FAC process is still ongoing, so if you wish to work on the non-addressed issues, you have time to do so. If you would rather close this FAC, you could ask for that. María (habla conmigo) 13:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - for the (admittedly) rather wooly reason that I do not think the article is written in the encyclopaedic tone neccessary for featured status. Guest9999 (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose so previous issues can be taken care of. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 00:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 00:13, 28 January 2008.

[edit] Pablo Honey

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is well written and informative. Me and my robot (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose nowhere near ready for Featured status. Just two points of many: the lead does not summarize the article and there are very few references, even direct quotations are uncited. Please read WP:WIAFA and go work on this for a few weeks at least. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I suggest withdrawal. This article is barely B-class. NSR77 ^T_C 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose as above Jimfbleak (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 00:19, 27 January 2008.

[edit] Lagaan

I'm nominating this article for featured article because

It recently attained GA status with little or no issues.
With little under 4 weeks, I improved the article four-fold to ~ 51 Kb, at the same time not allowing any compromise on its quality.

I feel that it satisfies the FA criteria and if any are still found wanting, I'd be happy to address the same. I would appreciate any comments/suggestions that will help it qualify for an FA. With best regards Mspraveen (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Object

The article needs to discuss the themes of the film, at the moment the article is only a fraction about the plot summary, and then it is marketing details and production details. One theme that I was surprised to not see mentioned at all is how the film compares Bhuvan and Elizabeth to Krishna and Radha - there is a scene in the middle of the film about this motif, and also the narrator talks about it at the end of the film.
In the plot summary, the last paragraph talks about the start of the game but the penultimate paragraph is already talking about Lakha throwing the match
Should it be pointed out that the film also involves comedy? eg eccentric soothsayer, Arjan swinging his arms over about 20 times before releasing the ball etc?
There are some comments that may be subtly inaccurate

"One senior officer offers them to cancel their taxes for three years if their village team beats them at cricket" - at the time of Captain Russell's wager, the village does not have a cricket team
"Bhuvan accepts them on merit alone..." This seems to imply that there was a selection process, which there wasn't. Only 11 people volunteered, Kachra was #11, so it would be more accurate to say that he accepted all of them
"The British Government, on learning of Captain Russell’s wager" - can you check this? IIRC from watching, it was his superiors in the army

Perhaps the background of colonialism could be breifly explained for those not aware.
The plot could be expanded I think. It should be pointed out that the rain starts falling immediately after the cricket match. and that Gauri and Bhuvan get married. Also when Captain Russell offers the wager, it should be pointed out that there was a scuffle when a British officer manhandled one of the villagers and then Bhuvan called cricket a "stupid game" or else it might seem that Russell offered the wager for no reason. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Object

Parts of the prose have even more room for improvement. For example, in the reviews section, it is unnecessary to begin the sentence below with "About the film" when the word Lagaan is in italics. Better still, writing the sentence as "The BBC said the film is "anything but standard..." \

"About the film, The BBC said "Lagaan is anything but standard Bollywood fodder, and is the first must-see of the Indian summer. A movie that will have you laughing and crying, but leaving with a smile."

Some of the quotations in the review section should be reduced in length. Whilst it can be difficult to be selective about what to keep and what not to, it really can make that much of a difference in how professionally written the article is. The (excerpt of the) review from the Guardian, for example, can be cut down.
There is also a typo of Rehman. If the quotation spelt this incorrectly, then rather than copy it as is, rewording or summarising the review is a much more favourable approach.
In the awards section, it's unnecessary to mention at both the beginning and end that the film won several Bollywood awards - once is enough.
There is some linking to other Wikipedia articles like Aamir Khan and Ashutosh, however, this could be continued to the end of the article - at least once per section (the reviews section lacks a link to Rahman for example, while the awards section lacks one to Khan to name a couple).
It hardly seems appropriate to add an excerpt from a movie review about the soundtrack. If anything, it sounds more like a promotion. This paragraph should be integrated with the reviews section, or, a separate review section should be created specifically for the soundtrack. However, it appears that there may be a little too much focus going into reviews.

Clearly, there are issues with prose - less than brilliant. It does at times, perhaps as a result of these issues, go into unnecessary details. Expression should be tightened further where possible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 00:19, 27 January 2008.

[edit] Tel Aviv

Nominator: Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because following a peer review, I believe that it is of FA standard.Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I can see some copyediting issues straightaway. ~~The first sentence as 4 commas in it. Try something like:~~

'referred more commonly to as Tel Aviv, is the second most populous city and former provisional capital of Israel. With a population of 384,600, it is exceeded in size by Jerusalem alone' - this also gets note on provisional capital in lead. Lead needs to be bigger too.

*I'd note Jaffa had been popualted for 4000 years in lead, just a one-liner. Though the city is new, there have been people there a long time.

*..Israel's globally oriented economy, and is the anchor of the area popularly known as "Silicon Wadi" - bolded bits need to be reworded. ?jargony?

~~...due to its vibrant, modern, cosmopolitan character. - vibrant is subjective. So is 'character' really. Can we rephrase this?~~ a bit better

Is that any better?--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

*Para 3 of Early History seems better suited to go in Etyomology section as it refers to the early use of teh name which is different (?) to now.

Sorry - I cant see why?--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this still applicable?--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, don't worry about it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

..Soon after, thousands of the 16,000 Jews of Jaffa moved north... - could be more specific here. Could mean anything from 2000 to 15000.

I'll try to find this out although it was a gradual movement--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK This is now done--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Still looks the same to me. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed it a bit - if you read on it says that by 1934 the population was. Is that ok?..--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

*...replaced by a yuppie population. - erm, I wouldn't use the word 'yuppie' - just say professional or whatever the demographic is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 12:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Done--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

More to come. I will change a few no-brainers and post some other queries here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I have changed all these things. Any ideas on what else could go into the lead? Thanks--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Lemme think on that one -below are more fixes.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC) *I do recall the 'city that never sleeps' tag being pretty prominent and I'd stick it in the lead, mentioning the connotation with its lively social life somehow.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Ive added this in--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's more:

combining a Mediterranean feel with culture and complexity. -arrgh - sounds like a travel brochure. Should be able to lose this but section will need tweaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 12:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Done--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

is this better now?

Historically, Tel Aviv struggled to find a niche economic position. -again, sounds vague. I know what you mean (sort of), can you word it differently. economic role? input? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive changed this--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Interim comment - I think the article has a sound base, but somehow comes across as a little bare to me. I am comparing it with Jerusalem which is twice the size. This doesn't need to be that big but some more on early history - ~~from the article the name was orignally to be a satellite (?) of Jaffa only (?)~~. Maybe some more on rich and poor neighbourhoods - is there urban sprawl or is it well-demarkated and contained? Dizengoff has loads of stuff named after him, is there other stuff worth mentioning about his (or anyone else's) influence on the city's development? Also, making stubs for the redlinks is always a good look, especially if you think it's a no-brainer that tehy definitely will have articles on them at some stage. Light rail is mentioned - is this because rtaffic is congested? Worth mentioning.

Fianlly I am not big on israel's history but has there been debate on the city's official role i.e. was there ever a move to make it capital, by any within or outside the country?

Also, was the choice of name controversial? Were there any alternatives? The website lists Ahuzat Bayit as the original name. Looking better though.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is doable, but will need a bit of work. Also, I could see more examples of copyediting needed but I need to sleep..g'night.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive expanded the history section loads and have done some other bits on the article addressing the points you have made.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've struck the ones I think have been done. Also, you need citations for statements in para 2 of Education, para 1 of Topography and climate, and the Museums section. It is improving though, good work thus far. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Ive addressed these citations, have fixed the population numbers and tourism section. I dont think this article should get into the debate about Tel Aviv as hte capital of Israel. Obviously some think it should be and not Jerusalem although Jerusalem is the capital city and Tel aviv was just temporarily on a factual, historical level. Also, what website do you refer to when you say that there are alternativs. THanks --Flymeoutofhere (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose As one of the peer reviewers, I think this nomination is premature and the time given to peer review (just over 24 hours) too short. This has the makings of a very good article but the text still needs work by a good copy editor (redundancies, inelegancies, strange constructions). It also needs to sound more like an encyclopedia and less like a prospectus or holiday brochure in tone. Additionally, the article has major info gaps so it fails on comprehensiveness. There's nothing, for example, on Tel Aviv's commercial infrastructure, which needs its own section. Another gap is the local governance, nothing on the city council, city representatives, how often they're elected etc. Again this needs its own section, say dove-tailed into the districts' one. there's --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And now I think of it, perhaps something on the founders. They must have been people of drive and vision but remain anonymous. I also seem to remember reading about the construction problems Tel Aviv has as it's built on sand. Anyhow, expansion, I think is the key. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - Ive addressed those issues of where it read like a travel brochure and have also written about the local government. The founders are now in the expanded history section, and if you can remember where you found about the difficulties in construction, please let me know because I havent found anything. You said there should be a commercial infrastructure section - isnt this covered in economy - what needs to go in this? Many thanks.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Concerned about comprehensiveness, references, and some language. On comprehensiveness, please include information on the city government. Currently there is a list of mayors section but how many people are on council? are elections at-large or wards? what is the city gov responsible for? is the city part of a larger political unit? and so on. Also, with the History section I would prefer to more on recent history (1960s-2000). The "Terrorism" sub-section is ~~awkward - the other History sub-sections describe time periods "Early history", "Mandatory period", "Modern times"...how does "Terrorism" fit into this progression?~~ And it is just a list of attacks (might make a better table) but what was their effects (social, economic, etc.) on the city? On references, some are not very authoritative on their subjects. For example, ~~Yahoo! Travel being used for the Early History,~~ an interview with a tour guide for Religion. In Demographics, the paragraph starting "According to December 2001 statistics..." has no footnote indicating what statistics (compiled by whom?). While a few other encyclopedias are referenced, there doesn't seem to be any published books used to inform the article [2] ~~And on the language, it could do with some clean-up, like:~~
- ~~"pleasant springs and autumns" - use a more quantitative adjective~~
- ~~"Tel Aviv boasts on average over 300 sunny days a year." - people boast about things, perhaps use "experiences"~~
- ~~"Many see the best time of year in Tel Aviv as April..." - specifically say who, like "According to xxx, many see the best..."~~

--maclean 20:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your time and comments - they are very much appreciated. I have spent a lot of time growing the history section and addressing many of the points you have outline above.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - the history section is now much larger and a politics section has been created. The recent history is also larger. Ive taken out the Yahoo reference and fixed all the broken ones. Books have now been quoted also. Its very hard to tie efects of terrorism in - any ideas would be appreciated. Many thanks--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference provided for the "According to December 2001..." paragraph deals with the age distribution (providing the median age and comparing to the District or national average would be good, too) but where does the average monthly wages come from? Thank you for providing a "Government" section for the article. Perhaps it can be extended by saying some of the services that city government provides. I'm not familiar with how the Israeli government system works but some examples could be fire protection, police (no mention of police or crime yet...well other than the terrorism sub-sub-section), provision of drinking water, sewerage, etc. --maclean 06:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Please review the unresolved external links.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Ive gone through and fixed these --Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think I have almost all of the issues outlined now.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 00:19, 27 January 2008.

[edit] Golden Film

previous FAC

Golden Film is a comprehensive article, that treats its topic without going into unnecessary details. It follows Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and style. In October 2007, it was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. – Ilse @ 00:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you please request comments in this FAC from those who worked to copy-edit this article?
"Recipients consider the Golden Film to be an award [given] for [those achieving] success." - is this what is meant?
--Kiyarrllston 19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked User:Galena11 to help, and I also copyedited the sentence in an attempt to clarify it myself. – Ilse @ 20:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This nomination has gone around 20[10] days without significant comments.--Kiyarrllston 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

10 days, not 20 days. In your opinion, is the copyediting problem solved? – Ilse @ 10:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, in my opinion it is not.--Kiyarrllston 03:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Within 18 months of the award's introduction, the public's interest in Dutch films in the Netherlands had increased. The audience for Dutch films as a percentage of the total cinema audience in the Netherlands was 5.5% in 1999 and 5.9% in 2000. After the introduction of the award, audiences increased to 9.5% in 2001 and to 10.5% in 2002. - You seem to conclude that because of the award more people today watch Dutch movies. You analysis of the numbers are however IMO flawed. Most of the rise in viewership happened from 2000 to 2001 but the award was not introduced until late 2001. This is part of what I see as the biggest problem with the article - you need to put the award in context. What was the situation in the Dutch movie industry before the award was introduced? What else contributed to the rise in viewership; nationalism, better movies or better publicity etc. --Peter Andersen (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I think your are not entirely correct. When you look at 2002 (List of films that received the Golden Film), all Golden Films were awarded in the second half of the year, from September 5 and onwards. The award was introduced on September 4, 2001, so all awards in 2002 fall into the same period of the year. Furthermore, there is no way of determining whether the Golden Film has actively contributed to the increasing audiences for Dutch films or not. The reader may conclude there is a causal relationship, but this is not stated in the text. I have copyedited the sentence you quoted here, in order to clarify the two things are merely coincidental, to provide context, which is sufficient context for this article. And lastly, I did not encounter any published analysis of the interesting question you raise here about the relationship between nationalism and viewership of national film productions, and I believe Wikipedia is not the place to speculate about this. – Ilse @ 09:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - (First of all, apologies for not getting around to this sooner, as I promised!)
- Some of the items in the lead may need citations.
  
  The lead summarizes the article, all information in the lead is also in the body of the article. Therefore I believe that these citations would be redundant. – Ilse @ 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Recipients consider the Golden Film to be an award given to films that are a success. Critics have said that films cannot be considered successful if they have sold only the number of tickets needed to receive the award. - This seems a bit muddled to me, especially the second sentence. Could be clearer what you mean.
  
  I have reworded this passage in the lead. – Ilse @ 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Two trophies are presented for each film: one to the producer and the director, representing the film crew, and the other to the lead actors, representing the cast of the film. - That seems to be several people more than two. Do you mean two types of trophy are awarded?
  
  I have copyedited the sentence in order to clarify it. – Ilse @ 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The trophy is a thick square frame, that contains a small square still from the receiving film. - Maybe reword to "The trophy consists of a thick square frame containing a film frame of the awarded movie." Or something like that.
  
  I have reworded this sentence. – Ilse @ 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The history section needs a few more citations, as some of the sentences contain uncited information.
  
  I have added references where needed. – Ilse @ 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since its introduction, the Golden Film has been awarded to 48 films. In 2004, nine films were awarded the Golden Film, the highest number to have received the award in a single year. - It may be worth re-wording this or clarifying when it was written (ie "As of January 2008,"), otherwise the article runs the risk of becoming obsolete, thus requiring maintenance in order to avoid an FAR.
  
  The number of awarded films is transcluded from the featured list List of films that received the Golden Film per [[List of films that received the Golden Film|{{:List of films that received the Golden Film}} films]]. Is it preferable that this sentence is static? – Ilse @ 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  
  I have added a note for the second sentence. – Ilse @ 21:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not certain that the mention about Houwer's film attendance is necessary - it runs the risk of POV-pushing, by implying that his opinion is solely because of sour grapes. His film's attendance figures do not necessarily blunt the force and meaning of his criticism, and it is entirely possible that his opinions regarding film popularity inform his intended audience instead of the other way around. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  
  The film was released after the interview. I copyedited the passage, in order to clarify this. – Ilse @ 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. The article reads well, has a sizable references section, goes into sufficient depth. It provides high readability, and is of featured quality; I'm all for passing this as a Featured Article. Anthøny 22:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Please review the unresolved external links.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the links that the script above mentioned as problematic. The script reports two more erroneous link, which seem to work just fine. – Ilse @ 09:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, these are dead links. Would you mind (as a courtesy) moving the language icons to the beginning of the citation, where non-Dutch speakers will see them before clicking on the link? Why are solo years (e.g.; 2001) linked? See WP:MOSNUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today the page www.cinema.nl redirected to the now dead link... I will fix it again. – Ilse @ 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks; I'll go ahead and strike. By the way, you don't have to provide a link to the publisher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The www.cinema.nl links are fixed. The language icons are moved as suggested. There is only one solo year wikilinked—if I understand you correctly—which is the year 2001 in the lead, because it is the year of the award's introduction and therefore provides context. – Ilse @ 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the urls (and design) of the website www.cinema.nl were changed today. – Ilse @ 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - some things that stand out on a first reading..
- "The Golden Film has been awarded to 48 films." - I'd add an "As of January 2008" or similar to provide accurate timeframing for this claim.
- In the list of Golden Film recipients, it says 2001 and 2002 recipients only had to sell 75,000 tickets. If so this needs to be added here.
- "Dutch newspapers have reported about films receiving the Golden Film." This seems pretty obvious to me. Wouldn't Dutch newspapers report about all Dutch films? Perhaps I'm missing the gist of this statement.
- "While the recipients of the award have considered the receiving films to be successful, critics have said that films are not successful when they have sold only the tickets needed to receive the Golden Film ."
  - Not clear what this sentence means.
  - Remove the space before the full stop.
- Does awarded really need to be wikilinked? It's a bit overkill in my opinion.
- "10,000 tickets[3]" - full stop required.
- "recognising" vs "subsidized" - British or American English?
- Reference 12 - I don't think referencing Wikipedia is particularly appropriate for a FA. If that article has references to non-Wikipedia articles then use those.
I have more to come, so I'll pop back later (when work allows!) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Further comments from me...
- "announced the Golden Film on September 4, 2001 as an award for films from the Netherlands that had been seen by a paying audience of, at that time, 75,000 or more.[1] " - this reads rather awkwardly for me.
- Not sure why "I Love You Too" has (2001) after it... Could it be confused with another Dutch film of the same title released at a different time which won the award in the same year?
- Number of decimal places in table are not consistent.
- Table adds up to 46 awards (I think) and you've said it's been awarded 48 times twice in the main text.
- "From 2003 until 2007, the percentage of cinema visitors who watched a Dutch film was between 9.20% and 13.4%." - presumably only those visitors in the Netherlands, so this sentence should be contextualised.
- "Recipients consider the Golden Film to be an award given to films that are a success." this seems pretty obvious to me, if I was given an award for a film I produced/acted in, I'd probably consider it a success too.
- Don't like all the years of award in parentheses, it detracts from the prose.
- "In the year after the interview, Rob Houwer's production Het Woeden der Gehele Wereld (2006) was released. The film, his only Dutch film since the introduction of the Golden Film, sold only 4,000 cinema tickets.[11]" - is this really relevant to the Golden Film award or just a bit of a dig at the fact this guy criticised the award and then turned out a flop film (in box office terms)?
That's about it for now. Please let me know if I can help further... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:19, 26 January 2008.

[edit] Iran

previous FAC

Nominator:Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Approve: I approve of it's nomination. We have addressed all(I think) of the issues mentioned in the previous nomination discussion page. Also the page is at it's lowest size for months, even years, and I think it is small enough.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Please format the references correctly (authors, publishers, date published, retrieval dates, etc.). Done! Completed as much a I can. I deleted some incorrect cittions and incomplete book sources(e.g. "Durant")Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC) ~~The statistics in the Geography and climate section need citations.~~BuddingJournalist 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Did that too
- Please do not strike out comments from other users. Let them decide whether their own issues have been taken care of. The references formatting certainly do not merit a "done". Lots more to do. BuddingJournalist 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for now: Please refer to Wikipedia:Summary style for guidance on how to structure the History, Government, Economy and Culture sections. I've noticed several grammatical errors by barely skimming through the article — I'll try my best to fix glaring errors today. I think this article could use a good copyedit as well. I don't think the current state of the article is quite at the FA level yet. AreJay (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Object:

Image:Carte Iran 1000.png needs to be re-labeled in English.
Image:Divan hafez aks2.JPG is tagged as {{PD-Iran}}, but it was published in 1969, and the "publication+30" rule on the tag only applies to photographs and movies. This image is under the "life+30" rule, and there's no indication of when or if the creator died.

--Carnildo (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)"here". it says that a Mohammad tajvidi was born in 1924(1303AH) and it doesn't mention his death, so I assume he is still alive. I will delete the image and replace it with another.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Object - I haven't reviewed the article thoroughly, but whole subsections under History are unsourced, which must be addressed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose great swathes are unreferenced, plus some inconsistencies with style e.g. two percent / 2%. Peanut4 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose—1a, 2a. I've discussed random examples of why the whole article needs a thorough copy-edit by someone new to it. It would be nice to see this promoted, but it needs more input.
- "Iran is a founding member of the UN, NAM, OIC, OPEC, ECO, and seeks to join the SCO"—Most readers will know "UN" and "OPEC", but the rest—especially the last one (Shanghai) would need to be spelt out first time. But it's kind of tedious to waste precious high-impact space in the lead with such a list; isn't there something more broad-based you could substitute this with? And that second para in the lead is a mish-mash of different ideas.
- "Shi'a Islam is the official religion of the state, while Persian is the official language"—Remove "of the state"; "while" is not a good connector here—anything wrong with "and".
- Logic: "As a regional power,[9] Iran occupies an important position in international energy security and world economy due to its large reserves of petroleum and natural gas." I can't see the connection between the opening phrase and the rest. Keep them separate; the regional power thing needs its own space (why not straight after "Eurasia"?).
- "Literally"—remove it.
- Titles: en dash should be spaced where there are internal spaces in either or both items (BCE etc).
- Space required after "1000" in caption.
- See MOS on titles: "From the fall ..." is getting too long.
- "A Latin ..." caption—not a full sentence, so no period.
- "About 45% of the government's budget came from oil and natural gas revenues"—past tense? When?
- "Government spending contributed to an average annual inflation rate of 14% in the period 2000–2004." Technically contestible statement.
- Surprised to see English on the banknote!
- 1991 census: reference, please.
- Some redundant "alsos".
- Is it really necessary to make long lists of other nations blue? I'd delink, but it's up to you.
- "much like the European Union called ECO"—a comma would help; even then, it's clumsy.
- "the current administration"—current means someone will have to houseclean when the regime changes. "As of 2008, the administration ..."?
- "The number of Iranian citizens abroad is estimated at some four million people who emigrated to North America, Europe, and Australia, mostly during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s." Clumsy sentence. En dash for the linked "Iran–iraq war" (piped, since the article title needs one). Tony (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:19, 26 January 2008.

[edit] Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

previous FAC

Now this article meets with the FA criteria.

Glitter1959 (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

Oppose Citation needed tags need clearing. DrKiernan (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Ditto. indopug (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose As above. Too early for FAC. PeterSymonds | talk 09:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Needs refs for citation tags, and other refs need tidying up into required format. Peanut4 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment What is wrong with this one now?? Glitter1959 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

The sentences with [citation needed] at the end must either have references or be removed. Paragraphs without references should have them inserted. DrKiernan (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:19, 26 January 2008.

[edit] FC Steaua Bucharest

previous FAC 1

previous FAC 2

I'm nominating this article for featured article because i think it meets all the FA criteria and i hope that the second time will be more succesfull. Mario1987 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Mario1987 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support It Fulfills all the FA criteria,it is a documented article and very often updated with the latest news regarding the rosters, great job ! Adrianzax (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Agreed that it get's FA done. Basketball 110 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
- The lead needs extending per WP:LEAD
- There are a few WP:MOS matters needing addressing particularly the dates for the past managers. The dashes certainly need changing to endashes, and I'd be tempted to convert the months into their names or ditch altogether, i.e. August 1948 – July 1949 or 1948 – 1949
- Some of the English is a bit awkward. I think it needs a bit of a copy-edit in places.
- It certainly needs a few references, one that jumped out was the claim about crowd turbulence. Peanut4 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong object mostly per my old GA review (failed) which still stands

Lead is too short
Article is mostly self sourced —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs) 00:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
English is not up to scratch
Bit about racism needs sourcing to not libel the club
Nothing about the administration of the club
History is slightly recentist. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Blnguyen. The lead needs to be developed, to the extent that will be able to serve as a standalone summary of the entire article. The article has some issues with primary sources. There are two books listed in the reference section. Why haven't they been used in the article so far? You could remove some of the non-English references (not mandatory, but I think it's something you should do) and replace them with the English and non-English book sources. The owners of the club need to be mentioned in the article, as well. I haven't read the article in its entirety, but I feel it needs a thorough copyedit. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Seems to have a few issues, the lead is too short and the style of writing needs improvement. I like the use of images in the article, seems like a fair amount of sourcing but that can also be improved. Also the fact that almost 3/4 of the article are lists and templates. It is an OK article but was probably nominated prematurely.--The Dominator (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Just a heads-up: Mario1987 left messages on eight user talk pages about this FAC. The first two supporters were recipients of Mario1987's message. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose clearly premature, lead is inadequate and grammar issues - "its" and "their" seem to be used at random, often changing from one to the other in the same sentence - including in the lead. And what does The all-present star motif on the crest finally had its saying over the new name of Steaua as up 1961 mean? Did the first supporters actually read the article. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please address significant dead links: Check external links SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for all the reasons mentioned above. Specifically...
- Lead too short.
- Image:Steaua.png has some template issues.
- Poor English - e.g. "the first Romanian team to enterprise a tournament in England".. not sure what this means at all, or "Because of his controversial character, he has been contested by the majority of Steaua fans..."??
- Some citations in the wrong place.
- Far too many really short paragraphs. The flow needs a lot of work.
- Dates need consistency.
- Move history subs-section of Honours into a Seasons article (it's not actually honours, is it? It's all season results)
- "eighth finals"?
- External links need to be trimmed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. If you want specific examples, please ask me. A thorough copy-edit is required. Tony (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:19, 26 January 2008.

[edit] Macau

previous FAC (02:34, 13 December 2007)

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Josuechan (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The culture section is not a correct summary of the Culture of Macau article. A review of Macanese literature and fine art is missing. Vb (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the sentence "Ninety-five percent of Macau's population is Chinese; those were of Portuguese decent, an ethnic group often referred to as Macanese, account for about 2% of the population.[57]" Vb (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: How about this: Ninety-five percent of Macau's population is Chinese; another 2% was of Portuguese decent, an ethnic group often referred to as Macanese. Better or no? Josuechan (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the current improved phrasing: "Ninety-five percent of Macau's population is Chinese; another 2% is of Portuguese decent, an ethnic group often referred to as Macanese.[62]" Vb (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the image Image:Lisbonagreement.jpg really useful to the reader. It is not resolved enough to be readable. Wouldn't it be possible to find a nicer image to illustrate the history of Macau? Vb (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Good idea. I got another picture for that section. Josuechan (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The current image is much better. Vb (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process.Tony (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for now on grounds including 1(b) and 1(c), though the article has been generally improving over time. Here are some broad comments, I can get into the finer detail when I have time to go through the article again in depth:
- Being a small territory, the article could do with a paragraph on transportation, similar to many of our city articles. This existed in previous versions of the article, but that old content would need to be culled and cleaned up somewhat.

Done. Agree, and a short section on transport is added.

- The article doesn't mention anything about media (TV, newspapers) or telecommunications. A few sentences would suffice. I also agree with the comments from Vb above about the omissions from the Culture section.
- The maximum elevation of the land would be worth mentioning in the geography section.

Reply: Ok, done.

- Almost all the citations in the article seem to be websites. I would like to see at least the history section use citations from sources which are more reliable, such as journals or authoritative books.

Reply: Ok, at least for the history section all citations are from printed sources. (A few cite entries in Macau Encyclopedia, which is a printed book, but online version is also available.) See what I can do about other sections.... Josuechan (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

- The image caption "The interior of Venetian Macau" needs to be expanded to be more descriptive, at least saying that it is a casino resort. Please review the other image captions too.

(Caniago (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

Done. All the captions should be more descriptive now. Josuechan (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for the following reasons:
1. I think the history section should be shorten and that subsectioning should be suppressed. Many information there are superfluous. For instance: the first paragraph should be tighened up. Is that so interesting to know exactly which prefecture was responsible for the territory of Macau before it became a noticeable settlement. If the name of the first bishop of Macau is important to be cited, it should be said why. If not (what I suppose), skip it. I think the information "The most serious one is the so-called 12-3 incident that happened on December 3, resulting in 11 people killed and 200 injured." is too detailed. The next sentence "The incident angered the locals and they adopted a "three no's" approach as a means to continue their struggle with the Government — no taxes, no service, no selling to the Portuguese." should also be suppressed. All in all I believe the history section has to be much shorter and summary style should be applied throughout.

Reply: The suggestions are taken and the history section is shortened. Now it's more or less the same size as the economy section. Josuechan (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't understand why the section "Healthcare" exists. It seems to me quite natural that Macau has a series of hospital and an healthcare system. If this section is required, the authors should explain why this healthcare system is so particular and worth being mentioned. Vb (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Honestly, I don't understand it either. The information in the healthcare section is moved to a new article Healthcare in Macau. Thanks for the suggestion. Josuechan (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a, although after the pre-emptive drubbing I received on my talk page, accusing me of national bias, I quail. This is worth bringing up to FA "professional" standards of writing; there are good things about the article. Please find fresh eyes to go over the entire article. A few hours' work by a good word-nerd. Here are random samples of what I mean, mostly from "History".

Infoblot—"m" means "metres", not millions. In any case, please use "billions", which is simpler. "Chinese" refers to Mandarin, does it, or Cantonese?
Recorded ... recorded. The right to ... the right to. Please audit the whole article for ungainly repetitions.
"carry out trading activities" = "trade"?
"they obtained a temporary permission"—remove one word. "in order to"—remove two words.
"stone-houses"—no hyphen, I think.
"Since then, more Portuguese settled in Macau to engage in trading activities"—"Since then" means right up until now. There's that "trading activities" again.
1774—1852 should have an en, not an em dash. "Today only the southern stone façade was left." No, "... facade remains." Tony (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 03:17, 24 January 2008.

[edit] Ron Paul

previous FAC

I'm nominating this article because this article has been subsequently expanded since its previous nomination. Also, the article has many references and sources, and it meets all other FA criteria. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 16:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a (fact) tag in "Newsletter controversy". --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - There's also one in the "Political positions" section. Given the fact that this page is semi protected as of now tells me that it is a tad bit on the unstable side in terms of edits and vandalism. Finally, given the state of US politics of current and presidential primaries, I believe this nomination should be suspended until after a candidate for the republicans is selected. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Semi protection of page, fact tags.Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose given the current major disagreement regarding the newsletter controversy. The article is nowhere near stable. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I do not think it is the appropriate time to try for a FAC. The article is currently unstable and there are plenty of formatting problems. There are obvious issues of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT that need to be urgently addressed per WP:BLP. It needs more time. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Too soon: he's an active politician involved in a current election, so information on him is going to be changing frequently. Wait at least a year before re-nominating for things to settle down. --Carnildo (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Though I generally don't object for this, this article fails (and will continue to fail) 1e until the election is over. Semi-protection of the page is one sign of such turmoil. Additionally, fact tags need substantiation. I highly recommend the semi-automated peer review for this article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Unstable and choppy one-sentence paragraphs. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. ref with a red error msg, a current event tag,....hmmm wait til the election is over and it's stable. Meanwhile fix all the issues mentioned. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the red error reference Tvoz |talk 04:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - interesting read - but seems "political" in nature instead of "scholarly".--Kiyarrllston 02:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Unstable - not because of sprot against IP vandalism (which shouldn't preclude FA status), but because of POV battles. Tvoz |talk 04:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - Article does not appear to meet Wiki:GA criteria. It appears to support only POV of Ron Paul. Surely there is some citable material that expresses contrary views to his. There are unsupported statements, like "Paul sponsors many more bills than the average representative." The article appears to be an extension of his political campaign information.--User:HopsonRoad 14:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose - This article is much too supportive of Ron Paul. Many of the criticisms that he has received are not mentioned at all, even where they would perfectly fit in the context. Some time ago, when this article was still fully protected, I concluded that a lot of work would have to be done in order to bring back some kind of balance. I proposed removing its A-status, too, since I felt that the article simply did not live up to the expectations that one would have of such a rating. Needless to say, it also should not be a featured article, especially since it isn't stable. —msikma (user, talk) 21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The article to one-sided to Ron Paul. The page is unstable, and is too vulnerable to vandalism and rapid changes. Geosultan4 (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: As much as I'd like to support this article, if Paul were to win the 2008 election, a lot of information is likely to be added during his first term alone. Let's save this one either for if he loses, or after he's out of office. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

The article was not promoted 03:17, 24 January 2008.

[edit] Michael Jackson

previous FAC

I'm nominating this article cos i think it meets all the FA Criteria and I think it is one of the most referenced articles on Wikipedia. Σαι ( Talk ) 08:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: There are a great number of references, true, but more than a dozen of them are not formatted properly (refs 51, 57-62, 64, 69, 70, 75, etc). There is also a clean-up tag before the "Finances" section. This article looks messy and unfinished to me. María (habla conmigo) 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm impressed with the references, but there are many more claims that need to be cited. Also:
Sources from websites need to have an access date (see Wikipedia:Citation templates and Wikipedia:Citing sources).
A copyedit is in order (see WP:LOCE).
There are many {{citation needed}} tags and neutrality disputed tags. Although this article is sourced well, all facts need to be cited, or they are unreliable. There can also be no neutral viewpoints in encylopedic articles.
Finances section apparently needs a cleanup.
Some quotes are not attributed, eg. "The true king of pop, rock and soul". All quotes must be referenced.

This is too early for FAC. I suggest a thorough copyedit (the League of Copyeditors provide a thorough and professional service), and then a Peer review. All tags need to be fixed, especially the sources. Readers must know where the claims are coming from, especially in controversial articles like this one. PeterSymonds | talk 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per all the above, Plus at 122K it is WAY too long. This is an encyclopedia, not an effort to repo "war and peace". Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: The article needs to go through a copyedit and shouldn't be nominated when a section has a cleanup tag in it. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- hahah - "section has a cleanup tag in it" - does this constitute failure to ensure article met FA status?--Kiyarrllston 03:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
We are trying to bring the size down but the thing is that there's so much to write..Σαι ( Talk ) 06:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then split it off to sub-articles. Then you make a one section paragraph summary on it in this article with a {{main}} link. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has a significant number of unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

um what does that mean? Σαι ( Talk ) 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Check external links SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - hmmm... per 1a - the article is not well written
In the lead:
"~~His successful career and frequently controversial, enigmatic personal life have been a part of pop culture for almost four decades~~" - "enigmatic"? "a part of pop culture" - not encyclopedic tone.
"However Jackson's controversial [change in appearance and pedophilia charges]~~appearance and actions~~ ~~has~~ [have] damaged his reputation ~~in the eyes of some of the public~~"
--Kiyarrllston 03:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

- calling something "enigmatic" is not encyclopedic, enigmatic refers to "similar to an enigma", which is the opinion of somebody - not the "truth" and definitely not widely agreed upon.

- "a part of pop culture" is vague and somewhat meaningless, pop culture is actually popular culture, which is a very vague and all-encompassing term - we are all a part of pop culture.

- I see no reason to leave vagueness where one can be specific - I understood that "the actions" were the pedophilia charges, and that "appearance" referred to the change in appearance.

- "in the eyes of some of the public" is redundant and vague - what is "some"? 2 people? - "his reputation" is his world reputation, and if it has been damaged in the eyes of a percentage of the public then his world reputation has been damaged. - This is especially important as it seems to be connected to his falling record sales (this fact was set up as an explanation to his falling record sales within the article

---I welcome anybody to look at the conspiracy theory article and at WP:CABAL

Kiyarrllston 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See mate I told you not to bother trying to get it up to FA, wikipedia will never allow an article on such a controversial figure to get there. They are to scaried it`ll damage their reputation. Also have you noticed the very second you put it up for FA an army of Michael Jackson Haters drowned the article in pov, citation, fansite and pagenumber tags. There is a conspiracy against the article and people are trying to stop it getting FA. Realist2 (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. This article will fail based on it's unverified content and poor quality of prose. It has nothing to do with controversial issues; that alone cannot prevent it from becoming featured. PeterSymonds | talk 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC).

Now would you say the edit suggested by Kiyallston as change in prose? I sure wouldn't. it sure is a change in meaning and a change that makes the article "anti-MJ-ish". I guess Realist2 is correct. Σαι ( Talk ) 04:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your part of it I suspect. Hum this conspiracy runs deeper than I originally thought. Realist2 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The people commenting above are raising legitimate issues with the article's quality per featured article criteria. BuddingJournalist 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 01:18, 23 January 2008.

[edit] Columbia, Missouri

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has improved significantly in the past month, and has been through a peer review and has been granted GA-status. Article is similar, though by nature more limited, to Tulsa, Oklahoma and Houston, Texas both FAs.Grey Wanderer | Talk 07:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

issues on internal links as per MOS:LINK

English words used in the common sense are not be linked. Examples: nicknames, education, medical, technology, insurance, bachelor's degrees, graduate degrees, etc.

Y done -Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more helpful to link a word, if it's linked at all, when it first appears in the article. Examples: United States, University of Columbia

Y done -Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

issues on units as per WP:UNITS and WP:NBSP

In compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space, a non-breaking space (or hard space) is recommended to avoid the displacement of those elements at the end of a line.

Y added I think I got them all, anybody willing to double check would be welcome.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's helpful to provide conversions to and from metric and US units. The template {{convert}} might be useful.

Y added

The lead might need some cleanup. For instance, the paragraph about Columbia history can be summarized in a sentence or two, and the rest can be discussed in the history section.

Y done I summarized the history section in three sentences and combined it with the rest of the intro, instead of giving it it's own paragraph.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In the geography section, it seems that the climate subsection is not needed; it might be combined with the lead. It might also be helpful to write a sentence or two that summarizes the climate table. References are also needed in this section.

Y done-Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The section on media is too short and might be combined with another section like demography.

Y expanded by User:Breakyunit-Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more citations are needed in the sections culture and demography, especially for the figures in demography. Josuechan (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now.
- The geography section is small...the prose is choppy. I would merge & summarize Geography and city scape

Y merged-Grey Wanderer | Talk 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

- There is hardly any information about the economy of the city...it says Columbia accounts for 3% of MO's GDSP...how much is that ($ value)? You could move some of the information from demographics (unemployment rate, per capita, etc) to this section.
- The sister cities section should be added below the media section
The format used on the FA Tulsa, Oklahoma is to make the sister cities a subsection of Government and law, this avoids creating a whole section just for that. Let me know if you still think it should be changed.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 00:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: Haven't had a chance to take a look at the recent modifications as yet...I'll do so tomorrow and provide any additional thoughts. Good job addressing FAC comments though. AreJay (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this article starts off strong but a couple of sections in the article need some more work. AreJay (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the significant unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process. Tony (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 01:18, 23 January 2008.

[edit] Kevin and Kell

I have been working on this article for some time now, and I believe it to be of FA status. The main problem with webcomic articles such as this one, tends to be the lack of "Reliable sources". However, if you compare this article with Megatokyo, the only webcomic of FA status at the moment, Kevin and Kell has a greater precentage of reliable sources (i.e., sources not from the webcomic or sources directly involved with it, such as FAQs and websites affiliated with it.

Also, the article has been given a copyedit, the images have no problems and it seems now to fit all the FA critera. I believe it is of the rank. ISD (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ It could use some more copyediting for grammar. For example:
- The family name, the Dewclaws, is represented as "the Dewclaw's" several times.
- "Rudy has found it hard to accept Kevin as head of the house due to him being a rabbit..." is awkard and unclear.
- "Originally, he ~~was~~ is hostile to Kevin and tries to hunt him unsuccessfully, but he eventually accepts Kevin as family."
- "the strengths of the comic ~~were~~ are the world design, its longevity and its discomforting setting of , where intelligent animals ~~being~~ are killed"

Melchoir (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Things have been changed a fair bit since I swept through a few days ago. I've made another pass. GreenReaper (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've given it a quick run through Word's grammar check, although I couldn't fix everything. Moving on to content, the second sentence of the body, "The comic describes the world they live in as created by an organization called the "Great Bird Conspiracy" (GBC).", does not appear to be supported by the source, which states "Bill was not the originator of the term 'Great Bird Conspiracy', which is why you will not see the term in the strip, only on the mailing list." This makes me concerned that the article is aimed more at insiders than casual readers or the general public.

The second paragraph begins by introducing Kevin and Kell but then goes back to describing the wider society; Kevin and Kell really belong at the front of the "Characters" section. "In a human-like society, they have many animal features..." is also awkward.

In "Characters", the logic of what material is included is unclear to me. Of course descriptions of the major interpersonal dynamics are invaluable. But take the sentence "He is in a relationship with Fiona Fennec, George's daughter." As a reader, I don't care. I don't even remember who George is. I have to run a search to find George Fennec in the previous paragraph, and I skipped over his name the first time I saw it because it was irrelevant. It's all just really hard to penetrate. Melchoir (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to make the section simplier to understand. ISD (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! I still think that the article could use a little more polish, but lacking concrete complaints, I withdraw my objection. Melchoir (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. ISD (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, as GA Reviewer of the article. I reviewed the article December 2, 2007, and it's had some good improvements since then. The article is succinct, well-sourced, and written in a clear manner, especially for its subject matter. Other articles of this nature can fall into a trap of being written in an overly in-universe style, yet this article does not. I am not familiar with the particular webcomic described, and yet I can read and understand the article and come away knowing a good deal more about it. Good job. My only comment is with regards to the first image, Image:KevinAndKell.png. If it is not difficult to contact Bill Holbrook, perhaps someone could try to contact him and see about moving the image to Wikimedia Commons, perhaps under a Creative Commons Attribution license? Cirt (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

Response to Comment: As regards to you comment, I will talk to Holbrook after the nomination is over about moving the image. ISD (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - I believe parenthesis impede flow in general, and that it could be better written in general.
"The strip started in black and white, but began running in color on" - may I suggest "black and white, changing to a color-scheme on"
"contest where several new comics[,] (~~both~~ syndicated and[/or] on-line)" - ambiguity - comics that were both or that were either/or or and/or
"Reviews of Kevin and Kell are mixed." - I understand what is meant - that "it received both positive and negative reviews" and that there wasn't a preponderance of either - could use better phrasing.
--Kiyarrllston 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Oppose: I have tried to carry out all the recommendations you have mentioned. I hope these are satisfactory. ISD (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Poorly written. Here are random samples from the opening. Each sentence needs fixing. A serious copy-edit of the whole article is required to claim the necessary "professional" standard of writing.
- "The strip is one of the oldest continuously running webcomics, beginning on 3 September 1995.[1]"—"beginning" is not right. K and K began on [date] and is now one of the oldest ..." is one solution; there are others too.
- "Unlike a mixed marriage of humans, where race or culture tend to be barriers, their difference is species and diet." Um, I think this is POV. Race and culture is no barrier for many people. To whom are you imputing this attribute?
- Contrastive clauses need the same wording: "Kevin is a rabbit and a herbivore, while Kell is a grey wolf, a carnivore."
- Colon, not semicolon, after "children". Tony (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Remove "comic's", possibly.

Oppose - as it stands, I do not have a sense of the whole picture from this article. The individual details are good and well-sourced, but there's no sense of the whole from it - I don't really get a sense of whether Kevin and Kell is a reasonably well-regarded comic that has the historical oddity of being unusually old, or if there are distinctive and iconic things about it. I don't get a sense of its influence, or of its style. It feels like a well-referenced set of details without an overall organizing argument. (And I mean argument here not in the POV sense, but in the basic writing sense of a thesis expressed in the lead and supported by subsequent sections.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 01:18, 23 January 2008.

[edit] Polish minority in the Czech Republic

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... It is well written and has a broad coverage of the topic, the formatting is consistent and it contains many, well placed images that do an excellent job in illustrating the subject matter. There have been virtually no content disputes and te article seems overall stableThe Dominator (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—This article doesn't appear to be FA quality yet.
- The lead section does not summarize the article. It does not cover the history or other sections.
- To me there is awkwardness and a lack of flow/continuity in much of the writing. I think it needs a good copy edit as it doesn't quite satisfy criteria 1a.
- "It was decided..." See: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
- There seem to be some rather brief sentences, which don't help the flow. "Volkslists were introduced." "Rapid Polonization followed."
- The History section seems to be missing some information. Examples:
  - "At the end of the century, ethnic tensions appeared as the area's economic significance grew." This sentence appears but it has no other context. Is it related to the following? "There was a very tense climate in 1918–1920, a time of decision." Why was it a tense time? This is unclear.
  - In the "Decision time (1918-1920)" section, was the territory initially part of Poland? This is unclear.
  - In the "In Poland (1938-1939)" section, why did the Polish population change their mood? It appears that the discrimination was applied to the Czech residents, rather than the Poles.
- I don't believe it is standard practice to end a sentence with a "etc..". A single period should do.
- In the sentence that begins "This division was in..." the hyphen should be an em-dash.
That's enough for now.—RJH (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Abstain / Comment from the creator. As a creator I think it is definitely a GA article but not yet FA. Some things aren't addressed yet (sport etc.), many issues should be expanded. I intend to do so maybe during the summer holidays when I will have more time hopefully. I plan to borrow additional books and expand it and generally improve some sections. I would not nominate the article myself. - Darwinek (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 01:18, 23 January 2008.

[edit] Out of school learning

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a very current topic in education Wensenwerk (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose Nowhere near FA standard, very short, only five refs despite much of the article being unreffed, POV and confused - line 1 "presidential address" for what? No lead section, refs for US, examples for UK. Not even B standard imho Jimfbleak (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Article has multiple issues and is unspecific in its coverage, I don't think it's even a proper GA. The biggest issue is the length, I don't know if there is a possibility for it to reach FA given the subject matter, but you can keep trying. Another issue would be, as Jimfbleak has pointed out, the POV. Please read Wikipedia: Featured article criteria, once it meets the criteria, it can be considered.--The Dominator (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, obviously not even close. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I'm recommending that the user withdraw this nom. As it stands, the article doesn't come close to Featured Article status, for the reasons outlined above. The user appears to be a new user. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose this article is way to short and does not have enough information to make the cut.--75.91.185.138 (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 23:20, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Wallachian Revolution of 1848

I'm nominating this article for promotion to featured article status, as I think it meets all criteria for this. The article has been promoted to A-Class on WP:MILHIST few months ago. Eurocopter tigre (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I understand there isn't anything in the Featured Article Criteria regarding redlinks, but this article has many of them, including two in the lead, which I find to be very distracting. I counted more than forty, and a couple of them are linked more than twice. Is there a reason for this? María (habla conmigo) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, anyway i'll have a look over them and see if I can remove some. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I removed some of them, especially those linked twice. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment As the main contributor, I have to thank the nominator, but allow me to express a wish for this article not to be promoted at this stage. There are several reasons for this: 1) the red links are many, and having one in the lead cannot work with FAC criteria - they should be filled with time, not removed; 2) the nomination is hasty - for example, the article does not touch the significant cultural and political legacy the Revolution had over the next century and beyond; 3) working on and then renominating this article in a couple of months could help its presence on the main page coincide with the 160th anniversary of the June uprising, or, at worst, with the September anniversary of its crushing. In any case, let's not be hasty: this article has just had an A-class promotion, we should consider where to take it further - it is, if I do say so myself, good, but not yet all it could be. Dahn (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- As long as the article meets all FA criteria, I see no reason why this nomination shouldn't pass because of your statements above. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Request withdrawal If the main contributor thinks it needs more work, it seems premature and discourteous to nominate apparently without consultation. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm forced to agree with this, even if I don't really understand the main contributor's reason to do it... --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:01, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Rongorongo

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has recently been cleaned up, completely rewritten, and is well referenced. kwami (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose But does it meet featured article criteria? At a glance, the lead should be expanded (2a), the article is divided into too many subsections (2b), references are inconsistently formatted (2c), specific statements and quotations are uncited (1c), and the tone seems to be non-neutral in places when discussing scholarly work ("Salmon's translations are unreliable. Apart from Atua-Mata-Riri, which is discussed below, they do not match the dictation. Little does it matter, for Ure Vaeiko's readings, seemingly reliable although difficult to interpret at first, become clearly ridiculous towards the end.") (1d). BuddingJournalist 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can justify the "non-neutral" comments, but maybe I just got carried away because it's much much better than it was. Anyway, if it fails fac, could someone at least look at reassessing it? kwami (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I read it, it's a nice quick read, I doubt it fullfills the FA criteria, but it's nice - very good pictures. - "the word" heading would be better as "etymology"--Kiyarrllston 05:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be better as a Good Article candidate? Do articles typically go through there before being nominated for FA status? kwami (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to look at this page (Featured Article Criteria) - if you do not believe that this article fulfills those criteria, to withdraw this nomination.

I do not believe that the article has to be a candidate for anything. FA, GA, or any other status. Articles are not usually GA before FA, the two are very separate processes.

If you wish to improve the article I strongly encourage you to contact more experienced editors, preferably that have an interest in the article and previously contributed to it. Peer Review does not put the article as a candidate for any status, only for a review as to how it can be improved.

Feel free to direct any questions to my user talk page. Thank you for reading this comment.

--Kiyarrllston 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: IMO, the article is far from a FA. Some things need to done a GAC:

Most refs do not have page nos.
ref 19 is " pp. 173-199 ", find which book.
ref 43 "The modern names of the months are not derived from the ancient names, but are borrowed from modern Tahitian, which in turn borrowed them all from English. The month names in this manuscript are further variously misspelt and appear as te nu ari (January), apapu ari (February), aaperirá (April), mé (May), tiúnu (June), tiu rai (July), a tete (August), tete pa (September), oto pa (October), noe ma (November), tete ma (December). [There is no j, s, or g/k in Tahitian, nor f in Rapa Nui, so these sounds are replaced by t and p respectively.] " is anote, needs a ref.
Too many quotes. Incorporate quotes in text. See WP:QUOTE.
All instances of opinions of Fisher or Guy need a ref like "Fischer interprets glyph 76 as a phallus", "Guy (1990) demonstrates more precisely that it was likely an astronomical rule for when one or two intercalary nights should be inserted into the 28-night Rapanui month to keep in sync with the phases of the moon. This is the only example of rongorongo that is currently accepted as having been deciphered, though it cannot be actually read.", "In 1971 Barthel claimed to have parsed the inventory of glyphs to 120,"

I think the article can be a GA, once the above things are done. To editors of Rongorongo, I must say that the article is nicely illustrated and presented by tables. Continue the good work. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it isn't likely to make FA, so I'm withdrawing the nomination. kwami (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Ian Svenonius

check links —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

After a fairly straight-forward GA nomination, I am confident in the overall quality of this article and would like to give FA a shot. Ian Svenonius is a somewhat unknown/obscure musician, and this article represents the sum total of all the information I've been able to find. To my knowledge it is easily the best resource available anywhere on the subject. Any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Support - As per my (rather extensive, I like to think) GA review. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose: there are too short sections (such "background"); it's GA. --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 21:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. "Too short" isn't really an actionable criticism, nor does length have anything to do with the FA criteria. To quote from the criteria directly, an article must be " "Comprehensive" [meaning] that the article does not neglect major facts and details." In my opinion the article covers all the bases without going into unnecessary details that don't relate to the person. The article could, for instance go into more details about his individual bands/projects, but most of that content is better suited for the bands' pages, not this one. Drewcifer (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This Oppose is not actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral. I'm changing my vote to neutral. I'm not familiar enough with some of the remaining sources to judge how reliable they are. I think the improvements that have been made to the article make it flow better, and it reads clearly. Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC) *Oppose. I am concerned with the quality of the sources listed, and I think the article does not flow very well; too many short paragraphs and short sections break up the flow.

- ~~Too many of the sentences begin with "Svenonious". Can some of them be rewritten to vary the word choice and improve the flow?~~
- ~~After the first time you refer to him, he should only be referred to as his surname, not his full name or first name.~~
- ~~I don't think "posthumous" is the right way to describe the compilation of singles; that is generally understood to mean that a person is dead.~~
- ~~There are a lot of very short paragraphs. Can some of these be combined?~~ Better! Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- ~~The Discography section needs to be expanded. For the section which include only a Main article link, try to summarize the other article in prose (possibly by taking some of the lead sections).~~
- Many of your sources don't appear to be reliable sources. For example Brightest Young Things appears to be a fansite with random postings, as do some of the others, while the record sites are not third-party sources. Has he been covered in other secondary sources?

Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Karanacs. Many of your comments echo similar concerns I have with the article, so any suggestions you might have for them would be helpful.

- Fixed some cases of the sentences starting with Svenonius. Now there's only 4 sentences that still start with his name, and those are sentences that would've flowed awkwardly if I had changed them too much.
- Fixed all the cases of "Ian Svenonius" after the first time.
- I combined some paragraphs here and there. There's still a couple small ones, but they don't really flow into any of the surrounding paragraphs. If you think its still a problem I could do some more editing here and there.
- For some reason posthumous is a word that gets mentioned in every FAC/FLC/GAC, anything! Yes, it is the correct word choice, since the album was released after the "death" of the group. See Category:Posthumous albums for plenty of similar examples.
- The Discography section did seem a little strange. I expanded it a bit to include major releases, and I think it looks much better.
- As for the sources: I cited the Brightest Young Things source not so much as a source in and of itself, but as a transcript of the original Sassy article which isn't available online anywhere else. If you like I can take it down, but I think it's particularly helpful to be able to read a transcript of the article. As for the other sources, and whether or not they are reliable, I think the sources strike a nice balance. Sure some sources are from the labels, but there are also many from All Music Guide, eNotes, Washington Post, Vice, Pitchfork media, etc. In all, there are about 15 first-party sources, and 15 third-party sources, which seems like a pretty even balance to me. That said, I could rely on the third-party sources a bit more, so I'll see what I can do.Drewcifer (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You did a lot of work quickly, thanks! It's already looking better. Let me know if you are able to use more third-party sources. For the reprints of articles, I would reformat the source to mention that it is XXX article from YYY magazine, reprinted at .... Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of work with the sources, and although it's a subtle difference I think it's an improvement. (diff) The majority of what I did was just find info cited to 1st party sources, and wherever possible swapped it with a 3rd party source. There's still some instances of 1st party sources (mostly quotations I think), but the balance is a little bit more towards 3rd party sources now. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Drewcifer (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Support all of my comments have been addressed. Good work! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- "These groups have all been based in Washington, D.C." could be efficiently merged with the previous sentence.

Done

- I don't think that the term "militant vegan" is backed up by the reference.

Done

- The first time in the article's main body that instruments are mentioned they should be linked.

Done

- Sassy Magazine should always be italicized.

Done

- The Sassy paragraph really ought to be expanded. It says that Svenonius went "into some depth about the band's sound and political motivations." Care to elaborate on what those sounds and motivations actually were?

Done Expanded the section a bit.

- "The Make-Up" section seems a bit short, especially considering how much detail is present in that article. Some more information on the group's politics, sound and live performance style could help, particularly any aspects centered more around Svenonius.

Done Expanded a bit with an extra paragraph.

- "Svenonius, Mae, and Minoff are now part of Weird War." redundant sentence, explained later.

Done

- As David Candy is actually one of Svenonius's solo projects, a bit more detail could be added.

I wish there was more to say, but as you can see from the David Candy article itself, there really isn't alot of information. Besides, most of the David Candy article is borderline OR - the David Candy material presented on the Svenonius page is pretty much the only sourceable stuff there is.

- A specific section encompassing Svenonius's political views and musical style would be nice, but it isn't really necessary so long as that information is presented elsewhere.

Well, I'm not really sure a musical style section would be relevant, since all of his bands/projects sound vastly different. But a political views section might be worthwhile. I'll see what I can do.

I added a little bit along those lines. I'm a little hesistant to go into too much detail, since these things are so closely tied to the bands, and I could just see the section turning into a rehashing of what the band's were about, which is already explained above.

Otherwise the article looks good, and very deserving of featuring. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check the dead links report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what the check links thing is used for. Is this a new feature I'm not aware of? Drewcifer (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the link at the top of this page;[3] it indicates a 404, not found error on a Vice TV [typepad.com] source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~—This is not nearly well enough written. I've picked out random issues at the top to illustrate why a complete and thorough copy-edit is essential.

Thanks for the suggestions! These are the kinds of minor things it's difficult to notice after I've read the same words a million times over, so I appreciate you pointing them out.

MOS breach: see logical punctuation under Quotations. Audit throughout, looking for quotes that start within a Wikipedia sentence.

Done This is one part of the MoS I really disagree with, but I know better than to argue with the MoS.

"countless singles"—too many to count? Great pity to avoid giving at least some indication (more than 30?).

Done Replaced it with a much more useful tally of singles, EPs, and splits.

"Currently"—one of those chronological terms that will become a distortion soon.

Done

Remove both "alsos" from the "Background" section. The last sentence in that section combines apples and oranges.

Done Kind of. Removed the first also and split up the last sentence. The last also seems necessary though, since it wouldn't flow as well without it. And there's nothing inherently wrong with the word, right?

"musical formation"—vague. Then "formation" "formed" repetition.

Done Kind of. Fixed "musical formation". I'm not sure what you mean by formed repetition. You mean how each section says soemthing like "The _ formed in 1999"? I don't see what's wrong with that, unless you have suggestions.

"And WAS known as".

I'm not sure what sentence you are referring to. Is it "and known simply as "Ulysses"."? There's nothing wrong with either way or saying it, really.

Nearly every sentence requires surgery. For example: "Nation of Ulysses was known for their extremely physical performances, during some of which Svenonius recalls breaking his arm, his leg, and breaking his head open on numerous occasions." Tension between "some" and "numerous". "Breaking" twice, but missing from the second item. Needs recasting. Tony (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done I believe I originally worded it the way it was because any other way didn't really work. I redid the sentence a little bit, but it's a difficult sentence to make any less awkward.

"going into some depth about"—what exactly does "some" add?

Done Reworded.

Comment - Is it neccesary to have the record label names in the discography section? The first sentence of the lead is really awkward - what about his nationality etc? Why does it start "IS has been..."? (more later) indopug (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I don't think there's much of a consensus as far as the label names goes: some FAs have them some don't. I'd argue that it is helpful in this case since his output spans many years, projects, and labels. I worked on the first sentence a bit, hopefully it reads a little better. If there's more stuff, let me know. Drewcifer (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Change from British to American prose: "the band were" to "the band was". I don't understand what "The Make-Up dissolved early in 2001, and a year later, Svenonius formed the band Weird War, who are also known briefly known as Scene Creamers, in which he is still active." is supposed to mean. The lead has gross overlinking. "He attended the Corcoran College of Art and Design, where he studied fine art" to "He studied fine art at the Corcoran College of Art and Design." "The Nation of Ulysses described themselves as a rock and roll group in the traditional sense, but "as a political party"[2] and as "a shout of secession"." - is that right? Why is there a "but"? I think you missed a "not" or somewhere. I dont get the "In 1991, before the band had released any official recordings...: paragraph, is that supposed to be sarcastic/ironic or something? "Between his projects, Svenonius has released.." reads as if in-between his different groups he released all that. indopug (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referencing with the band were/band was thing.
Fixed up the Weird War/Scene Creamers sentence in the lead.
Removed about half the unnecessary links in the lead.
Reworded the fine art studying sentence.
You're right, the NoU sentence was missing "not."
I'm not sure what you mean with the "In 1991.." sentence being ironic. Just pointing out the chronology is all.
Changed "Between" to "With" though I don't think that's the ideal word for that sentence...Drewcifer (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I find the usage of parenthesis generally ~~objection~~able and that flow can be improved by removing them. Example 1: "Svenonius formed the band [Scene Creamers, later renamed] Weird War[,] ~~(also known briefly known as Scene Creamers) in which he is still active.~~" - is this accurate? Example 2: "featured Neil Hagerty [,](of Royal Trux[,]) Example 3: "Thomson[,] (of the group Trans Am[,]) on drums," --- if this doesn't work, it is because the information is truly superfluous, with few exceptions, especially in the case of shorter parenthesis. I am very amenable to elaborate and expound on this comment. Thank you for reading, Kiyarrllston 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I went through the article and did various things with various parenthes. However, I did leave one, since gramatically speaking, parenthesis aren't neccessarily a bad thing, and in the one case I left it was gramatically appropriate (a fact as an informative aside). You were right about the others though, most of them read much better without them. If you have any other suggestions, please let me know. Drewcifer (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

objection Addressed, you're very welcome.--Kiyarrllston 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me regarding this FAC. I have re-read the article. -I Weakly Oppose the promotion of this article to FA status. The complaint I have is regarding a feeling that the article could be more comprehensive and better organized. A clue to this is the number of citations - I would expect at least around 50. The organization is unusual for a biographical article - Background is hardly ever a part of a Biography, and more common in History articles; it in fact talks about Early life, Family, and notes that he is a vegan. These do not quite constitute a background to the story of his life... Is no account of his early life available?- "Politics" would be better titled "Political Persuation" or "Political Views" as it doesn't describe political actions but political leanings. - What do you think of splitting up the "Other projects" topic into: "Disc Jockey" "Writer" and "Actor" or similar? - thank you for reading this comment. I very much hope you will feel free to notify me whenever I can be of assistance.--Kiyarrllston 03:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments. I'll try and address everything. As I said in the nomination, this article is an amalgamation of pretty much all of the information out there about Svenonius. So unfortunately additional information about his early life just isn't available. However, as another editor of the article has pointed out on a few occasions, Svenonius is notable for his roles in various musical formations, not for being a vegan and not for who his parents are. That said, I see the early life stuff really as extra information: not necessarily notable, but nice to have to whatever extent is possible. And really that's what a similar section in any article is, FA included: somewhat irrelevant information about someone notable for something else, to the limited extent that it is available. Would knowing what elementary school he went to, for example, really make the article more comprehensive, in the sense that it covers all the important bases, or just add extra padding? I would argue the latter. I think that looking only at the number of citations is a bit of a red herring, as well: the true test is the quality of the sources, not the number. I believe there is a pretty good mix of reliable sources here: some interviews (ie direct quotes), some 1st party (record labels), some 3rd party (NY Times, All Music Guide). And really, altough there is only 33 sources provided, the number of in-line citations is much more (54 in total, I believe). As for the other stuff, I've changed the name of the Politics section to "Political views", per your suggestion. I'm not sure about splitting up the Other projects section though, as you suggested. That section covers alot of miscellaneous bases, and to split everything up into numerous sections and subsections would result in a very fragmented, strange read, in my opinion. For example, a "Disc jockey" section, as you suggested, would be one sentence, as would a "Writer" section and "Actor" section. Drewcifer (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your warm reception to my comments.

well - let me see - regarding the organization:

"Disc Jockeying" would probably fit well within musical projects, and Writer section would include the "Soviet" collection of things he wrote, - leaving just actor - don't you think so? - i think you exagerate on them all being one sentence affairs.

I don't know where the fact that he is a vegan fits exactly, but - the background section does look fragmented and truly on "miscelanea" rather than background

I understand that it might currently be an amalgamation, I think FA quality means better writing style in the form of better organization than currently.

I previously said to change the name of "Politics" to "Political beliefs" (or similar) - what did/do you think of this?

regarding the comprehensiveness:

As to early life - I mean obviously important things from his childhood - things that would be encyclopedic. - growing up in the suburbs vs. in the city, in homogeneous vs. in diverse, in a traditional envirionment vs. in a free one - I don't know - stuff that's not trivia.

I said the number of citations was a clue - I didn't mean to stress the clue - ummm... - red herring is a pretty interesting article. - umm I do think the number is useful - in this case it might be only regarding the fact that Ian Svenonius is not regarded notable enough by the world community to have a large amount of work regarding his life...

If he's a vegan - and he's notable for being a vegan - couldn't this be elaborated on? - why is he a vegan? 'Could this be part of a section called "Political beliefs" or "Personal beliefs"?

I hope I am clear - please feel free to ask and/or discuss anything. Please let me know if you consider my comments helpful in improving the article

--Kiyarrllston 16:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Retracting FA candidacy Svenonius himself contacted me today, and he expressed some dissatisfaction and discomfort with some of the information in the article. So, I've edited the article to ease his worries, but done so to an extent that a shot at FA seems impossible now. Thanks for everyone's comments. Drewcifer (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? Should we really exclude information because of his personal preference? If he thinks that the information is inaccurate, that's different, but if he thinks that the information is private then that may be a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest problem. I mean, I'd hate to be involved in a perceived violation of privacy. However, if this information is freely available in the sources you used then it really doesn't make a huge difference. But anyway, I'm not really involved with this article, so I think that whatever choice you make is the right one.

Additionally: You removed the mention of Svenonius's veganism from the text but didn't remove the article, and you should either remove or keep both. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

agree with Brandt Luke Zorn--Kiyarrllston 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by didn't remove the article... Drewcifer (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Brandt meant the American vegans category. Not sure what the position is on removing personal information on request though. CloudNine (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the unresolved external links; there are problems with southern.net and southern.com. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Mitochondrion

This mitochondrion article has existed as a Good Article for some time. After considering the peer review from 2006, most or all of the issues appear to have been addressed. The article is far more referenced and expanded in terms of the basic science than it ever used to be. Further, it is free of edit wars and significant disputes. I believe it meets FAC criteria. This article deserves a chance at Featured Article status. Sedmic 17:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please archive the peer review (see intructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR regarding simultaneous listing at both places). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Sedmic 00:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Support: very good article :) --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose tentatively:
1. Several key linked articles are redlinks, and some of the related articles basically rehash the content of this article but lack references (e.g. outer mitochondrial membrane)
2. The "function" paragraph is unsupported by references
3. The "mitochondrial diseases" paragraph needs fleshing out - perhaps a small table based on the references listing the diseases related to the mitochondrium. A clear distinction needs to be made between (1) mtDNA diseases, (2) autosomal/X-linked diseases involving a mitochondrial protein, (3) diseases in which the mitochondrium dysfunctions, but without an obvious genetic defect (e.g. secondary to oxidative stress).
4. "See also" and "external links" need a trip to the laundromat. JFW | T@lk 20:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for your great comments! Here are my replies -

1. There are only 2 redlinks, one to translocase of the outer membrane and one to translocase of the inner membrane. I do not believe they are critical to understanding of mitochondrion, and I can remove them if you prefer. I have not had a chance to create these articles yet. I agree that some of the related articles need work. However, those are separate articles. A full breakdown of the proteins of the intermembrane space, for example, is beyond the scope of the mitochondrion article but would be better suited to a separate article. Again, it's something I will work on in due time.

The article on translocase of the outer membrane has just been added. I will add one for the inner membrane later. Sedmic 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Done.

3. I'm not quite sure how to approach this one. The text is already split into mtDNA mutations, nuclear gene defects, and oxidative stress consequences. I added a few more diseases and refs to this section along with small rearrangements. I will consider how to better organize this section.

4. Agreed. Some links were changed and I'll continue to work on them. Sedmic 00:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Support: I could not find any major issues that should prevent this article from becoming featured. The minor things, such as those mentioned above, are completely amenable, and some are even trivial. The article is comprehensive, accurate, well referenced, and lucid (i.e it would be understood by a layman). Kudos to the nominator and the main editors. Wisdom89 (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
- Too few references.
- I saw vague words, "egg" and "protist", there are probably more
- The functions section needs to be expanded, you mention steroid synthesis, heme synthesis, apoptosis etc but there is no text about it.
- It has no illustrations of pathways, and no phylogenetic tree
- No overview of what kind of compounds go in and out. Narayanese (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! These are some great suggestions. I would like some clarification, however.

1. Is there a specific section or series of statements that need better substantiating?

2. By vague, do you mean we should specify the species as in "human egg"?

3. The phylogenetic tree comment is a bit confusing. Is there a specific paper or reference you are thinking of? Mitochondria probably descended from a bacterial ancestor a long time ago. My (admittedly limited) understanding suggests phylogenetic trees from a couple billion years ago are probably not terribly reliable. I was not able to find any good pubmed sources for phylogeny on a quick search. Sedmic 07:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

1.Use in population genetic studies 2nd paragraph, Origin 1st paragraph, Storage of calcium ions, "anaerobic respiration, a process that is independent of the mitochondria." Function 1st list.

2. Eggs are what reptiles lay, but in your text it's used for ~~oocytes~~. There is no easy way to tell what kind of protists for the reader since it's not mentioned in the abstracts, and protist is a pretty meaningless word by itself. Primitive = basal? (origin section)

3. If its not known at all which proteobacteria the metochondrion is descended from, say so in the text. But I remember seing somewhere a phylogenetic tree over proteobacteria with the mitochondrion in it, so it's out there somewhere. Here is one, but it's pretty poor, there probably is a nice review article somewhere with a good tree. Narayanese (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you already have a discussion about it being hard to place mitochondia in a tree because the exact position is unkonwn, I missed it at the first read. So no proteobacterial tree needed. ~~Though you might want to copy the tree in this paper to show which eukaryotes have mitochondria.~~ Narayanese (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I've added references to many sections you mentioned. I need to do more work on the calcium section because I don't understand it well enough yet. I also added the specific protist and changed eggs to oocytes. I'll continue to work on the sections you mentioned. Thanks for the phylogenetic tree. Do you know if it would be a copyright violation to use figure 3 if I redraw it? Sedmic 01:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am hesitant to expand the "Function" section by much. Each of those topics really merits its own article and would expand the mitochondrion article beyond the recommended size for FA. I agree that it needs more references and at least needs good links to pages with more information. What do you recommend? Sedmic 02:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving the table was a nice solution. I see the article is almost fully referenced now, good work. Narayanese (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments There are a few places I'd like to see sources add, and please review WP:NBSP.
- It looks like you've added nonbreaking spaces to some of the number unit/qualifier combinations, but not all. At least in the inner membrane section, non-breaking spaces are needed (1 protein, 15 phospholipids), and I haven't checked the other sections.

Good catch. I added the nbsp there and to a few other places. I'll go over it again in detail to see if any others were left out.Sedmic 06:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

- I think you need a source for this claim: "There are no primitive eukaryotes today that lack mitochondria. The endosymbiosis with mitochondria may have played a critical part in the survival advantage of eukaryotic cells."</>

I'm not sure I can cite this. The statement was added on Aug 23, 2005 and it was not cited at that time. I imagine the statement means that there are no archaebacteria that lack mitochondria, but I'm not sure what the data for it is. I will remove that statement as it probably does not contribute anything meaningful to the article. There are certainly organisms without mitochondria and many more with. Further, I was unable to find a source after researching this a bit more. Sedmic 06:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

- ~~Is there a source for "However, genetic recombination means that these studies can be difficult to analyze."~~

There is not a good citation for this. The statement is intended to be a logical progression of the idea. In retrospect, I am finding the sentence more and more confusing. I'm not sure that it adds anything meaningful to the discussion. Sedmic 06:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Since I'm not a scientist, I don't feel qualified to tell whether the article is comprehensive or not, so I can't vote support. It appears to meet the WP:MOS guidelines and is well-written. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—This article has unexplained jargon and linked references to arcane knowledge. For example: "Larger proteins can also enter the mitochondrion via an N-terminal signaling sequence which permits translocation by a large multisubunit protein known as TOM". Really? Or, "Reducing equivalents from the cytoplasm can be imported via the malate-aspartate shuttle system of antiporter proteins or feed into the electron transport chain using a glycerol phosphate shuttle." Would this article be read and enjoyed by a student in High School? Somebody needs to go through the article and clarify the parts that currently require a degree in microbiology to understand. Some jargon that could use further clarification: long branch attraction, kilobases, polyadenylated, ubiquitin, haplotype, phospholipid, signal transduction, endoplasmic reticulum, &c., &c. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it insufficient that all of the above terms are linked to relevant pages that explain them more fully? Thanks Sedmic 06:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Philosophically, I don't think the reader should need to drill down to a new article every time there is a term they don't understand. "The first time an article uses a term that may not be clearly understood by a reader not familiar with the subject area ... introduce it with a short, clear explanation that is accessible to the normal English reader or based on terms previously defined in the article."—RJH (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Super Smash Bros. Melee

I've been working on this article for a while now, and have done my utmost to write a balanced, verifiable and well-written article. Personally, I feel that the article meets the FA criteria, but I'm hoping for constructive criticism that I can respond to and thus improve the article. Thanks Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles should not be listed at both WP:PR and WP:FAC per the instructions at both; please close and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting to it now—a user nominated about a week ago without contributing or acknowledging that I was preparing for FAC. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the peer review has been archived—it should never have been placed for peer review in the first place, really. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review was a good place for it, because it would get other editors to look at the article; that having been said, this article isn't even GA-Class, so that's why I went that route. --Son (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Maybe a ~~passable~~ GA, but an FA is too much for the article, methinks. The lack of hierarchical sections is particularly bothersome to me. The trophies section is given too much weight, and should be placed in the "Gameplay" section with a level 3 heading. Too much focus is placed on the gameplay and not on the critical reception. The lead also seems to lengthy and detailed. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's much better. In regards to the reception section, you mention praise for the multiplayer mode, the game's "hyper-responsiveness," and lack of originality. Could you elaborate on those with quotes from the reviewers? Also, be careful of punctuation and quotation marks. Be consistent with either the American way (punctuation within the quotes) or the British way (punctuation outside). bibliomaniac 1 5 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"too lengthy and detailed"? I've cut down on the lead drastically—I honestly feel that a lead of that length is necessary to give an adequate and comprehensive summary of the article, but I must concede defeat as two admins feel that it's excessive. I've now fixed the heirarchical headings and "trophies", by the way. As for reception, I felt that five paragraphs should suffice—is there any topic relating to reception in particular you feel that needs expanding? As for gameplay, I'll work on cutting it down. Thanks for the comments. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's late, so I'm not doing anything now in fear loads of typos resulting from lack of concentration. I've now realised that the reception section seems short compared to the VG FAs, so I'll add a large paragraph to that and elaborate upon the things that you've mentioned tomorrow. Cheers. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 23:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Lead cut down; reception greatly expanded; heirarchical headings added; "trophies" cut down and integrated into gameplay; quotations all conform to AmE; soundtrack hidden table added. Anything else? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose all references should be formatted the same way (wikilink the dates, too). Source this statement: "Smash Brothers Melee also made it into the Evolution Tournament of Fighting in 2007, a fighting game tournament held in Las Vegas, considered to be one of the largest fighting game tournaments in the world." I'll look for more soon. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Changing to conditional support; full support when/if Clyde's objections are addressed. Good work. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done I've sourced that statement, although I've removed the "considered to be one of the largest fighting game tournaments in the world" as it's simply not verifiable. All refs have now been formatted the same except the refs for magazines, which are different from website references. As for wikilinks, I already thought they were linked—could you be more specific? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean the dates in the references, for example ref number 40. If they were all unwikilinked I'd be fine, but consistency is best. David Fuchs ^(talk) 14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Aargh; found the problem. I've inputted "7" as opposed to "07" for the dates, which annuls the link. Thanks for the spot; I'll fix it later. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Reference dates fixed. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per above. The Music section is too short and don't use a table like that because some browsers will not show it properly. Also, references 1 and 59 have formatting problems. You forgot to put a space after the reference. The article needs a copy-edit. Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you can have a "per above" oppose when I've basically fixed everything mentioned above. I've omitted the table and fixed the reference problem. No spaces after a reference—what an unsalvageable disaster. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 06:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: A quick review of User:Kaypoh contribution page may shed some light on this oppose and the so many many others they have done this last few weeks. It can be frustrating when the turn-over time between reviews of someone "voting" is only minutes. In the last week the number of critiques they have completed has been astronomical. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ ~~Support~~ Has potential. Some things, mostly reference related:
- This should be in gameplay, not the lead, or maybe keep only part of it.

Melee's gameplay system offers an unorthodox approach to the "fighter" genre as each character doesn't have an individual health bar, by which the player will die if it reaches zero.[2] Instead, the game is based on a "percentage system" by which increased hits on a player raises their percentage; the higher the percentage, the more likely it is for the character to be knocked off the stage.

- - Y Done Shortened
- "inflicting damage does not always mean victory" probably should be "inflicting damage does not guarantee victory."
  - Y Done Reworded
- "The higher the percentage value, the weaker the player is, and the easier they are to knock off the stage." OR. Perhaps a place the manual can reference?
  - Y Done Done an IGN ref
- "As well as this..." Weak transition; perhaps additionally or something equally focused.
  - Y Done Used additionally
- "During battles, items related to Nintendo games or merchandise fall onto the game field." This could use a ref. How do we know its items related to Nintendo and not just any item they designed?
  - Y Done Referenced IGN guide again
- "Although the stages are rendered in the third-dimension, players cannot move along the Z-axis in any of them. Not all stages are available immediately, so some stages have to be obtained by the player by meeting particular requirements." Can these two be referenced?
  - Y Done Half-way anyway. I cited the second statement, but I simply couldn't find a ref for the first
- Nothing in multiplayer is referenced with the exception of coins. Does ref 19 and 4 cover all of that material?
  - Y Done Added two refs
- "Each of the trophies includes a description of the particular subject and details the year and the game in which the subject first appeared." This can be OR. Someone could turn on the game, see that, and add it.
  - Y Done Added reference
- "All of the characters—except Mr. Game and Watch—are characterized in three dimensions even though their game of origin may have been drastically different to the graphical style of Super Smash Bros Melee." Who said this?
  - Y Done Deleted this statement—it just seemed a flimsy observation
- "For the Ice Climbers," Another weak transition; see what you can do with it.
  - Y Done Replaced with additionally
- Make sure you have removed all passive voice from the article (I.E. No "was first shown" "was developed" "was released")
  - Y Done Half-way anyway. I've changed it when I saw it, but I may have missed some
- Legacy and sequel section is a bit...misnamed. Tournaments might deserve a subheading here as its not normally what you find in a legacy, and Legacy has a little to much info on Brawl. We want to mention that the game had a sequel, but what does stuff like "Brawl is the first game of the series to incorporate characters outside of Nintendo franchises, relating to the inclusion of Sonic the Hedgehog and Solid Snake from Sega and Konami respectively." have to do with the article on SSBM?
  - Y Done The Tournament section seems too short for its own section, so I've placed a level-three subheading under legacy and removed that statement. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll look again after this stuff is addressed.--CM (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you and I have a different perception of what constitutes OR. As for the lead, I'll say this again: its supposed to be built as a summary, meaning that the reader can have a very good idea of the article by the lead only. I can't just omit any reference to gameplay. Too many VG articles seem to have a lead that mention nothing of gameplay, only the genre. Thnaks for the comments though, I'll get working on it soon. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When I read it, it felt like you were introducing and fully explaining an aspect of gameplay, not summarizing it. From the look of it, the gameplay paragraph is still about the size of the other two paragraphs combined. Considering you have one sentence on playable characters, one on tournaments, two on reception, two on development, and four on gameplay, it caught my attention. I was looking for a constructive way to resize it.--CM (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find a more succinct way to word it, so I've deleted the explanation and reworded the sentence. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is still more passive voice. There's some in the last paragraphs of development, then some more going all the way to the end of the article. If you have a "find in this page" or "find" button, its not too hard to do. I see eight in dev., one in music, two in reception and five in L&S. Also "almost every single move" probably should be reworded or consider cutting out single.--CM (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded that sentence. As for the passive voice, I've just fixed quite alot now, but there's probably some lurking about. I'm not sure what you mean by a "find in this page" button, though. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There's still some more. If you have firefox (don't know about Internet Explorer) go to edit, then find. A tiny window pops up, and you can input words to find them in the page.--CM (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have that, but at the severe risk of sounding stupid, how do you use it to find the passive voice when you're just inputting words yourself? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Was will do it. If you find a was then a verb (was made, was announced) you got yourself a passive voice. Any form of be (was, were) with a verb means you have a passive voice as well. The prose isn't as compelling or as tight, at least that's been my experience. If you try to remove all passive voice, redundancies are eliminated, and sentences are more to the point. --CM (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Done As compelling as what? Anywho, I've gave it the runover with the "find" button. Anyhting else? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Active voice (is more compelling). There's a "was supposed" still, and I question the mdash in this quote "have questioned its status as a fighting game—[59] GamePro summed Melee as..." Why not just a semicolon? However, these are minor, and I will change to support. Good work. As a final note, you may want to keep on eye on Brawl to keep this article relevant and correct. I doubt it will affect this article to any worrisome degree, however.--CM (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed them now. It's been a pleasure, Clyde. I'll now use that "find" technique to rid any future articles that I may work on of the passive voice. Cheers. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as not up to FA standard. Too many unnecessary details - do we really need an instruction manual style description of single and multiplayer? In fact, the gameplay and character section should be reduced and more basic context needs to be provided. Also, and this is I admit a stylistic point and not necessarily actionable, but the article is quite boring to read as it is written. Eusebeus (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"quite boring to read as it is written."—I don't follow. Can you explain this please? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. To those not familiar with the game, the lede provides little reason for wanting to learn more about it; the remaining article is likewise a dull slog through uninteresting details. We don't restrict FAs for being of limited interest or scope, so it is not an actionable issue, unlike the prose & presentation. Eusebeus (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Interest is, at its core, based on the reader. Leads can be compelling, but I don't think even the best lead could interest me in something like say, High School Musical or Thermal conductivity. It appears you don't find this topic very interesting. What you may consider "a dull slog through uninteresting details" someone else may see as facts about the highest selling video game for Gamecube (best chance within the lead to grab the reader). The article needs to be comprehensive, and to remove large chunks of gameplay and characters wouldn't give the reader a good grasp of how the game is played. Most importantly, I don't understand why you mention you think the article is boring; you yourself say it is not actionable, and it does nothing more than bring down the nominator. Instead, where do you think the article lacked sufficient basic context for the reader's understanding, and what are some spots in gameplay and characters where it could use the chopping board?--CM (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The writing usually has something to do with it. This is simply not written to FA quality. Eusebeus (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean—it's not engaging or it gives undue weight to particular aspects? You're comments just aren't helping me to improve the article right now. Please specify. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Eusebeus on writing style needing improvement
Query "During this time, IVGF gave out a record" - what was the specific record broken? "most money paid out in videogame contest"? was it in Guiness Book of World Records? I see no source for it being held for three years, - reference (Chris Lenzi GotFrag.com) does not say it broke a record at all...
--Kiyarrllston 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write this or source this statement, by the way. I've just looked for a source there, but couldn't find one, so I've removed any mention of "record". As for the writing, could you be more specific? You know, give me something to work on? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - But with the suggestion that another image is added to the Development section. User:Krator (t c) 02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Krator. For images, you may have to consult User:Hbdragon88, as he removed some images from the article, saying that there were too many, although none from development. Images really are a weak point for me. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor Support since the article was vastly improved (it used to be crufty and to lack references). If the FAC ends up failing, it will certainly pass as a GA. igordebraga ≠ 16:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There were too many images at the time, such as one in each section for the gameplay and one for the trophies. In fact, I'm not sure how necessary the image from Brawl is (fourth total). I suppose if someone happens to have an image of the demo as presented at E3 or Spaceworld...that would be the perfect image. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. The Brawl image does demonstrate a returning stage and graphical enhancements in the game, which is helpful, but a development image would be preferable. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As a matter of knowing what to improve, what makes it minor and not a full support, just so I know what to improve upon. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nearly nearly there - having played this alot I had to read it. I have given the text a little massage but was overall pleased with the prose. I was wondering if anything of the following could be found:

To make less US-centric. Any figures on sales in Europe or Australia, or other countries for that matter would be a good idea to place into that section, if possible
- Sorry, but I can't find anything on any other sales
Any more on the music - i.e. fans' favourites - issues with development etc.
- Y DoneI've inputted two comments about this relating to the game's official website
Any elaboration on characters chosen in development (and glitches)
- Y Done I couldn't really find anything on glitches, but maybe it's because of the dodgy Japanese translation. I have added a sourced statement about the references to clones the official website, and how the media refers to them as clone.
Any other creative issues or background would be great.
- Sorry, but I don't really know where to look because the statement's quite broad. There's not much of this info out there.
Any discussion on impact or role it had on boosting Gamecube sales over the other 2 consoles.
- Y DoneI couldn't find anything about comparisons between the other two, but I have added a comment about software to hardware ratioes and it being a system seller (all sourced).

it may be that none of this can be found or sourced but any extra would push it further into the 'credit' side of FAC. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll get back to you with a full rsponse to your comments tomorrow, probably. I'd do it now but test revision beckons. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

More replies. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Conditional oppose Sorry, but I can't support until the Tournament discussion is resolved. When a compromise is reached, it has my full support. Otherwise, it fails stability IMO.--CM (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Clyde. You do realise that we are having a discussion as opposed to edit warring. Neither of us have implemented the changes. Nevermind. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah but the desired end result of a discussion is some sort of content change within the article. Since some change is inevitable, I can't support knowing that content is being added that may not be well-written or properly referenced. Until it's resolved, I wait.--CM (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I could argue with you further, but I figure that the best thing to do is to resolve the senseless debate. Best regards. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What's more, the debate isn't about the content any more, just the principles involved in evaluating sources. So the debate is no longer pertinent to the actual article content itself . What may be added won't even amount to one sentence, but a phrase saying to the effect of "attributed to Smashboards(source)" if anyone wants to add it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the unresolved external links; there are problems with smashbros.com SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Russia

previous FAC

I have made many changes since the previous FAC (Properly formatted all the references. History section has been reduced. Rewrote the lead. Added various discussions of controversial issues that has gotten Russia in the press in the last few years (arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, raising the gas price to ex-Soviet neighbours). Added the challenges still facing the Russian economy) to the point that I believe the article now meets all of the FAC criteria.--Miyokan (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Support: wow, it's excellent! - comment in Italian: alla faccia degli elefanti la lunghezza ;) - and good-wrote. Brískelly^Talk 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Support, since history is my primary interest, I must congratulate you guys. It has made a lot of progress and reads well compared to the last time when it had multiple problems. Nice work! There is one thing I noticed. Perhaps it's me that I've missed something but did the the Bolsheviks really introduce the right to... free housing? At least that's what it says right now in the article. Please consider backing the free housing part up with a published source. Otherwise I'd simply remove the "right to free housing" part from the sentence. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Housing was 'free' in the sense that the government constructed housing and distributed it to people for an almost non-existent rent. I am not sure what year free housing was introduced, but you can see it in Article 44 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution - Citizens of the USSR have the rights to housing. This right is ensured by the development and upkeep of state and socially-owned housing; by assistance for co-operative and individual house building; by fair distribution, under public control, of the housing that becomes available through fulfilment of the programme of building well-appointed dwellings, and by low rents and low charges for utility services. Citizens of the USSR shall take good care of the housing allocated to them. However, I removed it because it is too complicated an issue to cover in one sentence. --Miyokan (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment "right to housing" makes sense, not "right to free housing". So please feel free to add the fact to the article. As long as it says "right to housing" instead of "right to free housing", it's factual.--Termer (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done--Miyokan (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Support - very well written, excellent prose, meets FAC criteria IMO. Well done. Rt . 11:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Objections/Issues

really minor:"Starting 2005 Russia started steadily ~~increasing the price it sold heavily~~ [decreasing] subsidized[izing] gas to ex-Soviet republics." - grammar - russia starts increasing the price it sold gas [at] to republics?

major: Culture section is not comprehensive (I previously made a suggestion that it start - "Russian Culture is ____")

PS: I see some improvements.

--Kiyarrllston 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is very long. "History" alone is 31k. "Economics" also seems very detailed. Could something be done about this? Peter ^Isotalo 08:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The History section has already been extensively reduced through numerous copyedits and a lot of it lies in the references. Other users have commented that any further reduction would compromise its quality. --Miyokan (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Large body of reference or not, the article is more than a handful. I'm sure both "History" and "Economics" has gone through plenty of editing, it could still be summarized further. Quality is not synonymous with an excess of detail and large amounts of text. The article has sub-articles for almost every single section and sub-section, so I don't see the merit of keeping the main article at over 100k (and a whopping 60ks of prose).

Peter ^Isotalo 11:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the subject deserves that size (compare the US for example). BTW, 36th reference needs fixing. --Brand спойт 13:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed--Miyokan (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we have some kind of compromise here? "Economics" in particular seems very preoccupied with details of economic history of the 90s for example. The importance of a words or footnotes.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved the economic history and politicized issues to Politics of Russia and Economy of Russia articles.--Miyokan (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - I didn't know this article was a FAC until I read the talk page. I think it is superb. I went to the talk page to comment on the high quality of the article and ask for something to be done about this:

It is also applied as a means of coding and storage of universal knowledge—60–70% of all world information is published in English and Russian languages Russian also is a necessary accessory of world communications systems (broadcasts, air- and space communication, etc). Which needs a little attention. Well done, great article.--GrahamColm ^Talk 16:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's clumsy and difficult to understand. I would delete it. I offer: Russian is an important world language and 60 to 70% of all literature is in English or Russian. --GrahamColm ^Talk 10:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Done --Miyokan (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Conditional~~ Support. ~~I missed the vague formation details in the infobox: "founded" (as what?), "declared" (as what?) and "finalised", again as what?~~ --Brand спойт 19:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - Well-written, well-cited article. All pervious NPOV issues have been taken care of, references have been properly formatted and the article has been reduced some more in size. Great job! Bogdan ^що? 20:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

~~Conditional~~ Support. This article is nicely done, well written, and referenced. But, I have one objection: I agree with Brandmeister above about the ambiguity of the infobox.. It currently states that "Russia" (or Rossiya) as we know it, was founded in 862 AD. This misleads the reader into thinking that the "Russian (Rossiyskaya) state" was founded in 862. If you would make it more clear as to what was founded in 862 (Kievan Rus - not "Russia") then you will get my support. —dima /talk/ 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose This article has been consistently altered to remove text, seemingly where it paints a negative view of the country. I have tried repeatedly to get some reasonable discussion of Gazprom's role in energy diplomacy, the constriction of democracy within the country, constraints on free media, and conscription difficulties, including Dedovschina, including yet user:Miyokan without exception removes the material. These are always justified on the basis that it's 'too long' 'too detailed' 'no other country has this' etc but the continual theme is a removal of any negative commentary. While sounding biased, this article, in my view at the moment, resembles more a whitewash than an encyclopaedia article and should not be promoted. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - problems cited by user:K a r n a and mostly remaining unaddressed include: (quote from user:Miyokan's talk page): I don't have the links at the precise moment (and mind you, there definitely are), but in reply to your questions: (1) Housing - how working families in cities like Moscow live in one-room apartments with poor water/electricity supplies, dingy conditions. Most rural areas don't have access not only to benefits of recent growth, but to good amenities, government facilities, resources - rural Russia needs more discussion. (2) The actual poverty rate, where is it prevalent, rich-poor gap. (2) State monopolies - the removal of Khodorkovsky and concentration of state power in media and such industries raised concerns about free-markets, etc. Gazprom's cutting off supplies to Ukraine, using its wealth to provide cradle-to-grave services, influence in politics. (3) Population shrinkage is well covered, so I withdraw that point. (4) Crime and corruption - I remember an article on the clean-up of St. Petersburg before the 300th anniversary summit, which spoke lengths about corruption and crime in bureaucracy, mobs, etc. St. Petersburg was like the most disorderly city until the date. While this article is exhaustively informative, I think the economy section can use such a balance, by keeping the budget/foreign investment data (which takes a 1.5 paras) shorter. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand from my discussions with Buckshot, he is convinced that Russia is a dictatorship and that it uses its energy as a political weapon. Accusations of Gazprom using its energy as a political weapon is discussed. So are the accusations of a rollback of democracy. But then you have to present the other side if you want to make a NPOV/balanced article (eg "While many reforms made under Putin’s rule have been generally criticized by Western nations as un-democratic, Putin's leadership over the return of stability and progress has won him widespread popularity in Russia." and "The arrest of prominent oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky on charges of fraud, embezzlement and tax evasion was met with accusations from the West that the arrest was political. However the move was met positively by the Russian public and has undeterred investment from the country, which continues to grow at double digit rates.")

Russia's problems are all discussed (read the article) and in a balanced manner, nothing is whitewashed, including raising the price to ex-Soviet neighbours, the arrest of Khodorkovsky, growth of crime and mobs in the wake of the post-Soviet collapse, challenges still facing the economy, Asian Russia lags behind economically, health problems are thoroughly covered. Your continual additions to the military section about conscription took up half of the entire military section, so I edited it to simply say "conscription is being reduced because of numerous problems associated with the practice". Also, conscription is being reduced not only because of Dedovschina, but due to demographic difficulties, the move towards a better trained and modernized military, etc.--Miyokan (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

comment To solve the issue and get a good compromise, I'd keep politics entirely out of the article. "Russia's problems" and everything that might have been "met positively by the Russian public" don't need to be a part of a featured article about Russia I think. By keeping it strictly factual and by removing anything that could be interpreted as even slightly biased or as commentary or as an interpretation, should make also the people happier here who think the article is too long. First of all, remove/rephrase all Although-s, However-s according to WP:AVOID. Few things that read as commentaries or as interpretations that could be also rephrased or removed:

a long tradition of excellence in every aspect of the arts and sciences; a Varangian named Rurik was elected ruler (konung or knyaz) of Novgorod around the year 860; Kievan Rus became...most prosperous in Europe; Many of the uprisings were organized and led by democratically elected councils called Soviets; confederation of counter-revolutionary forces known as the White movement; the Soviet Union established the Warsaw Pact alliance and; President Boris Yeltsin illegally dissolved the country's legislature; C separatists declared independence in the early 1990s; While many reforms made under Putin’s rule have been generally criticized by Western nations as un-democratic, Putin's leadership over the return of stability and progress has won him widespread popularity in Russia. etc.

The last would be a good example of the "Russias problems" and "met positively" thing that doesn't need to be there in my opinion. Good luck!--Termer (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I've only looked at the images, but there are major problems with many copyright issues. I nominated every image in the Soviet Russia section in an appropriate problem image page, as well as the ballerina picture. Several are clearly nonfree and several more need more information on the original photographer or publication. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think it's quite a stretch to suggest images that are in PD Russia have major problems with copyright. The most absurd is to claim that the image of Lenin taken in 1920 has no evidence that this is pre-1923, could plausibly be from 1923 or 1924. It seems Calliopejen1 is not aware of the fact that after suffering from 3 stokes the guy on the image was lying in his deathbed from March 1923 on. etc.--Termer (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment – in my opinion the history section is too long and should be reduced to one paragraph per period, instead of one subsection per period – Ilse @ 01:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose This article has much to recommend it, but isn't an FA yet. Entire paragraphs throughout the article are uncited (for example, the last 2 paras in the 'Soviet Russia' section) and there does seem to be a rather positive spin placed on the sections which discuss modern Russia. For instance, the paras on the military correctly state that Russia has lots of military equipment, but the fact that much of this equipment is obsolete by modern standards and the military is of generally low effectiveness (though this is improving) isn't mentioned. Similarly, the demographics section has a rather dramatic graph showing the declining Russian population but this is buried in the article's text. Moreover, I'm worried about the way some sources have been used - the Economist Intelligence Unit's classification of Russia's level of democracy is basically a fail (it's well into the 3rd of the 4 levels) and places the country in pretty disreputable company (eg, it ranks behind single-party states such as Singapore, military dictatorships such as Thailand and Fiji and even ranks behind Liberia) yet the article highlights the EIU classifying it has having "some form of democratic government" rather than the more accurate interpretation that Russia has a limited democracy and 101 countries were assessed as being more democratic that it. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On further reading I'm more convinced that this article is not FA yet. The only discussion of the errosion of Russia's democracy under Putin is "While many reforms made under Putin’s rule have been generally criticized by Western nations as un-democratic, Putin's leadership over the return of stability and progress has won him widespread popularity in Russia." This sentance is missleading (western governments have protested against political repression and bullying, not 'reforms') and seems to deny the existance of any significant domestic discontent to Putin's rule. Not suprisingly, it's not cited. Similary, a claim that the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky "was met positively by the Russian public and has undeterred investment from the country" is highly questionable (did all the Russian public really approve of this? were no investors at all detered?) and isn't cited. This article definetly isn't a FA. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ I do have to agree with Nick Dowling, that this does appear to be designed to remove alot of the controversial points and over inflate others. It seems a little bizzare there is no mention of its deteriorating relations with the EU, it is promoted as being part of the reason behind the Kosovo conflict resolution, when it was incredibly agressive in trying to scupper the NATO attempts at land operations. It makes no mention of the seizure or forced selling of foreign energy reserve to state producers that I can see...it barely mentions Chechnya, thugh perhaps that is best. Narson (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- If politics has been removed from the article, then IMO that moves a long way to clearing up alot of the problems. I havn't checked the article out yet so I won't change my 'vote' yet. Narson (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Strong Oppose There is some some pretty dodgy language in there about Russia, for example, has played a major role in resolving international conflicts by participating in the Quartet on the Middle East, the Six-party talks with North Korea, and promoting the resolution of the Kosovo conflict and nuclear proliferation issues which is total and utter drivvle. For a start none of those conflicts are yet resolved and I am quite certain I can find sources hostile to Russia's actions in relation to Kosovo. This was just one glaring piece of pomp dsicovered in a quick glance. No, I think this article is pretty close to achieving FAC, but at over 100kb and with so much pro-russian peacocking, it is not quite there yet. Narson (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't understand your problem with this, it is purely factual - Russia is part of these organizations, and it is fine to say 'resolving' because the specific aim of all of these organizations is to seek a resolution to these conflicts, regardless of whether you think that Russia is hindering progress or not.--Miyokan (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

- - - - It reads as though it /has/ resolved these things (which are clearly unresolved) and claims credit for things (like Kosovo) with no citation. Narson (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I changed it from past tense- "and has played a major role in resolving..." - to present tense - "and plays a major role in resolving international conflicts by participating in".--Miyokan (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment – It is a shame that some editors are trying to politicize this article. This is an article on the country, and politics is only one of many aspects. There is a "politics" section for a reason, and all the political controversies (democracy criticism, raising the price to ex-Soviet states, arrest of Khodorkovsky) should either go there or to the Politics of Russia article IMO.--Miyokan (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment like I suggested above, keep the politics entirely out of the article and nobody is going to be able to pick on the issue. As a reader, it's enough for me if a featured article about Russia just cites the facts only, like "Putin is the president of the Russian Federation". Any political commentary added to it is going to tricker another round of pro and anti statements attached to it. Its an ouroboros circle, you'll never get out of it unless you decide to drop all political issues that can be read as commentary. Keeping the politics in Politics of Russia sounds like a good idea to me.--Termer (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment No one is suggesting that the article should have a particular focus on current Russian politics - the concern is that the article is biased towards the current Russian government. WP:NPOV makes it pretty clear that omissions of key topics and common and credible viewpoints are a form of bias. As there's been a lot of international comment over the apparent failure of the democratisation movement in Russia this needs to be (briefly) included in the article - it's not enough to just name who the government is without also mentioning the serious concerns which are very frequently raised over how they gained power and how they govern. More seriously, most parts of the article which touch on the performance of the current government (eg, the discussions of foreign and military policy, the education system and economic management) are written in glowing terms and criticisms of the government are attributed only to foreigners (very little - nothing? - is attributed to the domestic political opposition). In addition, I have a feeling that the topics covered have been cherry-picked to put Russia in the best light - as some examples, why is the only international educational test specifically mentioned one Russia topped? (Russia's results were significantly below the OECD average in the 2006 Programme for International Student Assessment) Why does the economy section focus on the impressive growth in energy production and exports and the benefits which have arisen from this but not mention the high rate of inflation which has also been associated with the energy sector's boom? As a result, I don't think that the that the article is neutral or comprehensive at present. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment I don't agree with the opinion that daily politics such as mentioning the serious concerns which are very frequently raised...has to be included in the article. At the same time also the performance of the current government written in glowing terms as political commentary should be simply removed. A good example to follow would be USA#Government_and_politics, it's strictly factual, nobody is analyzing the issues of the daily politics in there, even though "the serious concerns" and "the glowing performance" are a part of the daily political life in the US like in any other country including Russia.--Termer (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
      - United States isn't a FA so it might not be a good guide to use. More to the point, there simply isn't widespread criticism of the US's form of government (which I'm aware of), so there's no reason to mention it in that article. This isn't the case for Russia. No-one is suggesting that day-to-day political disputes be included - rather, it is being suggested that the article needs to better cover the common criticisms of the structure of Russia's government (eg, how the government gains power and governs rather than whatever its policies are). --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment Nick, it is clearly written, While many reforms made under Putin’s rule have been generally criticized by Western nations as un-democratic, Putin's leadership over the return of stability and progress has won him widespread popularity in Russia. This clearly mentions that the government has received criticism. Putin has something like the highest approval rating of any leader in the world - domestically, largely the Russian public support him. FA country articles with governments that enjoy far less support, like Australia and Germany, do not mention anything of the domestic criticism their governments receive. Also, your claim about the foreign relations section written in some kind of 'glowing terms' is completely unsubstantiated. The "foreign relations" section merely states the facts; which organizations Russia is part of and which international conflicts it is part of. It completely states the facts. Just because you think that Russia is obstructing a resolution to the Kosovo conflict does not mean Russia is not, as the article says, actively involved in promoting a resolution of the Kosovo conflict. Furthermore, the article says nothing about the performance of the current government at all. The economy section states the facts in a neutral tone, it does not say anything about the governments performance in economic management.--Miyokan (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
        
        See my comments above - most topics which the government has influence over are written about in glowing terms and I think that this constitutes a form of bias. Something like 30% of the population voted against Putin's party in the recent (and aparantly semi-rigged) elections and this suggests that there's an opposition, so why is no mention made of it? Incidently, I have no opinion on the Kosovo conflict and don't recall ever going near an article on that topic - why are you claiming that I do? --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment Miyokan, adding such a commentary like you cited first generally criticized by Western nations...has won him widespread popularity in Russia, and claiming that Putin has something like the highest approval rating of any leader in the world is a very bad idea. Since according to the Russian opposition leader Kasparov it would be relying on the polling results in a police state.--Termer (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment Termer, not even western world leaders or media subscribe to Kasparov's idea that the popularity polls are rigged.--Miyokan (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment That's your opinion. Once the Russian elections (that in essence ware the major popularity poll) were rigged according to the Western sources, [4] [5] it can be easily claimed: why should the other popularity polls be any different. The thing that the western world leaders might not mention it is a part of the politics. I don't wish to get into it any deeper, hope you can work it out with Nick Dowling or simply drop the politics from the article. --Termer (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
        
        Comment Done I moved the politicized issues to the Politics of Russia article. This was needed as no FA country articles have politicized issues in their text, and it will prevent conflicts.--Miyokan (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
        
        I don't see how removing all mention of these important issues does anything for the article's balance or comprehensiveness (or how adding slanted text to other articles helps these articles either). These are important issues which need to be covered the article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
        
        So what exactly would you suggest Nick Dowling? Should the article mention that Putin has been on the cover of Time as the most influential person of the year and at the same time he has been compared to Hitler? Also like other leaders of the world have been labeled nowadays if you know what I mean. I just can't see how the controversial subject such as Russian politics could be spelled out in a balanced manner since there are only extreme opinions around. Therefore I'd just drop it. But in case you have a more clear idea how to spell it out so that it would read like WP:NPOV, please hlep the guys out here. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Small comment. At the bottom where the nav templates are located, there is a blank space between "Countries bordering the Black Sea" and "Countries bordering the Caspian Sea". Could you fix it? CG (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done--Miyokan (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Article doesn't seem to address any negative aspects of Russia including human rights, population, education, and standard of living. Countries with nearly identical Human Development Index's such as Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and Algeria have much more balance neg vs. pos.Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- What? How can you compare the Russian education system to that of any of those countries? Brazil - 88.6% literacy, Algeria - 69.9%, Mexico - 91%, Saudi Arabia - 78.8%! That noted, none of those countries (except one sentence in Brazil) speak of any kind of "negative aspects" of education. Read it, it is all merely statistical. Now, population decline on the other hand, is a serious problem, and therefore is covered very well in the article. But, I just can't understand what you might possibly mean when you say "human rights". And again your examples don't have one word on human rights, with the exception of course, of Saudi Arabia. But then again, I'm pretty sure women in Russia aren't banned from driving. Bogdan ^що? 16:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  - I believe Mexico has big crime problems and that those problems are in the article.--Kiyarrllston 14:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose strongly
- From the section of Geography: The continental interiors are the driest areas -

^[vague] which part of interiors of Russia you are talking about?

- "104 kilobytes long, appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." The section of history is pretty long. Again, this article is simply the introduction of Russia. Smaller size is strongly recommended esp in this section.
- From the section of Foreign relations and military: As one of the largest entity of economy, Russia tried to negotiate with other members from WTO since 1993 and now the process is still going on. What was/is the exact problem? for what time Russia will be expected to join WTO? this section didn't mention any. Putin tried several times to discuss the problem of granting the privilege of visa free/visa on arrival for Russian nationals with the EU but finally failed. This section didn't mention it. Arm sale "specifically" (including the figures of volume) for China (biggest buyer) didn't mention. How about the join military exercise in Central Asia (SCO)? the territorial dispute with Japan in the Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands is also completely missed. This section is quite pro-Western view that the relation with the US and the EU or NATO is over-emphasis.
- From the section of Economy: Gini index is relatively high, this section didn't mention the gap between rich and poor and also, why there are many billionares living in the city of Moscow and at the same time, most Russian people over there are still living in a poor condition (i.e. salary less than US$900.00 per month). Of course the economic growth is quite impressive, however the starting point is quite low. World Bank (2007) rates Russia as Upper-middle-income economies along with Argentina, Libya or South Africa, why didn't you mention? the info of foreign investment only shows how much money they put in Russia, it didn't show which sector of business mainly from FDI? do you mean banks? insurance companies? or any other private enterprises that you knew? flat tax is quite attractive indeed, however, why didn't you mention the monetary control? is it 100% free to bring money out from Russia through airport without declaration and confiscation by customs? how about if one would like to wire money out via any bank in Moscow without filling unnecesary forms and paying expensive service charge over the counter because of this policy (i.e. monetary control)?? Finally (but not least), Moody's Investors Service which performs financial research and analysis on Russia. It address the possibility that a financial obligation will not be honored as promised. Moody rated Russia as Baa2; it means Russia considered as medium-grade and as such may possess certain speculative characteristics. [6] BTW, this part is not written in neutral point of view 100% for sure.
- From the section of Education: this section didn't mention any performance of Russian students in general like reading, science, maths and problem solving. From the evaulation of PISA in 2007, the performance of Russian students are basically not satisfactory (actually it is very poor) at all aspects. It actually makes this statement like As a result of great emphasis on science and technology in education, Russian medical, mathematical, scientific, and space and aviation research is generally of a high order appear doubtful indeed.
- From the section of health: A graph/table is much better than thousand words here. Why didn't you do that? how about medical insurance? if it is univeral accessible for all Russian citizens, is it effective?
- From the section of language: the "vague" tag didn't fix. With many and many people in Eastern Europe (not including those who are Russian in Russia) would like to learn German or English rather than Russian, actually the influence of Russian language is declining. Why didn't you mention?
- From the section of culture: Citation tag didn't fix. I think Pushkin is the most famous one in Russia. Why didn't you mention his novels or poem? why there is no famous novelist or poet before 19th century that I can find out from here? well, there are many many problems as well from this article.
- From the section of sports: From this statement: During the Soviet era the national team placed first in the total number of medals won at 14 of its 18 appearances;[163] with these performances, the USSR was the dominant Olympic power of its era.[164] It is not pretty fair to depict in this way as USSR was composed of not only Russia but also many other republics like Estonia SSR, Latvia SSR or others that they also made a lot of contribution on the medal list. It was not Russia herself performed as an Olympic power during the Soviet era. To sum up, this article is not written in neutral point of view indeed. Coloane (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- References are not in FA standard & MoS breach: No. 111, 119, 160 etc!!
Comment, the "Soviet Russia" subsection of the "History" section reads as a history of the USSR not of Russia in Soviet times. I don't think this is appropriate, this article should focus on Russia, not on the whole USSR. Thus, for instance, famines in the 1930s affected primarily Ukraine and (to a lesser extent) Central Asia whereas Russia was mostly spared. This subsection needs to be rewritten with the proper focus. --Victor12 (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the "Culture" section, Literature has just one (small) paragraph whereas Sports has a whole subsection with three paragraphs. That seems like undue weight. Sports could easily be reduced to just one paragraph and merged into "Culture". --Victor12 (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

agree

hmmm... Ukraine was considered part of "Russia" for a long time (wasn't it?) -it was part of the "Rus", also traces it's past back to East Slavs.

The term Soviet Russia (see Soviet Russia (disambiguation)) is commonly (informally) used to refer to the USSR

I re-iterate, the Culture section needs re-hashing and expansion

--Kiyarrllston 18:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Soviet Russia refers to the Russian SFSR, as Soviet Russia (disambiguation) says, and is sometimes incorrectly interpreted to mean the whole Soviet Union. The article makes it clear that it is referring to Russia because the content starts from the beginning of Bolshevist rule in 1917, before the Soviet Union was formed in 1922. Also, with regards to discussing Russia's role in the Soviet Union-Russia's history then is essentially the history of the Soviet Union - There is a reason that the USSR was often referred to as "Russia" and its people as "Russians.". The article makes clear the the preeminant role Russia played in the Soviet Union (made up more than half of the population, 75% of the land, more than half of the economic production, dominated political sphere). Combine this with the fact that Russia is recognised in international law as continuing the legal personality of the Soviet Union.

Ukraine was considered part of "Russia" for a long time (wasn't it?) -it was part of the "Rus", also traces it's past back to East Slavs. - How is this relevant to this article?

No one else has expressed problems with the structure of the culture section and I do not understand your penchant for inserting strange structures to content (eg you tried to format the Russia talk page by topic instead of chronologically, you wanted to make some kind of 'Society' section that no other country article has, etc). We can't include all aspects of Russian culture, this IMO is a summary of the major ones.--Miyokan (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Structure? My main problem with the culture section is comprehensibility, not structure.--Kiyarrllston 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Were you (Miyokan) aware of the article named Culture of Russia? I find it strange that there are two different articles, Russian Culture and Culture of Russia, that would presumably treat the same subject. I hope that the FA version of the Culture section is a summary of one of these.--Kiyarrllston 03:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The second article, Culture of Russia, is an OR-ish text based on hypotheses that there exists a hybrid Culture of Russia that joints Russian culture and the cultures of smaller ethnoses like Tatars, Bashkirs, Ingushs, Russian Germans, etc. That is somehow similar to the hypotheses of existence of a hybrid Soviet Culture. While a neutral and referenced article on the hypotheses and its implication will be interesting, the current article is neither. I do not think those materials are summarized in the Russia article, nor that they should be Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing both articles are way more comprehensive - which has little to do with length. Cuisine, architecture, are significant parts of russian culture. They are not even mentioned.

I do believe that the Culture section should be comprehensive, does anybody disagree with this?

--Kiyarrllston 14:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The question to ask is does anybody agree with this.--Miyokan (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer is everybody agrees, because comprehensibility is required as part of FA criteria - I request summary style in Culture section in order to have greater comprehensibility and small size.--Kiyarrllston 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, assuming everybody agrees with you is not an argument. As far as I can tell no one has expressed your concern with the culture section and 6 people have voted support so they must have thought the culture section was fine. When the culture was longer, there were far more complaints saying it was too long than there is now at its current length.--Miyokan (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just let this article remain the same without any change. Russian people need self-esteem as they mostly get barely enough money to feed their mouths. That is why the size of history, culture never reduce because of this reason. I'm just sympathetic to your situation. I never feel angry for what you did for me. But I feel quite perplexed is why did you always attack the American articles? didn't you get the visa refusal from the US embassy in Moscow? if so, you can try again! Coloane (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

After I exposed his lying on another issue, User:Coloane declared - "OK! go ahead! I just don't care! I already illustrated my point. I am not going to revert it. RIght now I will try to make sure your article Russia fail and die from FAC. That is the most important thing."[7] and "whenever you nominate Russia or Russian article, I will surely vote OPPOSE or take them to FAR. This is the heavy price you have to pay"[8]. He has made similar disruptive WP:POINTy edits on other pages, see User_talk:Coloane#Stop_the_disruption. User blanks his talk page to hide his history of blocks, disruptive editing, accusations of racism, etc [9] [10] [11]. User:Coloane is currently reported on the Administrator's noticeboard for ongoing harassment, vote rigging and sockpuppetry [12]--Miyokan (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

well, I just don't care what you above mentioned. That is always happened in Wiki. Take your time. :) Coloane (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Coloane does not seem a very constructive editor [judging from the evidence Miyokan provided]. Let me state that I, Dwarf Kirlston, have no interest in blocking the Russia article from becoming FA except to improve it. I hope you don't judge me by my past actions.--Kiyarrllston 07:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who objected to the size of culture (I believe I referred to it as "bloat in culture") - what I am currently saying is basically "Do not increase the size of culture while increasing comprehensibility" - do you believe this is impossible? - When I opposed the size of the cuisine section I believe I told you that I did not want the deletion of it, but rather a more summary style version than the one then in place - I hope we can co-operate and learn from each other. Thanks for reading this comment.--Kiyarrllston 07:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"does not seem a very constructive editor"? I wrote down many reasons which are of highly details. However, all points from above were basically disregarded. I have no interest in blocking this article from becoming FA, believe me or not. Conversely, what Miyokan did is revenge. Mostly Russian people behave like this. Coloane (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate taking the topic of "reverge" out of this conversation and focusing on constructive judgement of this article and whether it deserves FA status, and what improvements (if any) are needed.--Kiyarrllston 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC) - I don't think Miyokan seems a very constructive editor either, in attitude - but the "revenge" thing you two have going on is both of your faults.

Comment - Reduce the size of "History"!!! will you? it is too big!!! Please refer to the article of India and look at its history. The small section of history covers anything more than 5,000 years in a brief and clear style. You just found an excuse and stubbornly kept the huge size of history in this article and make sure all readers here to go over all details of Russian history. Well, that's not very good!!!!!!! Coloane (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't think India would be a very good example, this article is much more thorough. It goes in-depth on topics like Health, Infrastructure, Education, etc. When the Indian page, does not even goes as far as mentioning them. Why can't the same go for history? Bogdan ^що? 05:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps it's still worth looking into because India is a featured article. I personally don't mind History being as long as it is since it's my favorite subject. But once getting the article into featured status takes basically making everybody happy with it, going against the will of your customers here is not helping to bring it to the desired status. So I would still consider everything what's said in here and make adjustments even though the task making everybody happy about it at the same time might sound like a mission impossible.--Termer (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose

This article is technically quite good but suffers from quite serious POV problems and is for this reason not close to being of featured article quality. To take one example, there is a very strong positive spin on economic growth with very imbalanced attention given to current economic problems. There is no comparison to nearby countries' growth for a sense of context (e.g.'s Ukraine's higher growth). Additionally, while I agree that extended discussion of politics is not appropriate, to avoid mentioning the extremely strong centralization and consolidation of power by the executive branch during the recent past would be a grave ommission and a flagrant NPOV problem.

I think that Miyokan, despite many demonstrations of good faith, tends to produce content with a seriously problematic slant that takes many revisions to get right, and that while this discussion has produced useful progress, the overall result is still not objective. I know that you are deeply committed to this article, but unfortunately it is not yet of truly encyclopedic quality. I hope it does get there eventually. --Wilanthule (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Wilanthule expresses my earlier concerns very well. This article has severe POV difficulties and is not of featured quality. (This comment has been re-inserted, after it was earlier deleted by user:Miyokan - I am sorry if this a appears to be 'voting twice', and thus have changed the title to 'Comment'. I strongly resent the deletion of FAC comments this way, and it does the discussion no good whatsoever. I notice that user:Miyokan has made many, many comments during this process without having them deleted. I believe I am entitled to register my opinion on the matter more than once.) Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

NPOV problems in post soviet history section. Article implies that Yeltsin caused economic crisis and collapse, and completely ignores economic collapse during last years of USSR. --Doopdoop (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica - The reforms beginning in the 1990s caused considerable hardships for the average Russian citizen; in the decade after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian economy contracted by more than two-fifths. The monetary system was in disarray: the removal of price controls caused a huge escalation in inflation and prices; the value of the ruble, the country’s currency, plummeted; and real incomes fell dramatically.--Miyokan (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral/comment. I am not quite sure. On a positive side, this article has been significantly improved. A huge amount of work has been invested here. On the other hand, this article provides the Soviet/Russian propaganda version of history in many subtle ways. This is done by selecting sources that favor certain point of view and omitting others (hence, it does not follow WP:NPOV everywhere as suppose to be for a featured article). For example, it tells:

1. "Yeltsin announced that Russia would proceed with radical, market-oriented reform along the lines of "shock therapy", as recommended by the United States and IMF", and so on.

The text impies that US and IMF are responsible for reform's failure in Russia.

2. "Putin's leadership over the return of stability and progress has won him widespread popularity in Russia".

Actually, it were Chechen war and control of mass-media that "won" him popularity.

3. "After Lenin's death in 1924 a Georgian named Joseph Stalin consolidated power and became dictator"

This and other parts of text imply that Stalin's personality cult was responsible for mass terror in Russia. No, the terror as official state policy has been established by Lenin.

4. "Bolsheviks and White movement carried out campaigns of mass arrests, deportations, and executions against each other".

This implies that "Red" and "White" terrors were equally bad. No, it were only "Reds" who made the terror an official State policy that persisted for next generations to come. There are many things like that.Biophys (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

- Comment also "a Georgian named Joseph Stalin" is a suspicious usage. It seems like an excuse: Soviet Regime was only evil because it was run by a Georgian. I would remove the reference to the nationality of Stalin and if necessary use some reference from his previous career instead. Suva Чего? 12:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Still not well-written. For example:
- What is "Russia proper"? It's right up at the start of the second sentence, and we're still wondering.
- Complicated sentence: "At 17,075,400 square kilometres (6,592,800 sq mi) and with 142 million people, Russia is by far the largest country in the world, covering more than one-eighth of the Earth’s land area, and ninth-largest by population."—Deal with pop. first, then area, or it will cause the readers to hiccough. All of these hyphenated fractions need to be eased to "an eighth", etc. See MOS.
- Extends across 40% of Europe? Just where is the eastern boundary? If it's not widely accepted, this is not appropriate, at least without an explicit rider on the spot.
- "possesses", then "has". Surely "has" is good enough, twice.
- "The nation's history begins with that of the East Slavs. The Slavs emerged"—"BeGAN".
- "Greatly" twice; the first one could be removed.
- "Russia established worldwide power and influence from the times of the Russian Empire to being the preeminent constituent of the Soviet Union, the world's first and largest Communist state, and can boast a long tradition of excellence in every aspect of the arts and sciences.[6]" Two quite different ideas jammed into the one sentence. "Being" is a problem—the grammar is inconsistent. "Can" begs a question. "Constituent" isn't the prettiest word you could use.
- "and other global organizations"—A bit lame; every country is a member of global organisations; consider removing the clause.

Now these are just samples from the lead; they indicate a high density of issues and the need for a thorough copy-edit throughout. Whoever has done it since the last FAC hasn't done a good enough job. Tony (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose mostly due to lack of neutrality on the article (the article reads overly optimistic and nationalistic)
- there there is absolutely NO information on transportation and tourism (which I believe are important for Russia)
- culture section reads slightly overly optimistic. how does the average russian (the masses) relate to say literature, ballet and music?
- also, all around the world there is a strong belief in the populare culture of russians and vodka. I am not trying to imply absolutely enything, but I do believe that this stereotype should be discussed somewhere (culture?). If it is not true they say why, if it is partially true, describe the situation, and what do authorities believe.
- even the demographics section sounds overly praiseful. also, it might be appropiate to add the names of the cities above 1 pillion people, but is unnecessarly to add more. if it was me, I would only discuss the two biggest one and their role, and only list the ones that have between 1 and 1.5 million.

good luck with improving the article. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Wicked (musical)

Nominator: This article, currently a Musical Theatre A-class article, seems to exemplify, I feel, what is needed from an article about a stage musical. It meets all MoS and other WP guidelines... - Dafyd (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Co-nominator: I feel this article, which I have helped build from Start-class, now has the potential to make a featured article. Reviewers should be aware of the tremendous effort that editors (including myself but particularly Dafyd) have put into getting the synopsis as short as it currently is - Wicked has an enormously complicated plot which utterly defys efforts to shrink the synopsis section any further. Happy‑melon 21:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Couldn't you get a bigger picture? here's one. Also, do those musical numbers have to all be in bold? indopug (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image criteria states images should be of a small resolution.-Wafulz (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

~~But the current image stretches in the infobox and appears pixelated. indopug (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)~~

Ah, I see you've rectified the problem. Cool indopug (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Musical numbers have been debolded. — Music Maker 5376 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Please remove "Planned Toronto Production" per WP:CRYSTAL. --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Y Done - I don't know where that one came from. Happy‑melon 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I posted some autopeer review suggestions on the talk page. The article is actually in pretty good shape so the extent of peer review suggestions is not that long. I would have taken care of them myself, but it seems my efforts to be associated with the article are not entirely welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the comments were either single-issue or false positives, and all have been responded to. It was nonetheless useful. Happy‑melon 13:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  - You seem to have missed a few. I only have a moment, but will point out some of them here:
    - Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
      - October 30 and February 21 will continue to cause a false positive after checking. However, I just found May 2007. Check again.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        That section was added after I did my check. Thanks for fixing it anyway. Happy‑melon 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5cm, use 5 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 cm.^[?]
      - E.g., 1 hour would be correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        I see. I'll make sure this is done. Thanks! Happy‑melon 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        You are missing the point. 800,000 people and 30 cities are equally problematic. The point of this auto peer review bullet point is that you have cases where numerals are followed by units without the non-breaking space. The importance is that there are a variety of screen resolutions and default image size preferences that cause lines to break differently on all readers' pages. Without a non-breaking space it is possible that the numeral will appear at the end of a line and the units will appear on the next line. This is annoying for a sophisticated reader to see who knows it should not. You need to reread the entire article looking for numerals followed by units and fix all instances. This includes infoboxes because someone with a 800x600 screen resolution may have a scrunched box that causes 22 bars to break.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        That's ridiculous. I'll still make sure it is done, however. Happy‑melon 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        I ran a check for "# ", replacing all instances that were not dates or within ref tags. Please let me know if I'm still misinterpreting this. Happy‑melon 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        I will trust that you have solved the problem now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    - I should comment that I have finally had a chance to look at most of the rest of the peer review. I have not done a check on the weasel words issue, but everything else seems to have been addressed. If I get a chance later I will look at the weasel words issue more closely.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article needs a short section describing the various recordings of the musical. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Does it? Wicked (album) is linked from the article and contains much of what might be contained in a recordings section. The track listing is elsewhere in the article; the Grammy win is mentioned under Awards; the Stuttgart recording is referred to in the Other productions section. I may be wrong, but I think that adding a recordings section would only duplicate content that is already present elsewhere... - Dafyd (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, yes, I think you're right - I'm working on it now. - Dafyd (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Y Done - Dafyd (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice. No London recording?

Nope. There was talk of it, but it's never materialised. - Dafyd (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It says "Nominated for 4 Olivier awards." Didn't it win any? If not, I don't think the nominations are really worth noting in the intro. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Y Done - It didn't win any. I've removed the reference from the intro, as they're also mentioned further down. - Dafyd (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Why is the TOC embedded to the left? That makes the text between the infobox and the TOC look funny. Why not leave the TOC where it would normally default? I think that FAC articles generally leave the TOC alone? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Y Done - Happy-Melon explained why the TOC was floating, but I'm not sure it makes much of a difference...- Dafyd (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all of your prompt and hard work on this article. It is definitely improving. I have made some comments on the talk page. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment re: Intro paragraph to the "Synopsis" section. This is the first article that I have seen that has an intro/overview paragraph at that top of the "Synopsis" or "Plot" section, which is striking, since I have edited hundreds of articles about musicals. I believe that any such information should go in the WP:LEAD or in a textual analysis section, and that the Synopsis itself does not need an introduction - it should launch right into the summary. User:MusicMaker5376 disagrees with me and thinks that it is helpful. It would be very useful for independent FA editors to comment on this issue at the article talk page, as it may set an important precedent for the WP:MUSICALS project. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I just wanted to clarify that I think it's useful in that it gives slightly more detail than the lead, but not as much as the synopsis. Some comments I've seen in the past indicate that readers may not want to read a complete overview. I think a brief encapsulation at the beginning of the synopsis is helpful in that regard. — Music Maker 5376 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think the development section is a little slight for an FA article: Is there more information about the writing of the book and/or music?
- Also, more information is needed about the Broadway production team, especially as many of them were nominated or won awards. Was the production team new for Broadway, or had they been involved in the pre-B'way production?
- Also, is there any other information about what "retooling" was done for the B'way production after the pre-B'way production?
- Also, what are the major differences between the novel and the show? The article says that there were major differences, but it does not describe them in any detail.
- Also, need to add some brief cast info about various productions. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

CommentI was finally forced to think clearly enough about musicals as part of the WP:CFD debate for Category:Musicals by nationality. In this debate my argument is that Category:Chicago musicals could and should be considered separately from other such categories because productions are commonly cast for Chicago runs. Why is this significant for WP? The answer is quite simply that each production run is a notable and sectionable element of an encyclopedic entry for a successful and notable musical. Let’s take Wicked. Chicago facts are strewn haphazardly about the article. It might seem logical to lay out an article with a section entitled production runs. By the time a musical article reaches B-class it should at least have a paragraph dedicated to various production runs. A featured article should have a paragraph or section dedicated to each major run. Such a paragraph or section could be laid out as follows:

Musical X had a production that was cast for an indefinite run in {{city-state|City|State}} X1 at Notable theatre X~~. ~~Casting was done by Famous casting agent X~~ at Famous theatre X~~ from Month DD to Month DD, YYYY. Notable Actor X1 was cast for notable role Y1, notable actor X2 was cast for notable role Y2, . . . Notable actor X# was cast for notable role Y#. In addition actor z1, actor z2. . .actor z# were cast for notable role zz1, notable role zz2, … notable role zz#. The production was originally scheduled to run from Month DD indefinitely. The City X opening was a gala affair attended by notable person x, notable person y… (Jersey Boys would include Frankie Valli and Bob Gaudio here; Color purple would include Oprah Winfrey and Jesse Jackson here, not sure about Wicked). Eventually a closing date was scheduled for the City X production of Month DD, YYYY. This closing date was extended until Month DD, YYYY. ~~The production was sponsored by Sponsor X among others.~~ This production run was notable because it . . .fill in the blank. (example it set records for a Chicago showing of a broadway musical – think Wicked, or it set records for a showing with an All-black cast – think Color Purple). After the conclusion of this production run the same cast continued perfoming on a national tour that next went to {{city-state|City|State}} X2 and eventually continued in {{city-state|City|State}} X3, {{city-state|City|State}} X4, {{city-state|City|State}} X5 and is scheduled to go to {{city-state|City|State}} X6, . . . {{city-state|City|State}} X#.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out some things that aren't really encyclopedic when it comes to the musical as a literary work. This is what we're trying to stress in the articles -- that the musical exists apart from its productions. Notable productions, obviously, are important, but we'd rather express the importance of the work as a whole than any incarnation of it. Putting too much emphasis on productions invites systemic bias. — Music Maker 5376 15:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that, Tony - clear, concise, full of what is needed. As well as the things MusicMaker struck out, I'd suggest that the casting agent is unimportant... Now, as our resident Chicago expert (meant in the nicest possible way!) would you be able to source the info and put it into the article...? - Dafyd (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, re: casting agent. I meant to strike that out.

Also, the problem with mentioning the cities that the tour visits is that the tours usually visit in the neighborhood of 30 cities, which, admittedly, is too many to prozize. When you take into account shows that have multiple touring companies internationally, it becomes a little unwieldly. — Music Maker 5376 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you make something encyclopedic out of either of these tour details: http://www.cheappremiumtickets.com/Theatre/Wicked_Tickets.cfm or http://www.ticketspecialists.com/theater/wicked_tickets.htm ?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Each production section will vary slightly from my vision no doubt. In Chicago, much was made of Opray Winfrey bringing The Color Purple (musical) to Chicago since she starred in Steven Spielberg's The Color Purple (film) and since she is OPRAH. I am not sure what her official role was in its local presentation, but it seems she was a sponsor of some sort and this would be notable and encyclopedic in the Chicago section of Color Purple. I imagine for some other productions such notable facts may emerge. I will look up things for Wicked Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked those links, but, yeah Oprah is The Mighty O -- she takes a crap and it's notable. She is the producer of the Broadway prod of Purple -- in the course of try-outs and whatnot, it went to a couple of towns. Having Oprah as producer is notable. — Music Maker 5376 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In those links, it doesn't look like it goes past a couple of months ago. Does anyone know if the tour has stopped? And, Tony, I would ask that you bear in mind that tours go on for years and years -- Jesus Christ Superstar is still touring; I think with a couple of companies. So, while Wicked has only hit 15 or so cities since the tour started, it can really grow to LOTS AND LOTS. I really don't know if that's something we want to invite into the article. — Music Maker 5376 17:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The tour is still going - according to the official site, it's booking until August 31 in Ottawa... Also, Tony, thanks for adding that bit about the Behind the Emerald Curtain tours - it's done in NYC and LA, too, so we should probably come up with a global way of mentioning it. - Dafyd (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the "Other Productions" section can just be "Productions"? A paragraph of the Behind the Scenes would be appropriate there. — Music Maker 5376 18:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a bit. I think someone may want to review it and rearrange it a bit for flow. I would still like to know a bit about who brought it to Chicago and anything I could about its opening, but the encyclopedic nature of that is a matter of opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's covered in the Stone quote: "the producers created a new road show...." — Music Maker 5376 20:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like we have enough now about the Chicago production. This musical has lots of productions (and it will keep having more and more), and if each of them gets this much info, the production section will be too long. The original production should be the longest, most complete production description (see my suggestions above for what info is still needed). I also agree that we should not name all the cities on the National tour. Maybe we could name a couple of the longest stops, like this, "setting American touring records in St. Louis and [city], among others, and stopping at an expected total of 31 cities through the scheduled end of the tour in 2009." Nice job, everyone - the article is making good progress. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just think that a line like that is going to invite people to add their hometown: something that would be supported by sources and, therefore, difficult to justify deletion.

But, yes, this article is rocking my socks. — Music Maker 5376 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Above I said "A featured article should have a paragraph or section dedicated to each major run." As you are all aware I am a generalist who pops in on various Chicago related articles. I don't know very much about any specific topic and Wicked (musical) is no different. I was trying to make a suggestion related to what I feel should be added for Chicago which I feel is a major run. I think most notable musicals will have a main run in NYC or London and at least one other (a National tour). The demographics of Chicago are changing with numerous downtown high rise condominiums and apartments being built within two miles of the Theatre district. Chicago is already at the head of the class of second run tour cities and will become more prominent as more potential patrons find themselves living proximal to this form of entertainment. I don't think the article is improved with a couple dozen repeating blurbs with trivial content. I think the article is improved with major secondary runs such as Chicago having a substantial section. I think that more than a half dozen is probably excessive and that the rest should be lumped together as other production runs. I am not exactly sure where to draw the line, but when there is nothing linkable other than the date and city we may have gone to far. A production with notable performers in a notable theatre may deserve a separate section, but as the article stands it seems there are several too many production subsections. In the context of this article, I think only runs that are contributing newsworthy records and performances should have separate sections. I do not understand the likely eventualities of this musical with respect to global production, but think there should be a few less production subsections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So you think the "productions" section in general should be shorter, but the section on the run in Chicago should be longer?? Is that a fair summary? Happy‑melon 18:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I agree with Tony, to a point. Looking at, for example, Les Mis, there's no way we would ever have sections for every production, and I think Wicked should probably be the same. Many of the productions are not particularly notable in their own right - the only thing is, I would include Chicago in the "not very notable" category (as well as LA) - simply because, in terms of the other productions, it's nothing terribly special. It's not different to the other productions artistically, its records can be mentioned elsewhere... That said, for the time being, while there are only 8 productions worldwide, I think each deserves a section. There's enough that's notable about each. All the domestic (US) productions have broken records, and the international runs are important in terms of the musical's development (translations, reworkings, record breaking). If, in the future, the productions section gets unwieldy, it can be scaled back and summarised. - Dafyd (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for giving the wrong impression. Chicago is currently accorded approximately the exact amount of dedicated text space that it warrants. I do wish I had taken this photo after the leaves had fallen or thought about retaking it yesterday when I walked by yesterday. I should be careful when I say shorter because this is an entry to serve the international audience and not our parochial domestic interests in the musical. It is not clear to me why other productions have notable statements to make other than that it is playing in a particular city. I think sections should be given for encyclopedic entries of note. It is possible to make an entry encyclopedic with non-notable info on this subject, but as I try to explain above we must strike a balance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We can cross that bridge when we get to it - personally I would say in that instance a List of productions of Wicked would be in order - that would make a nice FL to go with this (fingers crossed) FA!! Hell, bring Wicked (album), List of awards and nominations for the musical Wicked and Wicked (musical) cast lists up to FA and FL, and we've got ourselves a featured topic :D. Returning to reality, however, I agree with you Dafyd: Chicago is no more notable than LA, Stuttgart or Melbourne, we just have (thanks to Tony's wealth of local knowledge) a lot more to write about for that particular production. The Chicago section currently looks pretty well perfect to me. Happy‑melon 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum. I think a 7 production section should be written as such. I disagree that Chi and LA are not notable. I think from the perspective of artistic differences they are probably rehashes of broadway. From the international encyclopedic perspective it is newsworthy to be the longest running broadway musical and all-time top grossing performance for a city such as Chicago. I also feel that since notable performers have assumed the lead roles it has a very sectionable character. I don't follow the LA newswires and do not know what might make a section for LA encyclopedic. I think an international reader should be able to find Chicago info in one place. I am not sure what an international reader should want to know about other productions, but like I said we should strike a balance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

←What I meant by "no more notable..." is that as and when the production section grows too long, I will support removing both Chicago and LA (and Osaka, Stuttgart, etc) to a subpage (probably List of productions of Wicked) and summarising these productions on the main page. The Broadway and West End productions, however, I would leave on the main page if/when that division occurs. Wikipedia not being paper, there's no reason to remove the Chicago information, but I think it would lose a fight to stay on the main page when Amsterdam or Tokyo get moved away. I hope that clarifies my position. Happy‑melon 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Two events that are equally notable do not deserve equal treatement on WP. One may have a plethora of free pictures while the other has only copyrighted pictures and forbids picture taking. I would prefer to see more about the former. Additionally, an encyclopedic event may happen at one and not the other. One may spawn numerous secondary accounts due to freedom of the press while another may have no secondary sources for WP to cite. Finally, one may have a better tertiary voice to relay the secondary source information. In each of these cases, events of equal note will not and should not get equal billing on WP. Let's say Chicago's production is on the same level for artistic notability, it's encyclopedic notability and viability may be far superior. Right now amsterdam is in the commons section and Tokyo has nothing encyclopedic included in its subsection making it a better candidate to be moved to the common heap than Chicago. It is very common for two subjects of equal notability to have very different levels of detail here on WP. One Tony Award winner could have a stub-class article while another of equal note may have a GA-class article. We don't treat the two articles equally. The same can be said of subsections of an article. Where encyclopedic information is presented it is treated differently then cases where it is absent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely what I'm saying, except I would replace "deserve" with "require". In fact, two events which are equally notable should have equal treatment... but it's not our fault if, for the reasons you describe, that is not possible. Happy‑melon 09:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would like to comment on the statement that the Chicago section is a bucnh of local news. There is a huge difference between international level encyclopedic content and local new. E.g., Local news would be that a Buffalo, New York national tour stop broke a four day weekend box office gross record. Something between would be that a St. Louis, Missouri four week tour stop set a city record for attendance/gross. Setting an All-time performance gross and broadway musical run lengthr record for Chicago is international encyclopedic content. In the former cases, they only become encyclopedic as a part of a list of similar records, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment In an unrelated series of edits related to the above statement can you tell me if you think these edits] at The Color Purple (musical) added encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, but overdoing it a little. I'd think that Mayor Daley has been to quite a few opening nights in his tenure as mayor. — Music Maker 5376 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That, of course, begs the question did he attend the Wicked opening night? It also begs the question how many productions of Wicked, or the Color Purple had such press coverage or red carpet attendees? Furthermore, it begs the question how many cities generate that type of press coverage for an opening?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But, again, it's Oprah. In Chicago. The notability of that event is somewhat skewed -- especially in the amount of ink it's going to receive. — Music Maker 5376 16:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Concern; I am not well versed on FairUse. Someone who understands Fair Use well needs to check all those Fair Use images. WP:OVERLINKing should also be examined; for example, why is lion linked, and why are all those well-known cities linked? Words commonly known to most English speakers do not need to be linked. See WP:MOSLINK. There are unformatted incomplete references, example: 'Wicked' Shatters Box Office Records Worldwide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't assume that just because you know plenty about these cities, that no one else would consider the links to provide useful context. Linking "lion", however, is a little excessive - I'll have a look at those and the references. I am also not a Fair use expert, but I doubt it represents a problem. Happy‑melon 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  - I re-linked lion so that it points to Cowardly Lion. I think that's where it went before, but I'm not sure. Since that's the lion in question, it makes sense to link there, right? — MusicMaker5376 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    - It was originally linked simply to lion!! Good idea to link to the Oz version. Happy‑melon 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I will de-link the repeated names of the actors in the production section. I will leave them linked once in the section (even if they have been linked somewhere further up in the article), but then de-link them in the rest of the section, OK? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Headings

Comment: Might it work better if we cut down on the number of headings in the production section? Have a heading for each of the English-language productions, but then have "Foreign-language productions" including Osaka, Tokyo, and Stuttgart and "Planned productions" for the others. — Music Maker 5376 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's too bad. You could consolidate the foreign language productions if you don't think there's much more to be said about each of them, but Australia will open pretty soon, so I think it's OK where it is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Art Houtteman

I'm nominating this article for featured article because, after looking though the guidelines, I think that this would pass. Granted, although this particular article has not gone through peer review or a good article nomination (WP:GAN is so badly backlogged on sports that it's not worth it to let the article sit and wait there), I've been though a few with other baseball articles, and from them I can't see what else is really needed. Any improvements I can do, though, I'm willing to do what I can to make it FA. Wizardman 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Your references are a little off. For sections in which only one source was used, such as the first paragraph in the body of the article, you dont need to repost the inline ref for every sentence. Jose João (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Y Done, wasn't sure if that was acceptable or not at first, now I know. Wizardman 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)~~ Well, since User:Secret wanted a citation elsewhere in that first paragraph, I will have to repost the same inline cite in that case. Wizardman 14:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I notice you have retrieval dates for many of the references, but a lot of them don't have links. Doesn't a retrieval date imply that the source was accessed on the web? BuddingJournalist 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean all the Sporting News references. I went through paperofrecord.com to access them, and the accessdates as such are the dates I viewed them. If they are unnecessary for news articles I'll remove them, I was just used to adding them in. Wizardman 22:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No don't worry about it; it was just confusing at first because there weren't any links to accompany the retrieval dates. BuddingJournalist 22:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of most of the references come from SABR, as anybody can join that organization for a fee, try to replace sources if possible. Thanks Secret ^account 00:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Will fix what I can; at least the authors cite their sources there. Wizardman 14:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources: the authors should be stated—this needs major fixing.

N Not done: I really wish I could add in the authors, but any reference which does not have an author is the result of me being completely unable to find one. Any Sporting News ones I can double-check for, but any others without an author unfortunately I cannot fix. Wizardman 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done with the ones I could feasibly do. Wizardman 15:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
11-2: en dash, not hyphen. And similar examples.
"a fifth infielder." and many more examples—see MOS on final punctuation in quotations that start within a WP sentence. Big fix required. Yet some are consistent with the MOS requirement.

Y Done Wizardman 17:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
"seventeen" yet "13". Where's the boundary between naming and numerals?

I try and use 10/ten as a boundary. I went and fixed seventeen, since it should've been 17, and I'll re-read over to see if I missed any. Wizardman 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, I think I got them all. Wizardman 02:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
"Military and return"—loosely worded title.

Y Done Wizardman 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Mumia Abu-Jamal

previous FAC

Though still under attack by a banned user, the page has been rewritten almost entirely since the previous nomination.[13] DrKiernan (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Was Abu-Jamal the first "President of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists"? I ask, because the "Preceded by" section of the succession box contains a random apostrophe mark. If he was the first president of this organization, then "Preceded by" should be filled with "None". If his predecessor is unknown, then it should be labeled as "unknown". Nishkid64 (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who his predecessor was, so I've decided to remove the succession box. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I'm concerned that the page is incomplete and not stable yet.

- The "Witnesses not called at trial" section is unclear in the first few sentences and seems to be talking about several different people.

Contracted.

- The larger section "Arrest for murder and trial" ought to be condensed substantially. A new article, the Trials of Mumia Abu-Jamal or similar should be where the discussion of the minute details of the case should be presented.

Condensed. New article Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal created.

That's a good start. My opinion is that any argument over the details of the case should be here. I did some condensing myself.

- There are too many references to other people. The focus of the article should be about mumia, not about some hookers and drunks who can't remember anything. I think most of these people belong in the "trials" article I proposed.

As above.

I started a list of figures involved on the trial page.

- There is no need for a photo of city hall.

Removed.

- A photo of the intersection where the shooting took place *would* be useful.

I agree, but I can't find one, or provide one (I don't live in Philadelphia).

The lat/long coordinates would be nice too.

- More context is needed about why people find the issue so engaging. It's interesting to know that foreign cities have named him an honorary citizen. What would be REALLY interesting is to know why. It is not immediately apparent.

I've moved the "Honors" section to below the "Campaign groups" section to give a more logical flow.

- More context is also needed to describe the anti-black people and anti-police/anti-authority attitudes that prevailed in philadelphia at the time.

I think this is covered in the "Early life" and "2005 Federal higher appeal" sections.

That's a start. I wonder if a summary of jamal's police brutality news bits is possible. We should also try to link this into the history of philadelphia somehow.

-- Austin Murphy (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, very helpful. DrKiernan (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to help, but the more I dig into the issue, the less clear it is. That's strangly engaging, but makes it *really* difficult to have a comprehensive article that is stable. -- Austin Murphy (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki

This has always been a good article, but was a little short. Now that it's been cleaned up and a development section has been added, it might have enough weight to match other short FAs. It's unusual for a video game article because due to the unique release and market, there's no critical review. That doesn't mean the article isn't comprehensive; take a look and I'll be happy to address concerns. Zeality (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Some things need fixing, but I've decided to oppose it for not being comprehensive, ultimately:

Make sure your external links adhere to WP: EL. I'd take the Mobygames link out right away.
Format sources consistently. One has the author "Kohler, Chris", while another has the "Adam Riley", which means the fore and sur- names are ordered differently.
~~Why have you used a Wikipedia article as a reference in ref 1?~~

It's actually a book, but the book has it's own wiki article, so it's linked. Since it's used inline though, I assume that the information was gleaned from a specific page/pages, which would be nice to add. BuddingJournalist 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew that, but the book isn't been cited, Wikipedia is. I didn't think that was allowed, especially as articles are subject to change. Why not cite the book or some other site?

Isn't that what ref 1 is doing? Citing the book? BuddingJournalist 22:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is, then it's not doing it correctly as book citations don't usually have links to any websites. If the book's been cited, then why have a link to Wikipedia? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand...ref 1 currently uses citebook and doesn't link to any website outside of Wiki. The only reason it's linked to the Wiki article is because we have an article on the book...it's just a useful context link for any users that want more information. But link or no link, it's obviously citing the book (it has author, publication date, publisher, title, ISBN). For example, see Example 1 of Template:Citebook. BuddingJournalist 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake; I've just never seen it linked like that and misinterpreted it as using Wikipedia as the source as an external link. Sorry about that. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 23:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry...I think I made a similar mistake once thinking that a TV show's references were based on a Wikipedia article, when it fact the links were just there as context links and the actual sources were the episodes themselves. BuddingJournalist 23:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Some refs dates are wikilinked, while some aren't, and some don't use the full dates even when they are applicable.
"This marked the first time English-speaking audiences could play and comprehend the game." Needs a source. Also isn't accurate as an English-speaking person could know Japanese.
The use of dashes is inconsistent. Some are spaced, some aren't; some are formatted as double hyphens, while others aren't.
"Chrono Cross borrowed certain thematic elements, story points, characters, music, and objects introduced in Radical Dreamers — including the infiltration of Viper Manor, the Frozen Flame, the Acacia Dragoons, the name Radical Dreamers for Kid's thievery, and the characters of Kid, Lynx, and Serge (who became a silent protagonist)." Could do with a source.
What? No section on the characters? You could probably take this info out of plot and create a section devoted to the characters
"schedule did not allow him to do his best work" This should be reworded to be more concise and formal.
The Development is basically short, but it's just been beefed up with massive quotes to make it appear substantial.
The first caption shouldn't have a full stop, as it isn't a full sentence.
The part abput the alternative scenarios seems too crufty and unnecessary. Plus, continuous prose is preferable to bullet points. Overall, it probaly should be scrapped, with a passing reference to the fact that there are multpile scenarios.
I don't know why "gameplay" has been merged with "music" in the section as these are totally contrasting features of a game.
The gamepaly paragraphs has no references at all.
"The soundtrack includes ambient pieces, used to heighten suspense during the game's tense moments." Needs a source, but is a pretty weak sentence anyway.
Lead basically mentions nothing of gameplay or music
Most importantly, there is no section on "reception", which stops it from being comprehensive. I know that it was never officially released, but there still needs to be some reaction from the media about its presence.

Well done for the work so far, though. One worthy compliment I can give is that the plot section is a very good, and has a nice summary-style without being excessive. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I can take out the Mobygames link. It seems to be automatic in WP:VG to add that link, even though it usually contributes nothing. / Chris Kohler's book doesn't have to be wikilinked, but why not?

I'll pause there until I get back. One thing I'm wondering is how to use citeweb's date function to link dates without days or months. 2007-10-01 is automatically linked, but 2007-10 and 2007 are not. Using month= and year= doesn't work, either. Zeality (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Ashnard on the linking dates in references. Linking solo days or _month_ _day_ constructs is generally avoided since it adds nothing to the article. The only reason to link full dates is because of user preferences. If you're using citeweb, then you should have nothing to worry about with linking dates, as, like you said, it automatically links dates that need linking. However, Ashnard's second point seems to be valid: this source seems to provide a full publishing date, but the article only gives the month year. A trivial thing, but an easy fix. BuddingJournalist 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that it should be done, I was just referring to the inconsistency of it. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, but I was explaining that they were "inconsistent" for a reason. Full dates are generally linked while the others are not per MOS. BuddingJournalist 23:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "marks the first time" sentence since yeah, that's probably understood without mention. // The connections to Cross are very overt (right down to the first mission in the game being the infiltration of Viper Manor), but I've added two links to help; one goes to the Chrono Compendium entry on Serge, and the other to a Gamespot editorial in 1999 noting that Chrono Cross will debut with the same protagonists that appeared in Radical Dreamers. Done for now; I'll resume when I get back. Zeality (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I made a character paragraph. // That's all I've got for the game's development. I felt that trying to put Kato's words in prose would only make things sound awkward. // The multiple scenarios wouldn't so important if they, together, probably equaled the size of the main scenario's script two times over or more. It's not like these are only multiple endings; these are virtually new stories following the gamebook concept. The bulleted list is better at communicating them compared to some unearthly, gargantuan sentence with a ton of semicolons and dashes. // I put music in its own section. My original concern was that I'd have a paragraph per heading; same reason I merged fan translation and sequels. // Concerning the music statement, it's obvious when the full soundtrack is available for perusal. There are songs consisting of nothing but wind, groans in a dungeon, machinery, quiet guitar, etc. I changed the sentence to drop the suspense assertion. // That takes care of the rest. The reception section is inactionable; there are absolutely no professional reviews for it. I've searched in Japanese as well to the best of my ability, and I can't find anything. Zeality (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be reviews, just try any media reaction or response to its existence. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"these are virtually new stories following the gamebook concept". If they're as important as you say, then why devote only a few bullet points to it? Not knowing the game, I just assumed it was trivia by the way the info was handled. Well done for the amendments do far, though. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] St Buryan

Nominator Mammal4 (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

I have wanted for some time to bring this article up to featured article status, and feel that its now good enough to give it a shot.
Until recently St Buryan was listed as a good article but was downgraded by another editor requesting further referencing. I have addressed these concerns, and added extra material to the text on the advice of others who have worked on geography articles that have passed FA assessment (here). With the extra work I now think that it is worth skipping GA and going straight for FA status.
Peer review was also requested for this article, and I have addressed the few points that were raised there
I feel that St Buryan would be a suitable FA candidate in terms of subject matter as it is not dissimilar to Chew Valley, an existing geography FA about a similar sized location.

Whatever the final outcome I thank the reviewers for their time and effort.

Mammal4 (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've done a bit of MOS tidying up. But all the refs ought to use the {{citeweb}} template particularly to list the publisher, date and accessdate. Peanut4 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no requirement to use citeweb (some editors find them helpful, while others [such as myself] find them cumbersome), but the references do need cleaning up. Authors, publishers, retrieval dates, etc. should be included. Listing a URL with a title is not enough. Note that clicking on ref 38 (Bus timetables) results in a 404 error. BuddingJournalist 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, per the FAC instructions, "an article should not be on Featured article candidates and peer review or Good article candidates at the same time." BuddingJournalist 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I will try and sort out these reference problems. I may message you on your talk page if that is Ok, as I am a little fuzzy about the correct format for weblinks and also how the 'retrieved' thing works Mammal4 (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Page nos needed for refs 13, 14 "a b c d e f g h i j k l JM Hosking, 2002. People Places & Past Events in St Buryan. ISBN 0-9501296-5-8 ;Thorn, Caroline & Frank [eds.], 1979. Domesday book: Cornwall. Phillimore, Chichester. ISBN 0-85033-155-2" ; 19 "^ Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) vol. V19 "Biography of William Noy" ; 20 "Stone, John Frederick Matthias Harris, 1912. England's Riviera: a topographical and archæological description of Land's End, Cornwall and adjacent spots of beauty and interest. Kegan Paul Trench, Trubner & Co., London."; 21 "Olson, Lynette, 1989. Early monasteries in Cornwall. Boydell. ISBN 0-85115-478-6". 26 "Lewis Topographical Dictionary of England - 1831 "
REf 24: "Exeter Episc. Regs" What is it????
WP:UNDUE to St. Buryan primary school in "Education".

Comment Um - St Buryan primary school is the only current educational facility in the parish, so by necessity it dominates the section, unless I have misunderstood your meaning of undue weight? Perhaps I should make this clearer in the text Mammal4 (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Twentieth century" has no references.
Image:Voicecornwall.jpg needs fair use rationale

Comment Have changed image to one with clearer copyright statusMammal4 (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Only some issues listed. Not taken a close look.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment This article is nice but there are a few areas you may wish to consider.
In the infobox "Dwellings" is blank - is this deliberate?
The standard for this article seems to be imperial(metric) - which seems appropriate, but in the Bronze and Iron age we find a passage turning left after a few "metres" with no imperial conversion.
History jumps from Bronze & Iron ages to middle ages - History of Cornwall describes activity in the roman era - is any of it relevant to St Buryan?
The history of the 20th century is completely unreferenced & the Industrial revolution section needs more supporting citations re China Clay etc
Could the phrase "economically inviable" be clarified?
The population change graph has an external link in the caption - could this be made into a reference?
The fourth classroom in the school is mentioned in both 20th century history & education sections
The history of the school is unsupported by citations
The section on the church says its grade I listed but this is not supported see Church of Saint Buryan at IoE
The IoE site shows 144 listed buildings in the parish - some of which might be worth a mention
In the media section, the caption "The Voice of Cornwall" is not very clear & should include the name of "Brenda Wootton" who is described as "famous" - these things are relative.
In government and politics would it be worth adding the Westminster & European constituencies which the village forms a part of?

There may be other issues, which I haven't spotted yet but I think most of these are fairly minor & could be fixed without too much effort.— Rod ^talk 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] 2007 Hawaii Bowl

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have conferred with other editors and they believe this article is worthy of FA consideration. PG Pirate 06:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, well written article, tells me everything I would need to know about the subject. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 12:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, I have a number of issues with the article before it could be considered FA worthy, in my opinion...
- Title is "2007 Hawaii Bowl", "Hawaiʻi Bowl" is also used. The naming should be consistent throughout the article.
- You've cited the spread betting in the lead but not "Many viewers believed East Carolina to be large underdogs." - firstly I don't like "large underdogs" and secondly this needs multiple citation or one stating, as you have, many viewers...
  - Doing... ? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The spread betting in the lead say 12 1/2, in the infobox it's 10 1/2...
- Ensure there are no spaces between citations and text/punctuation (e.g. [3] in the infobox).
- See WP:HEAD - "Selection Process" should be "Selection process".
- "... and has suffered ..." tense change.
- " the ninth-highest totals in the nation." needs citation and context - including NFL?
  - Doing... ? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- "...all-purpose yards ..." for FAC this needs to be accessible to all - this is a little bit jargon really, needs explanation.
  - I wikified all-purpose yards, do I need to further explain it in the article? You say "this needs to be accessible to all", is there a cite that the general population cannot read. All cites should be free for everyone to read.
    - No, what I meant was the jargon made it difficult for a non-American football officianado to understand. Wikilinking helps. When I re-review I'll try to point out anything else I find... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- "77 degrees Fahrenheit (25 degrees Celsius). " - use the {{convert}} template for this.
- I'm not keen on the short paragraphs each cited with the same reference for the match summary sections. I know it's a match report but the really short paragraphs and short sentences make for awkward reading. 23 paragraphs? Too much for me. A lot of work should be done on flowing these paragraphs together to improve the prose and hence readability.
  - Doing... ?
- "With the ensuing point after..." reads strangely (to me).
- Should use hyphen for yardage (e.g. 41-yard line, not 41–yard line) per WP:HYPHEN.
  - Doing... ?
- " 5 minutes and 53 seconds" vs " two minutes thirty-seven seconds " vs "three minutes, 59 seconds "- be consistent.
  - Is there a preferable format? Or can I choose what I want and just stick to it?
    - I don't believe so. Just stick to numbers less than or equal to ten in words. Be consistent with comma separation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Scoring summary doesn't seem to render correctly for me (the right hand edge is missing on expansion) - I'm using IE7 under XP.
  - I did not complete that table. I do not know how to fix it.
    - Perhaps you should seek out the original author? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Time of final field goal is 0:00 in table and "four seconds remaining" in the text.
  - The play began with four seconds remaining, and ended at 0:00
    - I understand, but does the normal reader? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Statistical Comparison" why double caps? Same for "Individual Leaders".
- Citations should be in numerical order (currently you have [38][37]).
- Ensure all "Retrieved on" are filled in correctly (so they generate readable dates).
  - I put all the dates in the correct format (xxxx-xx-xx). For some reason, it works for some cites and not others. I do not know what happened.
    - Perhaps some more work here... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
      - Some of the templates wikilink the access dates and some don't. It's a giant pain in the rear end. Karanacs (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Check dead links, there are at least two.
That's what I have so far. Let me know if I can explain or re-review. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The prose is very choppy and needs a little more tender loving care. Reference formatting is an issue, and I have some concerns over the reliability of certain sources used. Here are the details:**Needs a copyedit - some parts of it seem too informal, such as "big underdogs" and "good enough", there is some repetitive phrasing, and there are obvious typos like "a offensive shootout" instead of "an"

-I used the term "big underdogs" because it came from the cite I used.

- In the lead, I think the host school wikilink should go to the overall Hawaii football team, not the 2007 edition (because no Hawaii Bowl game has ever featured the 2007 Hawaii Warriors) ;)
- I would wikilink to Conference USA and the WAC in the selection process section
  - Even though they are wikilinked in the first paragraph?
- Need a reference for the fact that it was the first time the two teams had ever met
- The game recap section is full of very short paragraphs. Can they be better merged so that they flow?
- Need a reference for the fact that Johnson and Avery were voted MVPs
- The references need to be properly formatted. Each reference should include the name of the publisher. Dates should be wikilinked
  - The dates are in proper format. I do not know why they are not wikilinked. Which refs are missing publishers, I cannot find them.
- I have doubts about whether the following arereliable sources: ref 2 and ref 3
  - I don't see why these refs are bad. I changed the Aweful Announcing one though.

Karanacs (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Sea Otter

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it soundly meets the criteria. Samsara noadmin (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have a few structural and other minor points that I think need to be addressed.

The sea otter was formerly sometimes referred to as the sea beaver, : is it necessary to bolden an former and inaccurate name?

The sea otter's long whiskers and front paws are sensitive and help the otter to find prey by touch. Can this be added to the previous paragraph rather than sitting all on its lonesome.

Done Samsara noadmin (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Also, since smell and touch are discussed, what about other senses? Which sense, in particular, is used to locate prey (I'm presuming touch, but this is never explicitly spelled out.~~

Distribution and habitat Hasn't distribution already been handled in taxonomy? Do you need to rehash it?

Does this solve the concern? Samsara noadmin (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely the intro isn't the right place for it, the intro should be summarising info in the article, not presenting info not held elsewhere (and abstract of sorts. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that in an actionable way? Samsara noadmin (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fur trade and Recovery and conservation are currently both major subsections; wouldn't it make more sense to have a single major subsection (relationship with humans) with Fur trade and recovery as subsections (and the various sub sub sections below them)? :Also, these are charismatic animals, do they draw tourism and cultural interest? Are they flagship species used to promote conservation? I also vaguely recall some opposition to them as competitors with humans for abalone and sea urchins - worth at least addressing.

Overall this is close and I look forward to supporting it after these mostly small changes have been made. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm delighted to see this nomination! I've been working on this article for the past two months. However, I think this FAC is premature, as the article does need the expansions that Sabine's Sunbird mentions. I have the sources and just need to finish putting everything together. Then I would like to do a peer review and come back here in a few weeks. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment The nomination is exciting and well-deserved. Clayoquot has put in enormous amounts of quality work in the past several months and the result is easily already as good as many other FA's. That said, there are a couple of major points and several minor points I would add to Sabine's suggestions:

1) More on evolution and phylogeny! What is the relationship to other Lutrinae? Other Mustelids? Other Caniforms (Pinnipeds, Ursids, Procyonids)? What is the fossil record? What is known about how it colonized the Pacific Ocean? A phylogenetic tree would be very welcome.

2) More on interactions with humans! Sea otters have shared habitat with indigenous people of the North Pacific for tens of thousands of years before they were described by Europeans. They were an important resource, both material and cultural, to the Ainu, Koryak, Aleuts, Inuit, Tlingit, Haida and other peoples. This deserves more than the one sentence in the current version. (Coincidentally, just today I went to a Kuril Island archaeology seminar where the speaker showed a whalebone amulet carving in the shape of a sea otter, maybe 1500-3000 years old, they had excavated just last summer... it was pretty amazing).

You sound like you're the only person here qualified to cover that aspect. Wanna lend a hand? Samsara noadmin (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure I can do some work on this, but not immediately. Real life is rearing it's ugly head!... Eliezg (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a section on human cultures. It is largely lifted from the (rather excellent) Russian article, and I can't actually personally vouch for all of the sources - so that might be an issue. I don't know how to make the image look more compatible with the style. It's OK, but the caption is different from the other captions. It is difficult to obtain information easily on otters in North American coastal cultures, so I don't have any information there. Also, I think this should be a subsection within a larger section on "Relationships with humans", but that requires structural surgery that I am unwilling to perform. Best, Eliezg (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

more minor points:

3) Dentition formula needed

4) References could be compacted: there are lots of repetitions ("Silverstein, p. 38"', "Love 63"'s etc.) that can be flattened.

Done Samsara noadmin (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

5) Some passages are a little choppy.

6) I strongly second Sabine on structural changes! It's tricky to balance Range/Status against the History of Exploitation, since the former is a consequence of the latter. But I would still suggest put brief comments on the Range, Habitat and Status by region first, followed by an extended "Relationship with humans" section that includes the history of exploitation and conservation efforts.

One random thing I'd like to rave about is the picture captions. It's not often on Wikipedia that they are as informative and conscientiously related to the content as they are here - even if they are almost all very similar shots of swimming sea otters! Anyways, looking forward to seeing what happens. Best, Eliezg (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. A lovely article! Superb well-chosen images. Some small things (and there may be a few more to come):

By current rules, the caption of the image at the top should have a full stop.

Done Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ugly and even slightly ambiguous: "in late winter/spring and then again in late summer/autumn." Such slashes are not good form; and "winter/spring" might itself be taken as a unified period. Try this: "in late winter or early spring, and then again in late summer or early autumn." Better style in continuous prose.

I've put it in, giving you credit; don't think anyone will remove it. ;) Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence dashes (that is, dashes other than those marking ranges and the like) are inconsistent. One is just a spaced hyphen. Choose one style and apply it consistently. Also, some range-marking en dashes are spaced, but should not be.
Citations need to be made regular and consistent. Ranges of pages sometimes appear with "pp." (or "Pp."), sometimes with just "p."; sometimes with an en dash, sometimes with a hyphen; sometimes the hyphen is spaced, sometimes not. Full stops are not always rationally deployed in the notes (why is there none for note 79?), and other punctuation seems occasionally arbitrary and inconsistent also (see note 90, and others).

Done I think I caught all instances of this. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For all of these points see WP:MOS. There's not much effort needed to fix these!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment A few more points:

1) Perhaps the "keystone species" concept should be removed from the lead? While it is important, it is also a somewhat subtle and, in my view, distracting concept. It is also, in fact, a somewhat speculative/qualitative concept.

2) The physical description needs comments on pelage coloration, range of tones and darknesses, difference with age, etc. This is important anyway in a description of species, but particularly so in view of the particular importance of otter fur.

3) "Physical characteristics" should be separated from "Behavior" and expanded.

4) Diet should be separated from Hunting/Feeding Behavior, probably included in Ecology. It should also contained some quantitative data on the role of various prey items as well as differences throughout the range, which are significant.

Not to be a stick in the mud, but I think there is enough work that needs to be done on the content and structure of the article that an FAC might be premature. A peer-review would be beneficial. Best, Eliezg (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Why spend the effort on two processes, when one would suffice? The outcome of peer review would be a FAC anyway, why not just do it now and get it done with? There isn't *THAT* much in the article to do, and there's no giant rush. Peer review is more for articles that don't know where to go. I think it's pretty clear here what needs to be done. pschemp | talk 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, FAC reviews are most useful for attracting attention to fixing formatting and maintaining consistency with Wikipedia style. They are relatively weak on assessing content. The subject of this article is essentially scientific, and it has some shortcomings as an overview of a biological organism. By the time everything is addressed, including some relatively fundamental structural changes outlined above, it will need another full format reading. The only content related comments or contributions that have been made so far have been my own, and while I am a professional in a related field, I am not comfortable with being the ONLY person to assess the article for it's content. My impression is that Clayoquot, who is almost solely responsible for bringing this article to the condition it is now, feels the same way... Oh, wait, forget "think"! Here are Clayoquot's exact words from above: "I think this FAC is premature... Then I would like to do a peer review and come back here in a few weeks." Best, Eliezg (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is already much longer than other species FAs - compare with the condor, also nominated and going well. It is fairly clear that it's already comprehensive. Keep in mind that you're writing an encyclopaedic article, not a mini-textbook. As for credentials, I don't think I want to be having this debate. My recent impressions of peer review are that you'd be lucky to get one decent commentary. SPR, meanwhile, is defunct. If there are people that you want to look at the article, why not invite them here? Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Super-quick note before I run to catch a bus for the weekend: As the person here who is probably most familiar with the source material, I know there are some significant content gaps. My plan is to keep writing to do the obvious things, discuss the non-obvious change requests on Talk, and only then drop a note on the talk pages of the relevant wikiprojects plus a few FA writers to ask for further feedback. I would follow this sequence whether a discussion continues to happen at this particular FAC nom or not. The article may change only 10% or so via this process but it's important to get there. Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This piece needs a lot of work. It is overly-long, has structural problems, and I would like to check the trustworthiness of the sources.Mike Bate (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Great work. This article is, when compared to other FA mammal articles, obviously not overly long and it is comprehensive in its coverage of the organism. The sources look fine to me, and your use of in-line citations is sterling. I do, however, see some small issues with the images when compared to WP:MOS#Images: there some places where images are stacked on top of each other in a row on the right. Better spacing is needed, and I'll try out a different alignment. Other than that, I definitely see this as being FA. VanTucky 08:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made the image alterations I think need doing. Good luck! VanTucky 08:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Support—very good indeed.

I suppose the O rather than o is necessary in the title ... lower case would be preferable unless it violates some other rule.
Please delink the single years (1741, etc) and centuries.
En dashes for ranges should be unspaced. Hyphens --> en dashes in the reference list (page ranges).
Consider not bolding in the Taxonomy section. (See MOS on this.)
"grooming. Grooming" Tony (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
"1880's—See MOS; no apostrophe.
"sea beaver,"—See MOS on final punctuation and quotation marks (punctuation after closing marks).

Support - I fixed ref 18 which was a bare url, myself. No other problems Jimfbleak (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Normally I would support this article. It looks to me like it meets all of the criteria and its use of images and their captions are among the best (if not the best) I’ve seen. However, Kla’quot, who seems to be the main contributor to this article, has said that (s)he does not think this article is complete. If the primary contributor does not think an article is complete to the degree of 10%, then I’m not sure what to do. I don’t buy the earlier argument that it is plenty long because it is longer than the also FAC Andean Condor since each article has its own possibility of length- ranging from lion at 105,000 bytes to Cape Fear Shiner at 15,500 bytes. Anyways, while I don’t think that this article’s quality is going to magically drop as Kla’quot finishes it, I don’t feel right supporting an article with 10% of it left to complete. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Tangential discussion on wiki processes moved to Talk page) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why is the article not at Sea otter? –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-closing note: closed in deference to the principle editor, Clayoquot, who wanted more time to finish the article.[14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Jonathan Pryce

The article has been a GA for over a month now, it has been copy edited many times since then by different users and i think it could now be considered a FA. Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 15:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Thanks for your hard work on the article, but it has some issues that need to be addressed before it can be promoted to FA. In particular, I am worried about its comprehensiveness and the reliability of certain sources, and I believe it may need another copyedit. Here are some more detailed suggestions.
- The article could do with another copyedit. In particular, the early life section does not flow well, and the 1980s section has some repetitive word choices.
- The 1970s section and early life section are both very short. Is thare any way to combine them or to flesh out any of them? Did he receive any critical notice (good or bad) for his first few roles?
- Why is there an mdash in the sentence about his meeting and marrying? To me that seems to be better suited to be multiple sentences.
- Need a citation for the claim that he "had a small but pivotal role" in the Hitchhiker's Guide, and for the claim that Breaking Glass "is remarkable"
- The article does a good job of describing the movies that he acted in, but I think it could use more information about how the performances were perceived by critics.
- Please move the succession box to the bottom of the article. This is not supposed to be used as article content.
- I don't think the following count as reliable sources: The geocities cite for ref 26, the onsayfa for ref 7, ref 18 (Hal Leonard online), ref 22 (allocine.co.uk), ref 28, ref 35.

Karanacs (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Pale Fire

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is very well written, well-cited, concise, and it provides a lot of useful insight into a novel by one of the 20th century's best writers.Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Here are some issues:
Theres a {{fact}} tag; this needs to be sourced, but there are also some other challengeable statements, particularly this paragraph: "The book is also full of references to culture, nature, and literature. Some have been greatly emphasized by critics; others may be trifles.(sources) Many feel the book is more enjoyable if the reader deciphers or pursues these references independently.(sources) "
"At first glance, Pale Fire is the publication of a 999-line poem in four cantos ("Pale Fire") by a famous American poet, John Shade. " Then what is it at second glance?
The one lonesome line in "Explanation of the title" needs to be merged into another paragraph or dealt with.
the lead should contain another paragraph, as per WP:LEAD to summarize the entire article.
Reception; what did critics say about it? You have only one reference in the lead.

--David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose While I am happy that the editors have taken it upon themselves to work on this article, for Pale Fire is one of the twentieth century's most important novels, I'm afraid that the article doesn't meet the featured article criteria yet:

The structure of the article can be improved. For example, the material in "Explanation of the title" should be integrated into the article as a whole. There is not enough material in this section for an entire section. The "Interpretations" section should have enough material in it to allow for subsections.

The "Interpretations" section is discussed in vague terms throughout The lack of research here limits the article.

Ex: Some readers concentrate on the apparent story, focusing on traditional aspects of fiction such as the relationship among the characters.[8][9] They may make a case that Kinbote is parasitic on Shade, or that Shade's poem is mediocre and Kinbote, the inventor of Zembla, is a true genius.[citation needed] In 1997, Brian Boyd published a much-discussed study[10] arguing that the ghost of John Shade influenced Kinbote's contributions. He later expanded this essay into a book, in which he also argues that Hazel's ghost induced Kinbote to say things to Shade that inspired Shade's poem. - The specifics are missing from this paragraph - the "how".
Ex: Still other readers de-emphasize any sort of "real story" and may doubt the existence of such a thing. In the interplay of allusions and thematic links, they find a multifaceted image of English literature,[19] criticism,[15] literary idolatry,[23] politics,[23] or some other topic. - All of these topics need to be explained in much more detail.
The "Interpretations" section is limited to a series of readings of the characters. What about political readings, for example? What other kinds of interpretations are there?

There is no "Genre" or "Style" section. The "Plot summary" makes it clear that this work is written in a very unusual style - this must be discussed in the terms that scholars have discussed it.

There is also no "Themes" section - this might be optional, due to how the "Interpretations" section is structured, but it is definitely something to consider.

There is no "Reception" section, explaining how the work was received when it was published, and no "Legacy" or "Literary influence", explaining its role in literary history.

The "Allusions and references" section, in its current state, does not educate the reader. Such sections are always dubious, but, if included, they always have to explain the importance of the allusions and references. Moreover, they should not be presented as lists, but as coherent paragraphs.

It looks from the notes like the editors have amassed some good sources, but for a featured article on a novel of the stature of Pale Fire, much more needs to be done. Quite a bit of scholarship has been written on this book and it should be fully utilized to flesh out the article.

I have confidence that, over time, this article can become a good one. The editors just need to spend time researching and expanding it. They might also take a look at some of the other novel FAs, such as Uncle Tom's Cabin or Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman. Awadewit | talk 21:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: As one editor of this article, I thank Athene cunicularia for the nomination and David Fuchs and Awadewit for commenting, and I'm still hoping for comments from others.

As you may have seen, I took the comment on a "reception" section to heart and was lucky enough to find a source on line. Since I'm interested in improving the article, I'll probably follow some of the other suggestions. However, as I'm not interested in the rating, I'll choose the ones that are important to me. So far, none of the other editors seems to be interested in the rating either—Athene cunicularia (why do I want to italicize that? :-) hasn't edited the article under that name, apparently a refreshing change from people nominating their own articles—so some of the suggestions above will probably have to wait for other editors to take an interest.

To respond to some specific points:

I totally agree about sourcing the statements without sources, whether tagged or not. It may be time to delete a few of them.
I also addressed "at first glance", now that you pointed out the problem.
I don't see a problem with the one-paragraph sentence on the "pale his uneffectual fire" line, though I could add that Boyd has made much of it.
At present I have no idea how to summarize the article, though I do favor leads with summaries so readers uninterested in detail can get some kind of idea. Attempts by others are welcome (of course).
I put in the "Explanation of the title" section as suggested at WikiProject Novels, but at the time it seemed serendipitous, as the agreed-on facts about the title are hard to work into the competing theories. I'm not sure I know a better way to handle it.
I don't understand the comment that the "how" is missing from the "Some readers concentrate" part. Is this, for example, how Hazel influenced Kinbote, or how Boyd makes his case, or both? In any case, it strikes me as too much detail for an encyclopedia article. Likewise I don't see a good reason to explain the theories listed in the next section, say Myers's theory, which as far as I can tell no one believes. What has limited my contributions here is only partly a lack of research; in some areas I could say more, but I believe most readers won't want such a level of detail, and those that do can follow the references.

Explaining "the how": How is Kinbote parasitic on Shade? How is Shade's poem mediocre? How did Shade influence Kinbote's contributions? The reader needs details. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, but it is very hard to follow this description without the details. Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If no one believes Myers's theory, why is it included here? Is it a "fringe" theory of literary criticism? Usually, we try and include the "standard" readings of novels. I like to think of it as: What would be taught in a undergraduate class? Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As for political readings, I don't know of any. That word is from the jacket copy of a recent edition. I suppose it would be good to find one (not that I'd put much stock in it) or delete the word.

I suggest more research, then. There undoubtedly are some. Political readings have been a popular kind of literary criticism for the last thirty years or so. Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Genre—though I'm responsible for the dubious "Literary" in the infobox, what little I know about literary theory suggests that this novel is not in a genre, that is, one cannot come to it with expectations of what one will find or how to read it. I hope someone who knows more than I do will take this question on.

Again, more research will help you. The infobox is irrelevant (and deceiving, as you can tell). Books and articles written by literary scholars will explain the genre (even if it is it's own genre). Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Style—is this about the unusual narrative structure, or Kinbote's prose and Shade's poetry, or both? Is someone going to have to read Pekka Tammi?

It is about whatever scholars focus on - that is the key here. What do scholars focus on. In literary articles, we are restricted to what literary scholars have written about. They are our sources. What elements of the style do they think are important? Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Themes—is this like the Relation of Art and Reality, or the plums mentioned here and there, or both? If it's something like the plums, I think one example of a theme, with a mention that there are many others, would be enough.

Yes, that is the idea, but again, all of this must be drawn from scholarly sources. We can't just include what we want, as that would be original research. Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought literary influence was out of style since it's so hard to discuss objectively. (I shouldn't believe everything I read on the Internet.) A cursory search of the Web doesn't turn up anything, and I don't know of anything. Has anybody ever said his or her fiction was influenced by PF, or made a good case that someone else's was?

Literary influence is not out of style, as far as I know! Like I explain below, the web won't help you when it comes to literature. You (or someone) is going to have do serious library work. :) Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine a full discussion of all those allusions and references. For just the one to Frost, here is a whole essay (which should probably be cited), and I could go on for some paragraphs about the significance of Frost in PF without saying anything that's in that essay. But I have no desire to layer and frost an unambiguous encyclopedia article into the monstrous semblance of a monograph (see note to lines 47–48). The list of allusions wasn't my idea, but I think it does educate the reader by showing the variety of external allusions and giving links. I must admit, though, that it may not be very helpful to include something like "lemniscate", since the reader can just look up the word.

Well, I wouldn't discuss all of the allusions, anyway. (Following the WikiProject Novel guidelines too slavishly is a recipe for disaster.) Lists of allusions don't educate the reader, because they usually don't know the allusions (I know this from teaching literature to college students, sadly). Again, I think any discussion of allusions should be focused around the scholarship. See Ulysses (poem) for an excellent example of this. Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope for replies to the above and for further comments. Even if I don't agree with them, someone else may (or you can apply them yourself). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The key to answering many of these questions is research. Unfortunately, most academics in the humanities don't publish on the internet. You will have go to the library or - if you have access to a university library - you can do research on the "deep web", as they say. For example, you (or someone interested in researching this article) needs to use the MLA database, which lists all of the articles and books published in literary criticism. Typing in key words like 'Pale Fire" and "Nabokov" will go a long way to getting you excellent sources. The second database I would try is JSTOR. Many excellent public libraries have these and all university research libraries do. Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 01:52, 21 January 2008.

[edit] The Sweet Escape (song)

I was going to wait for the Rock Steady (album) FAC to close, but that's moving pretty slowly. It's been a GA since August, but I wanted to wait until the song was off of all of the charts and I could find more information about how it was written. It recently exited the Canadian Hot 100, which was already weird to explain in the article since there's no archive of the Canadian Singles Chart and the Canadian Hot 100 was officially introduced after the song had reached its peak. I also found a good article about Akon which discussed writing the song, so the article seems ready to me. 17Drew (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Support - Another healthy article from the Gwen Stefani factory. Very nice article with minor problems which i might point out when i am back in April. Indianescence (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Improper Nomination Talk moved to FAC talk page--Keerllston 04:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Precedent found--Keerllston 10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Failure to ensure FA quality--Keerllston 15:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Support I did a copyedit as I went through. Two things: insert the "flat" note symbol to replace the illegible script box, and add a reference to the allusion sentence in the music video section (it sounds like original research). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the part about the allusion completely; that was added by someone else a week ago, and it looks like OR since I can't find a source supporting it. For the flat symbols, do you mean changing it to a letter b? 17Drew (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I distinctly remember seeing a flat symbol used in a song article that worked perfectly. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Does ♭ work for you? 17Drew (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a, formatting, MOS breaches, over-the-top approach to providing educational commentary for the fair-use justification, and 1c. Here are just some samples of problems. The whole text needs careful attention: auditing, copy-editing.

How will readers in the future know what "to date" means? Will they know to sift through the diffs to find the date intended?
- "To date" means up until the when the article is read. She hasn't had a top 40 song since this single because of the fact that she's no longer promoting the album and has returned to the studio with No Doubt. The only change that will need to be made will likely be changing it once her singles are off the air and it will refer to her solo career in the past tense, which is no more of a change than updating the information about the Grammy nomination. 17Drew (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
"he reviewed her body of work"—some readers will conjure up a fleshy image. Remove "body of".
- I agree, though I think the issue is less that people don't know what homonyms and simply that there's no point in using three works when one will do. 17Drew (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Formatting of song titles: double quotes, italics, initial caps? Which is it to be?
- Maybe you're unfamiliar with the conventions? The song is consistently referred to as "The Sweet Escape" (with double quotes and initial caps) except once in the Background and writing section when it refers to the working title as noted in reference 2. 17Drew (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
When talking about style and technique in relation to an audio clip, keep to information we can understand and relate it to the bigger picture of either their style or that of the genre more broadly. "The song uses two-measure phrases that, aside from the choruses, use a i-III-IV-VI chord progression. The B♭ minor chord is held for 1⅓ of a beat, and a relative transformation is then used to produce a second inversion D♭ major chord, which is held for 1⅔ of a beat. In the second measure, a first inversion E♭ major chord with an added ninth precedes a G♭ major seventh chord; the chords are held for the same durations as the previous two.[6]" Now, I know what all of this means technically, but it doesn't help me to imagine the style: it's just too technical and not sufficiently relevant to the style. The chord progression could be distinctive (especially IV–VI, note the en dash, not a hyphen), but citing it doesn't convince me of this. The same for the hair-splitting one and a third of a beat, etc. and the G-flat major-seventh chord, well, so what? Neither experts nor general readers will benefit from this. The song mixes those styles? Yes, that's good to say. Remove "composed" as a redundancy. I think the 120MM tempo is unremarkable, so consider omitting. The huge vocal range, yes, that is worth mentioning. Hyphens for "first/second-inversion" when used as a compound adjective.
- Describing the song's harmony is a pretty important part of the article, and it wouldn't be comprehensive without that information. However, relating that to the song's "style" would be original research since it's not backed by the sheet music. If people see a connection between Akon's introduction or the slight swing in the chord progression and traditional doo-wop structures, then that's great. But we can't make that connection if the sheet music doesn't make it and there aren't any references supporting it. I've made the other changes, though you may want to check on the use of en dashes since I formatted the progression based on the Chord progression article, which seems to use hyphens as the convention. 17Drew (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Read MOS on the final period in captions. The left-side gold cage image: make it right-side to avoid squashing the text in the middle. Remove OF.
- I've changed the noun phrases to independent clauses, so this should be fine now. 17Drew (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced of the reliability of some of the references. For example, Ref 16—anyone can write in about.com, and this link goes to highly opinionated and not-very-well written hype, sandwiched around commercial push.
- I'm not sure where you're getting that claim from. I haven't seen anything that suggests that, and considering all of the site's employees are supposed to be hired experts, I'm not seeing why it would fail WP:SPS. 17Drew (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  - I guess it depends on how you define "expert"; anyone can sign up to write for about.com, and if no other editor has covered that territory, you're probably hired. [15]. Can you establish some credentials for this particular writer? And can you establish any fact checking and editorial oversight for writers at about.com? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
"With 6.4 million in sales"—Remove "in", unless you mean dollars. Tony (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments
the link to single is pointless in this article, it's like linking song
early 2007 (see 2007 in music) - linking this is pointless and breaks the prose - even if it is recommended by a guideline, does it add anything to the article?
link doo-wop in the third paragraph of Background and writing - had no idea what it was, realised it was in the infobox after searching for it
All Music Guide described the song - one reviewer does not represent the entire website, all reviews need to be attributed to the reviewer in this case it's Stephen Thomas Erlewine for AMG. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If FAs are comprehensive, what is this: This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it. Also, the year ender chart is not needed. Add it to the chart performance section. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 01:39, 21 January 2008.

[edit] K Foundation

This is a companion piece to The KLF, which is already Featured. It was written by the same team and to the same standard as that article, and has been in an arguably FAC ready state for quite some time. I am nominating the article as I believe that it meets all of the FAC criteria and is amongst Wikipedia's best work.

The article is a current Good Article and has undergone a peer review.

One issue from the peer review which went unresolved until today was the length of the Context section, with one reviewer feeling it was too long. I have therefore truncated the section; in the current version we are introduced to Messrs Drummond & Cauty as they enter the music business, we're with them as they form a partnership in 1987, and then we skip to 1992 when their most successful enterprise - The KLF - comes to an end. We are then able to proceed to the formation of K Foundation. I would be grateful if reviewers would also look at the previous revision (diff) just in case I've been a bit too eager with the cutting knife.

I look forward to receiving your comments. --kingboyk (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article uses certain POV adjectives;

"In the early 1980s, British musician and artist Jimmy Cauty was the guitarist in an underachieving pop/rock band, Brilliant.[1]" - According to whom was this band "underachieving"? Which reputable critic felt that this band should've achieved more than it did? Whether a band achieves or underachieves is relative to how an individual person measures achievement.
"Within five years, however, the duo - now calling themselves The KLF - and had become one of Britain's biggest bands." - Who feels they became "one of Britain's biggest bands"? This is an opinion, so therefore needs attribution.
"The first manifestation of the mysterious K Foundation was a series of adverts in UK national newspapers in 1993." - "Mysterious"? Who felt that the K Foundation was mysterious?

There's one or two other instances, but I'll highlight them once the above has been addressed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Quick replies now as it's late and I'm tired.

Sorry, missed that one, will answer later.--kingboyk (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
That, of course, was a self-evident statement in the pre-truncated version (hard link above) as it followed a block of well-referenced text explaining their rise to (somewhere near) the top. As it now stands, it needs some sort of citation or modification - good find! (There's nothing wrong with being forceful BTW, that doesn't make it my "point of view"; it's a true statement and I can back it up with sources :))

I've now reworded the offending sentence and introduced a direct quotation:

By 1991, the duo—now calling themselves The KLF—had become the best-selling singles band in the world and, according to the All Music Guide, were "on the verge of becoming superstars".[10] Instead, in May 1992 they machine-gunned a music industry audience at the BRIT Awards (albeit with blanks) and quit the music business.[11]

If you don't like that (or the old version with a longer KLF history) I could remove "according to the AMG", and add a further quotation from Vox which is currently in footnote 11, that they were "perched on the peak of greater-than-ever success". Really, however, I think it's not at all controversial or opinionated to suggest that The KLF were big in 1991/early 1992. --kingboyk (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure about that, will look into it further tommorow. I seem to recall there being debate initially about "who the hell are the K Foundation". If there identity was a mystery they were mysterious. --kingboyk (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A quotation in the very next sentence sets the scene actually: "people started whispering. The cultish rhetoric, the unfathomable "Divide and Kreate" slogans, the K symbols, all suggested that the kings of cultural anarchy were back." It wasn't known who the KF were when they first appeared, but people were quickly guessing Drummond/Cauty. Now, that said, I've reviewed the section and feel the word "mysterious" is somewhat superflous anyway. So, that's been removed; will look at #s 1 and 2 tommorow. Bring it on with the others you mentioned please, cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, item 1 is backed up by a citation; the cited article says "Later, as an A&R man, he worked with Youth's wretched Brilliant, a mid-'80s group whose lasting cultural significance amounts to its inclusion of ex-Zodiac Mindwarp keyboardist/guitarist Jimmy Cauty". I can add other citations on the same thing if need be (see Brilliant (band) but this isn't an article on Brilliant :)) Now, we could have written something like "unsuccessful", or we could be totally bland and just say "he was a member of Brilliant".

I think it's fine as it is, so if you disagree please let me know what you want me to do to change it. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Later, as an A&R man, he worked with Youth's wretched Brilliant, a mid-'80s group whose lasting cultural significance amounts to its inclusion of ex-Zodiac Mindwarp keyboardist/guitarist Jimmy Cauty." - This needs attribution, since not everyone agrees the band had a "lasting cultural significance". It's not fact, but an opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- ? That's direct from source man. It's not even in the Wikipedia article. Are we getting our wires crossed here? --kingboyk (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We are getting our wires crossed indeed, because you need to say who believes that. For example, if Critic Y of Z magazine says they had "lasting cultural significance", then you need to say that Critic Y believes that. Just because Critic Y said it, that doesn't make it fact. It merely makes it Critic Y's opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but I don't quote them. How about I just delete that part and introduce us to Cauty and Drummond around 1991? Also, what were the other issues you have with the article, if any? Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another option, instead of worrying about whether Brilliant were "underachieving" or not: I could jump straight to, say, 1991, and skip all previous context? All we really need to know before we get to discussing the K Foundation is what the guys were doing in the previous years and how it came to be that they had a million quid to (literally) burn on an art foundation. Thoughts? --kingboyk (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 01:39, 21 January 2008.

[edit] The Chaser's War on Everything

This has been worked on by a stack of editors, including myself, for a while now. Recently it's been a bit more stable, but it retains a high quality. A recent peer review is available here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Some refs are missing publishers and publishing dates.

Doing... Some references don't have publishing dates, but am still working on. SpecialWindler talk (currently offlineoffline) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"On the 14th of November 2007" - not correctly formatted

Y Done SpecialWindler talk (currently offlineoffline) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Image captions shouldn't have fullstops if they're not complete sentences.

N Not done I'm not sure what pic you are refering to. SpecialWindler talk (currently offlineoffline) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"The entire team of The Chaser on The Chaser's War on Everything on July 14, 2006." "Chaser member Chas Licciardello along with Chris Taylor (right) and ABC crew, doing an Ad Road-Test on Godfrey's vacuum cleaners." "Imitation insecurity passes used by The Chaser to breach the APEC Australia 2007 restricted zone." All are descriptions and not full sentences. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"the first thirteen episodes" - should be "the first 13 episodes"

N Not done Per MOS:NUM, numbers that are one or two words should be worded. SpecialWindler talk (currently offlineoffline) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is consistancy. Why are other numbers in the article that are one or two words not worded? Epbr123 (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"on 17 February 2006 at 9.45 pm" - should be 9:45 pm

Y Done SpecialWindler talk (currently offlineoffline) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"to appear in court on 4 October 2007[40];" - ref belongs after punctuation

Y Done SpecialWindler talk (currently offlineoffline) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"on stage in his musical 'Dead Caesar'." - italics needed, not apostrophes.

Y Done SpecialWindler talk (currently offlineoffline) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Epbr123 (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Here are examples from the first para that indicate the density of problems throughout.
- "satire group"—unidiomatic. "satirical" would be better, but a repetition.
- Audit for commas: more are needed for easy reading (either side of "The Chaser" in the second sentence, for a start).
- "Knight is however a writer for the show, and Firth did roving reports for the show from the United States, until he left the group to start his own satirical newspaper in mid-2007." "However is better at the start of the clause, followed by a comma. "For the show"—ungainly repetition. "Did" is a little tired. "His own" would be OK if satirical newspapers had already been raised as an issue in relation to the other members. Replace with "a".
- Why is that little-known country "the US" linked? I can just see all of our readers interrupting their progress and rushing to that article.

Then: MOS issues aplenty, like the period in the caption. And do not refer to it as "ABC": the is always required unless it's an epithet. It's not American ABC. Tony (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mostly

Done - I've gone through about 90% of the article trying to fix such problems. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Be consistent with italicising titles. I spot three Sunrises and one Chaser's War On Everything left plain. If you must link articles on countries, only do it once - there's no need to link every inclusion of "United States" etc. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Italics. Some instances of shows that aren't italicised as of yet (as pointed out by GeeJo) and all newspapers (e.g., The Age, The Courier-Mail, etc) cited in the article must also have italics. Spebi 01:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~--Kiyarrllston 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: "fines to parking inspectors" is not a "reason"

Oh wow...your one reason for opposing took me all of one edit to resolve. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not formally name a reason for opposing. - let us do away with formalities.

Kiyarrllston 05:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

PS was my oppose invalid for the period of time where it had no examples?

PPS is my oppose invalid now?

PPPS "They instead broadcast scenes[,] where the members were seen[,] as arrogant" - seems horrible phrasing - perhaps "Channel 7 broadcast scenes that they judged made the Chaser crew look arrogant"?

PPPPS Sorry if this is a bit annoying - would changing my vote from "Oppose" to "Weak Oppose" soften the impact of my behavior? Please believe me that it has nothing to do with you - Although I believe we have "met" before... - and we did disagree... (would me supporting make you feel that it wasn't about you?)

PPPPPS Oh! Happy New Year!

Oh, sorry, I figured that comment in the "PS" was part of the oppose (since it was in the same edit). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I'd say yes.

PPS I'll deal with this stuff, so yeah, I'd think so...

PPPS

Done

PPPPS I don't think it's about me or anything like that. Our last meeting was on my last FAC ;)

PPPPPS Same to you :)

Neutral can I do that? I just wanna comment - as I said on msn, the whole show content section seems to need a cleanup and is very OR-ish. Thanks. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant discussion here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. My argument still stands. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions Is IMDB a reliable source? (I somehow thought this website can be edited by any users) Also, ref 29 & 42 don't work for me, please check them. PeaceNT (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done - I fixed the refs. IMDB is only being used to cite an awards list, which as far as I'm aware is reliable - if an alternative, more reliable (I'm aware of the issues with that site) ref can be found, I'd suggest replacing (and would be happy to do so). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done - I've linked to the official AFI announcement of the 2006 award winners including TCWOE and Hansen. --Canley (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wheaty Oppose

- I'm guessing that, as often happens, the plot does not have any available references - so when the article says "Seeming to replace "In Other News ...""- this "seems to" is actually "In the eyes of our wikipedian editor"

That would be a correct assumption. Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"There was much debate surrounding whether or not to" - "much"? "whether or not"? - who debated with who? - I suggest "[person x] and [person y] debated whether to" or "[The group] debated whether to"

Fixed. Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the Reception section is comprehensive. - the "Awards" section seems to speak to a positive reception not truly mentioned.-Can you find reviews outside the "current affairs programs"?

I'll take a look - there isn't that much (that I know of) outside puff peaces by ACA/TT. Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

--Kiyarrllston 02:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PS:have you looked at The World Without Us FAC?

PPS:Thanks for reading this comment

The article was not promoted 01:39, 21 January 2008.

[edit] Barbara Gordon

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I originally helped promote the article to GA Status. The article had been peer reviewed and I have corrected all the issues which came up in GAR. I believe the article meets the FA criteria.

Nominator Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments: --Reinoutr (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Article contains quite a bit of in-universe prose, even in the introduction (e.g. "Following her retirement as Batgirl in 1988, Gordon was crippled ..." and "Prior to her career as a vigilante, Barbara Gordon developed many technological skills.."). Please realize that there are more, these are just examples.

Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

- References 70-86 contain extra "[" and "]" symbols for external links, should be removed
  - Comment: I've filled out the templates for citing episodes using Wikipedia:Citation_templates. As far as I can tell, if filled out the template properly, but the "[ ]" still appear. I am not sure how to correct this... Or perhaps I can use the cite_website template instead? Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Yes these templates can be a pain to work with. I fixed them for you now: [16]. The "episodelink" and "serieslink" values were only meant for Wikipedia articles, not for external links. You could only use the "url" value for that. --Reinoutr (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

- Reference 86 external link goes to the wrong location

Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per comprehensivity concerns. I'm a bit worried that many of the books listed as references are not cited in the article.

Comment: Daniels, Les. DC Comics: Sixty Years of the World's Favorite Comic Book Heroes and Arant, Wendi. Benefiel, Candace. The Image and Role of the Librarian literally reiterate themes/quote which are already cited in the article by other sources. these can be previewed on google scholar if you would like to verify this claim. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I went back and added two interesting bits of info from The Image and Role of the Librarian which were not mentioned by other sources. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Many of these have valuable reliable information about the character. The ones that are cited need page numbers. Once source completely ignored is the Batman history by Les Daniels; I own the book and it provides a reasonable amount of information. As listed above, some of the prose needs to be less in-universe.

Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the footnotes pass Ref 70 need publisher info (what site did they appear on?). Try to combine some of the smaller paragraphs.

Comment: the template for citing episodes at Wikipedia:Citation_templates does not require publisher info, but it does link to the website (tv.com) Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You're citing a link, though, so use Cite Web and credit the website. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The long sections featuring quotes about The Killing Joke and people arguing for the character's mobility to be restored seem to give undue weight to criticism of the character developments. How did people react to her crippling in 1988? That's more relevant than what a multitude of modern critics think about the story now. I think you can do with removing the D'Orizio and Hudson quotes completely. The D'Orizio quote in particular seems tangential. You might be able to summarize and/or quote a small portion of Hudson's comments. The "critical and editorial commentary" needs to be restructured to be more encyclopedic; right now it seems more like an essay about the character being in a wheelchair and what that represents.

Try and cut down the "Birds of Prey" section a bit more" (the sentence about the Huntress joining is unnecessary for this article, for one; mention the character elsewhere if necessary).

Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't need the "Alternate versions" section at all; move the details about All-Star Batgirl into the publishing section (to paraphrase Alan Moore, they're all imaginary stories; a Batgirl title is a Batgirl title being published by a notable real-world publisher by notable creators).

Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Place the "Alternative versions of Barbara Gordon" link under a "See also" section, or delete/merge there's no real-world notability to the entries. If you can address these comments contact me and I'll review the article again. I do think it's a good article overall, and I wish that more comics character articles were of this quality. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately I do not own any of the books that are listed as sources. I was able to read portions on all of them which were cited in the article using google scholar. I have not tried using google scholar for the Batman History by Daniels, but if I can preview the book I'll add whatever I can.

I approached the quotes by D'Orizio and Hudson as a means to display frank reactions to the killing joke displaying both points of view. I also brought the issue to the Wikiprojects Comics page and the consensus (although small) was that it warrants inclusion in the article. I would personally prefer not to remove either completely, though I would agree to summarizing both. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: I can source from the Daniels Batman book for you. I would recommend trying to get the others from a library if you can; Google book search often doesn't give you access to every page (but you were able to view all the pages that discussed Batgirl, then you can ignore me). I undertstand giving balance to the different reactions, but it's not the best way, especially since that D'orizio quote is more about how women are treated in comics in general. For an example on how to tackle this, I cited some information about the controversy surrounding the death of Jason Todd from a number of sources. Try and approach it like I did over there. Also, have you looked at mainstream media sources? You'd be suprised at what you can find. Go through time.com, nytimes.com, msnbc.com, bbc.co.uk, and guardian.co.uk for starters. Even if you come up empty, searching through mainstream news media should be your first course of action when looking for online sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply:I've gone to my local library and my college library as well and they don't have the best selection for comprehensive books on comics, much to my dismay! I was really hoping my school had daniels book when I was looking for it months ago, but no luck. In addition I have also tried looking through mainstream media website for information on Barbara Gordon, but so far I have come up with squat. I will do another run through on those sites you mentioned to be safe.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I did another run through on mainstream news websites but they do not have any valuable information on Barbara Gordon. I found about 4 brief articles which (barely) mention her television adaptations. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There are a awful lot of quotations, couldn't these be turned into prose?--Nydas^(Talk) 10:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: according to WP:QUOTE, As a matter of style, quotebooxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it; quoteboxes may be acceptable in certain circumstances, especially when the quote is itself notable, and a major part of the article's topic. This is the only reason I've been weary about turing the quotes into prose. One of the complaints in GAR was that there was no real world accountability for Barbara Gordon's claim as a female icon (Batgirl) and as a disabled icon (Oracle). The quotes selected in the article specifically reflect these issues in addition to the controversy of the characters mobility. My only concern is that changing quotes into prose may alter the tone of the subject matters, particularly in the "Critical and editorial commentary" section. I will look through the article to see which quotes can easily be changed into prose and I would appreciate more comments on this particular topic. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

2 quotes from the batgirl section of the publication history have been changed to prose. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

3 quotes from the killing joke section of the publication history have been changed to prose. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's better. Be careful about assuming that the character really is a disabled or female icon, though. If that were so, it should be possible to find more stuff from outside the world of comics.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

as mentioned in the article and in many of the references, she is considered to be iconic, though this status is only casually mentioned by observers. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 01:39, 21 January 2008.

[edit] New Year's Revolution (2007)

I have written the article recently, and it has undergone a successful peer review. I have decided to directly nominate the article at FAC, instead of GAN, because I believe the article meets all the Featured Article Criteria. Cheers, Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not a support or oppose but is a concern that most of the article is sourced from the WWE website, which is not an independent source? I am unsure what the usual practice is with Pro Wrestling articles. The article is certainly comprehensive enough and while there are some stylistic issues, written reasonably well. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply The article is basically a recap of the event, and because WWE was the host of the event, it has many different articles including extensive recaps for each match and each show before and after the event; so everything I basically needed was what the site included. However, the minimum third-party sources in the article include information WWE.com did not supply. Also, there was no important backstage trouble or consequences to be added, so I didn't need information from sites with "inside sources" like WrestleView or ProWrestlingScoops (unlike December to Dismember, where the event influenced many contract releases and the fate of WWE's ECW brand). Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 05:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:TheGiantTheKingThePoser.jpg needs fair use criteria for this article; it only has it for Cyber Sunday. — brighterorange (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Y Done Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I know there is a push for WP:PW members to be the only group not allowed to vote on FACs from their own project, but I just don't think this is up to Featured Article level. A few of my concerns are:

Almost all of the sources are primary sources from WWE. As has been discussed in the past, writers paid by WWE are not considered reliable sources for WWE-related articles. It was mentioned in the peer review that this would prevent it from reaching FA level, but this has not been addressed.

Which statements in the article need back-up from third-party sources? The article is basically a recap of the shows and the event, which is nothing controversial or that can suffer from COI, when WWE writes its articles. They are facts; no need for third party sources to back them up. However, if you find a statement that needs back-up from a third-party source, then please answer the beginning question.

Done -added third party sources to every match result and recap Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A blog-style entry on about.com is cited 18 times. I'm not convinced that this should be considered a reliable sources.

About is a very reliable encyclopedia, and Eric Cohen may be seen as more reliable than any of WWE's writers (who make many many mistakes).

Done - I have replaced the About.com link, with the recap from Slam Sports!

References are out of order in a couple of places.

Please mention where.

Done NiciVampireHeart (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Prose is confusing and unencyclopedia in several places and needs a thorough copyedit. I strongly recommend listing this article with Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors.

I need more opinions on this one first.

There are too many in-universe statements in the article. For example, "(Cena) tossed his foe’s hardened forehead into the steel ring post."

This is not an in-universe statement. This happened in real life, physically, in the view of thousands of people and millions watching on television. I don't see the problem with this statement.

This does not conform to WP:MOS, which states that names should be given in full the first time and that only the last name should be used for subsequent mentions.

The names are written fully the first time, and are written with only the last name or fully again in subsequent mentions. This is the guideline.

I don't think the picture of Kevin Federline is important enough to warrant inclusion in the article, as it seems to have almost nothing to do with this article (there is no mention of a connection between Federline and Booker T).

The picture kills 4 birds with one stone. It shows who Big Show, Kevin Federline and who Booker T are. And it also shows the reader that Booker T and K-Fed formed an alliance in an early stage, which eventually saw K-Fed intervene in the Champion of Champions match and help Booker T win and defend his championship. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to list it for copyediting, look for additional sources, address some of these concerns (and others that might be brought up) and then nominate it for GA status with a request for the reviewer's opinion on what else is needed for FA level. You're off to a good start, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand by all of my concerns. While this article could get to GA level with serious copyediting and more sources, it is not at a FA level. Copyediting isn't something you need more opinions about--it is essential if this is to get above B-level. And it was the "hardened" (because, according to the storyline, Samoans have thick foreheads) part that was in-universe, although "tossed" isn't the best choice of words, either, and there are other examples that I could have also used. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I added third-party results for the show, and what I meant to say is that I think the article is written extremely well, and want more opinions on how it's written; to see if more people think it's badly written like you do. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 21:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding the extra sources definitely helps. I do still believe that it needs copyediting. I don't think it's poorly written, but I don't think the prose is sufficient for this to be considered one of Wikipedia's top articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This article is very hard to read for someone not familiar with the ins and outs of wrestling. The opening line (after the lead) is already and an example "The November 6, 2006 edition of Raw began with Kevin Federline, who after interfering in John Cena's match the night before at Cyber Sunday, came out to the ring to challenge Cena one-on-one at Raw's first broadcast of the year on January 1". It is assumed the reader know what Raw and Cyber Sunday are, without knowing these the line makes no sense. When these words are that essential merely wikilinking is not sufficient (ie it does not give in depth extra information, but is essential for basic understanding). Such "jargon" phrases with key importance in lines are scattered throughout the article. In my opinion this article has to be thoroughly "dejargonised" (is that is a word) to make FA status. Arnoutf (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead explains that Raw is one of the brands, and the context of the article clearly state that it is a televised show. However, Cyber Sunday is a PPV that appears once a year and has special features others do no; so explaining to someone who really did not know what it is, would be like copying the Cyber Sunday article into this one. That is why a wikilink is very appropiate. However, I did add "Cyber Sunday PPV event" to the passage even though the article explains so later on. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 01:39, 21 January 2008.

[edit] California State Route 160

This article recently had a significant expansion, describing detailed, concise, and thorough information about SR 160. It also contains multiple references and a well organized exit list. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think it looks like a good article. However, there are an overwhelmingly large number of redlinks... Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose; as the one who wrote it, I can say it's not yet ready. I honestly can't find anything specific, but it seems there should be more detail on the history. One thing that should probably be added is how development along Freeport Boulevard has been affected by being a main road and now being bypassed. --NE2 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you still developing the article, then? Melchoir (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Not at the present time; I just don't think it's ready. --NE2 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Hmm... as a fellow writer I'm inclined to defer to your judgement, but as a bystander here, it would be easier to reject the FAC if you were going to improve the article in the future. (nudge nudge) Melchoir (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Not well-written, MOS breaches, and why the humungous table? Tony (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The table shows the major intersections, like Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney shows the stations. --NE2 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as a matter of procedure - needs to go through GA and A classes first. While these processes are not necessary, if the processes were to be omitted, the article has to be at FA quality, which it is not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doctor (Doctor Who/archive1)

The article was not promoted 01:39, 21 January 2008.

[edit] Al Gore

previous FAC

He will get an award - 2007 Gothenburg Prize (environment), Putin is the year man in TIME Magazin. Al Gore got the 2. vote. THis Al Gore article developed from the last candiadate - during the Bali conference, Bali roadmap, after he got his Nobel Peace Prize (December.2007) , after he worked a lot on his current TV Tv ., Revision history of Al Gore --Tamás Kádár (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Lead Please sort out the "recent"s in the Lead, which are a bit of a mess. Also, the Live Earth article seems to differ from the Lead - it implies someone else organised the event, with Gore a partner, albeit a major one. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Al Gore is a bit of "current event" and the article is likely to remain in a state of flux until global warming has stopped. JFW | T@lk 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify: the comment was serious, the phrasing was not. JFW | T@lk 13:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Tamás Kádár, I don't know if your first language is English or not, but it's hard to read your comment. On topic, however, Al Gore is going to win the featured article sooner or later because of its obvious statement on Global Warming and how it is written quite flawlessly, with the use of quality and correctly licensed images. --haha169 (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
On another negative note of the article, however, this article unfortunately lacks proper references in some locations such as "He left Vanderbilt without a degree to run for an open seat in Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District in 1976." If someone can find and correctly note each one, it would be incredibly helpful. --haha169 (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This section is now referenced. If you see other similar sentences, could you post them here? -Classicfilms (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I do not think the article meets FA. The Vice Presidency section needs expanding considerably, especially an analysis of his relationship with Bill Clinton i.e. his weekly lunches to discuss policy (a first in VP/P relations) and his responses to major situations especially the lewinsky scandal and impeachment. My main concern however is with references - one of the most controversial events of his life - the 2000 election contains barely a few references, especially in regard to the debate over the Florida vote count. For instance the following paragraph (the most contentious IMO in the article) is unreferenced:

"After two terms as Vice President, Gore ran for President again in the 2000 United States Presidential election, selecting Senator Joe Lieberman to be his vice-presidential running mate. The election was the closest and most controversial presidential election in the history of the United States. By a 7-2 vote in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court rejected Gore's request for a recount as unconstitutional due to violations of the Equal Protection Clause, and further ruled 5-4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline. This case ordered an end to recounting underway in selected Florida counties, effectively giving George W. Bush a 534 vote victory in Florida and consequently Florida's 27 electoral votes and the Presidency. Florida Secretary of State, Republican Katherine Harris, certified the Florida vote count shortly after Bush v. Gore was announced, formalizing the victory. (Harris subsequently won a seat in Florida's congressional delegation in 2002). Gore won the popular vote by approximately 500,000 votes nationwide. This election remains extremely controversial and some have questioned the legality and propriety of the role of Florida politicians on both sides, including Florida Governor Jeb Bush. No malfeasance has ever been proven on anyone's part however."

Not one reference there! I think this is a good article but it still has a long way to get to FA especially in regards to coverage of his life and references. Keep up the good work though. LordHarris 20:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone help me cite some articles? My citing prowess apparently doesn't work on this article, since it apparently messes up the notes section. However, it works on minor articles. --haha169 (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually made a minor mistake that messed up the notes section. Sorry. In the meantime, I have a couple more locations that may need more citing:

After basic training at Fort Dix, Gore was assigned as a military journalist writing for The Army Flier, the base newspaper at Fort Rucker.
While Senator, Gore twice attempted to get the U.S. government to pull the plug on support to Saddam Hussein, citing Hussein's use of poison gas, support of terrorism, and his burgeoning nuclear program, but was opposed both times by the Reagan and Bush administrations.
In the wake of the Al-Anfal Campaign, during which Hussein staged deadly mustard and nerve gas attacks on Kurdish Iraqis, Gore cosponsored the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988, which would have cut all assistance to Iraq.

--haha169 (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose It seems that important things are missing from the WP:LEAD: He is the son of a Congressman/Senator, a reluctant Vietnam Veteran, a journalist, etc. The lead could be rewritten with four paragraphs all as solid as the first two. Don't exceed four paragraphs as per Wikipedia:LEAD#Length, but please beef up the lead.
Sourcing could be better. E.g., "While in Congress, Gore was a member of the following committees:" should be followed immediately by a footnote with the source. The April 3, 1989, paragraph should have a source or two. In general, with an important, easily sourceable person like this each paragraph should have at least one ref.
Did he really have no notable Honors and awards before 2005?
Why didn't Gore run in the 1992 primaries?
Are House of Rep details available for Al_Gore#Electoral_history?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose. These are the first categories at the bottom of the article. All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since October 2007 | All articles with dead external links | Articles with dead external links since January 2008 --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - per Hurricanehink - I believe the nominator did not ensure the article met FA criteria.--Kiyarrllston 06:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the dead link with a working one.--haha169 (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 01:39, 21 January 2008.

[edit] Loose (album)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's simply such an amazing article, it includes everything sources, pictures, music samples and it gives you a complete idea about the album. and also don't forget the success of the album worldwide, basically it's the highest selling album by a female artist in 2006-2007. Raivena (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The audio sample buttons smear into the text for me, that may need fixing. (WinXP Firefox 2.0.11 about 1000 px wide screen resolution) I can do a screenshot if that's not clear. ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'd try peer review first. There's a lot of material here, so there's definitely potential for an FA star in the future. However, it currently does not meet FA requirements.
- 1a The prose needs an overhaul and a copyedit to weed out grammatical/punctuation errors. Some random examples:
  - "Many editions were released after the commercial success of the album including the summer limited edition which was released after one year of the original release [1] In addition there was also the "Loose the Concert", her first live DVD which featured live performances of her album's hits."
  - "Loose earned Furtado many important awards, the Grammy Awards are in forefront of those awards with two nominations including a..."
  - "Loose changed Furtado's music line after her previous albums Whoa, Nelly! and Folklore because of her collaboration with Timbaland." (What's a "music line"?)
  - "After she believed she had accomplished that, she felt she had, according to her, "a lot of freedom to do the music I really love."" Redundancy
  - Alternating between "hip-hop" and "hip hop".
  - In encyclopedic prose, it's best to avoid contractions (don't, isn't, etc.).
  - The Style section is a bit too quote-heavy in my opinion. Makes for awkward prose at times.
- 1c "In early 2008 the rumours of plagiarism revived when a video hosted on YouTube compared the track Wait For You with a song of Turkish folk singer (ashik) Muhlis Akarsu." A YouTube video is not a reliable source. Is there a reliable published article for this?
- 2a The lead should be expanded to provide a summary of the entire article.
- 2c References are not properly formatted (towards the end, they become just URLs). BuddingJournalist 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: having helped to promote the three main singles of Loose to GA status, I visited the album page many times - and it always had potential but was disorganized. If most things are fixed, I can support (and try helping with what the FAC demands). But the problems are many: expanding "Critical reception" a bit more, enhance the samples' captions, expand the lead (say about Furtado's change, at least), format references properly (some are broken, BTW) and do something about the two sections on the singles. And I wonder if someday those song articles can be FACs... igordebraga ≠ 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: I tried to review the article line-by-line but I was unable to finish it because the whole article is disorganized. Try to read Love. Angel. Music. Baby., and nominate for GA. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions:

Fix the lead.
Fix the order of section headings.
Fix the style section, its kinda news article. It looks like reporting because of the abuse of "Furtado said."
Redundancies.
Redundant sections and tables.
Performance should talk only the album's performance. Why is there a section for the album's single's performances?
The is a section dedicated for singles. Why make it "track" or "songs" to fully state all the tracks of the album and slightly mention its chart performances.
And many more. I look forward to this article's next FAC. Thank you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Object. As one of the major contributors to this article, I echo most of the comments above and feel I should add some of my own observations. I've just had to clean out a lot of the unsourced, inadequately sourced and inaccurate content (of which there was a lot) that wouldn't immediately have been obvious as such to anyone unfamiliar with the subject matter or the edit history of the article. I also removed some oddly worded and/or opinionated sentences ("dreamy romantic single" etc.) and sound samples that didn't have applicable fair use rationales; that said, there's still a lot of work to be done. What is most obvious to me is that the article just isn't comprehensive in its current state—Furtado and Timbaland's pre-Loose collaborations aren't mentioned, for example. Thorough research into what has been written and said about the album in reliable sources should be undertaken, and that can be summarised in the article. Also, there is significant overlap between the two "Singles" section, and the second one needs copyediting and has a lot of information specific to the singles that is outside the scope of an album article and should be taken out. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 01:39, 21 January 2008.

[edit] Doing Time for Patsy Cline

Nominator 123321fun (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... 123321fun (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Hi 123321, and welcome to Wikipedia. Have you taken a look at the criteria for a featured article? Unfortunately, Doing Time for Patsy Cline isn't comprehensive enough yet, and it's not yet at the required professional standard of writing. The lead is too short, there isn't a production section, and the other sections are kind of thin. Of course, this doesn't mean that the article can't be a featured article in the future. If you want help in expanding the article, you may want to take a look at our peer review process or Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. BuddingJournalist 15:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Just echoing what Budding Journalist said. Listing an article like this for FA status is a common newbie mistake, though I'm sure if you dedicate yourself (or a group of editors) to the article long enough, you'll bring it up.-Wafulz (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The images you added in appear to be good, there's that. But yeah, just keep at editing the article, and when it's improved try WP:GAN first. For examples of Featured film articles, try looking over 300 (film), Jaws (film), and The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film), among others, to see what needs to be added in and expanded upon to make this article FA. Wizardman 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose See above, WP:SNOWBALL — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Snowball oppose per above. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for obvious reasons. Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this a joke? Plus this user only created his account 2 days ago.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the user is well-intentioned but very new. It's not an unthinkable mistake.-Wafulz (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 01:39, 21 January 2008.

[edit] Lisa Gerrard

previous FAC

I'm nominating this article because I think it meets the FAC criteria.

Glitter1959 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

Oppose Not of appropriate length (too short), and only one reference. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Currently rated start class, which seems justified by its referencing.--Grahame (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, not wishing to pile on but this article is too short and inadequately referenced. May I suggest you try for good article status? You'll get a full review there on what is missing for GA status. I'm afraid it's well wide of the mark for FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per the above. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Based on comprehensive. The articles mentions 1961 when she was born, and the next section deals with 1981, missing 20 years right there. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Support for now. I guess the article needs a little more tweaking before it is a featured article.Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

It needs far more than a little more tweaking. See featured article criteria.-Wafulz (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowball oppose, mostly for the severe lack of references. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Snowball oppose too short, unreferenced--Kiyarrllston 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment There are some references on the page now. I'm going to add more later.

Glitter1959 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

You'll find it helpful to read WP:CITE#HOW. What you did is add unformatted URLs to the "References" section; instead, you should correctly reference which statement is sourced by which reference by way of footnotes while using the correct citation template. It sounds more confusing than it is, honest. :) You obviously have reliable sources available to verify your information, so it's a matter of correctly formatting it. If you need any help, just let me know. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Maria. Someone kept on deleting the references on the page. And I am now having trouble putting them back. Grrrr.

Glitter1959 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959

The article was not promoted 01:39, 21 January 2008.

[edit] Trojan War

previous FAC

Brilliantly written, extensively referenced and most of the issues raised at the previous FAC seem to have been addressed. --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. For several reasons, this article is not ready. Just taking a superficial look, I see that numerous references are formatted incorrectly, there are several "citation needed" tags and at least one reference listed as an external link and not a citation, and the entire thing is exceedingly long and "in-universe", for the lack of a better term. It reads mostly as a summary of The Iliad and other works while failing to comprehensively explain the historical influence and attributions of this battle. The way it is now, there is not enough balance between the fiction and the historical.

On a side note, I take issue with a third-party nomination when it is not established that the primary editors are ready to address concerns and issues during the FAC process. Nothing personal against the nominator, but it would seem that this is the second nomination in as many days that they've made when they had nothing to do with the writing of the article; how will concerns be met? Have the primary editors been contacted? María (habla conmigo) 19:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, please note that three additional fact tags were removed before the nomination, but no citations were provided. These statements should either be correctly sourced or have the tags re-added for proper verification. María (habla conmigo) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, with regrets. The article is full of well-found information that I love to see assembled in one place. But there are too many problems in structure, style, usage, punctuation, and the niceties of grammar for serious considerable here. At this stage! My recommendation: recruit a new expert copyeditor to go over the article with fresh eyes. Greek text and transliterations are managed inconsistently. What variety of Greek is it, in the main text? Shouldn't it be represented polytonically, not monotonically as if it were modern? Why are some transliterations given without Greek text, and vice versa? And get a citations expert to run through all the citations, with an eye to punctation, consistency of style, and conformity to norms. I'd love to see this article made ready for FAC, but I think it falls short just now. I am ready to help with small specific matters. Contact me at my talkpage if you like.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I chose some sentences at random:
lead: "Whether there is any historical reality behind the events of the Trojan War cycle is ~~an open question~~." - "is unknown"? "is under debate"?
lead: "Many scholars [atribution needed] ~~would agree~~ [say] that there is a historical core to the tale,[...]" - hypothetically speaking??? which scholars? is this even in the body?
Historical basis: "That most Achean heroes did not return to their homes and founded colonies elsewhere was interpreted by Thucydides as being due to their long absence" - "Thudydides claimed that the reason most Achean heroes did not return to their homes, instead founding colonies elsewhere, was that their absence was too long."-or "Most Achean heores did not return to their homes, instead founding colonies elsewhere. Thucydides claimed that absence had "made the heart grow colder". (or similar)
Also agreeing with Maria and Noetica. - also with previous FAC reviewer Ceoil who said "The style of prose in areas seems overly antique, almost biblical."

--Kiyarrllston 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 14:55, 14 January 2008.

[edit] The Simpsons Movie

previous FAC

Nomination withdraw --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Great article, thorough, extensively referenced and complimented with freely-licensed GDFL images --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's in the middle of a PR and a LOCE request, couldn't you have waited a while? I wasn't planning on nominating this until at the very least after the Golden Globes tonight... Ah well, let's see how this goes. I'm the princiapl contributor to the article having worked on it since May last year, alongside Alientraveller and some other much valued work from Scorpion and Buc. The previous FAC was quick closed because someone nominated it about a month after the film was released, so it wasn't ready. I think its nearly ready now, but would've preferred some more copy-edits before it was nominated, but I guess they can take place during its nomination. All comments welcomed, thanks. Gran² 17:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah really not the best time. Might be worth closing this for now. Buc (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Wait for the Golden Globes. Heck, wait for the Academy Awards. There's a chance of this winning best animated film or at least getting nominated. Reginmund (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment And what part of the policy are you basing your opposition on? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added GG. Buc (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

[edit] Hybrid Theory

previous FAC

I'm re-nominating Hybrid Theory as an FAC, because it recently passed as a good article after some changes. The main difference from this nom to the old nom is that the article went through a thorough copy-editing, which is the reason it did not pass. (done by Malachirality). But I still could not find anything about the artwork. Sorry. Anyways now, since most of the common mistakes have been fixed, I think it has the potential to become a featured article. ~~It's also currently undergoing a second peer review,~~ so tell me what you think. Thanks! (SUDUSER)₈₅ 05:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose and close Articles cannot be on FAC and PR together. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, please withdraw your opposition, for the PR is now archived. Any further scrutinies of the article shall be conducted here. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 06:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  - I just removed the peer review from WP:PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Support per my previous vote. A serious article indeed. --Brand спойт 13:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - Overall, I can't find anything wrong with this article. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Support: The article is well-sourced and well-written. 72.148.42.192 (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Support: Article is very well written and organized. The only thing I can suggest is mentioning any form of criticism towards the album in the Reception section for a fair representation. Perhaps mention why it only got 3 stars from Rolling Stone. However, this is really a small thing - the article is neutral for the most part. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 21:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Y Done I followed your suggestions and brought in an excerpt of Rolling Stone's review into the article as a reference. I also moved the "Accolades" section below the general "Reception" section for connectivity purposes. I think it looks better now. Thanks for the tip! (SUDUSER)₈₅ 08:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Support: well written... :) --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]}
~~Conditional~~ Support on a couple of very minor fixes below: prose is crisp and clear. ~~Final para on Songs has odd sentence:~~

Although it did not become a single, another song from the album is "Points of Authority". - need to highlight why this song is mentioned. Maybe move last sentence next to this or expand a bit. Just hangs oddly otherwise.

Y Done Maybe it should be removed, I don't know? Anyways, I reworded it to Another song from the album is "Points of Authority". (SUDUSER)₈₅ 05:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

~~A word or two describing Sputnikmusic would be helpful~~

Y Done reworded to "Sputnikmusic, a music review website..." (SUDUSER)₈₅ 05:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise possibly the best Album article I have seen up at FAC (but I haven't looked at many) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Done All changes you addressed have been fixed. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 08:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Support - well done. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Quite a bit needs to be done before this goes FA:

Lead

~~Needs restructuring. 1st para should be about recording, music info while the second about release and reception.("Hybrid Theory peaked at #2", "he album was a commercial success")~~
Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~I dont think grammy nom mention is neccessary in lead.~~
Y Done removed. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~A quote by a critic surmising the albums nature/impact would be nice~~
Y Done Added what Ruhlmann said about the album in the lead. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~remove mention of RIAA.~~
Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Background

~~link chester, first time in the body of article.~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~"Bennington's Phoenix band" sounds awkward (like rock band);change to "band in phoenix"~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
"itself to" - "itself as"
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~"Welsh electronic music producers" to "Welsh electronica band"~~
I don't really the point in this though, I mean they are actually producers and not a band. Overlooking this. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~Zomba - make it Zomba records for clarity~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Recording

~~I'm not sure if lyrics belongs here at all. Anway that block quote is rather ugly with the white spaces it creates, and requires the mention of RS magazine twice. Make that into normal quote.~~
- Y Done You're right the lyrics don't belong there, I expanded the point a little and put in the Songs section. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~However, they were initially turned down by most major, and several independent record labels. - Reword~~
- Y Done changed "turned down" to "rejected" (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~played 42 different showcases - seems unencyclopedic.~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- ~~universal feelings, emotions, and experiences, and as “everyday emotions... - LOT of redundancy there~~
Y Done removed this. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~The rap sections in most - The rap sections of most~~
- Y Done fixed (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Songs

~~draws from diverse inspirations - is that correct usage? I'm not too sure~~
- Y Done reworded to "The music of Hybrid Theory showcases the band's liking of various artists such as the Stone Temple Pilots, Depeche Mode,[4] Deftones, Nine Inch Nails and The Roots.[8]" (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~aftermath feelings - sounds weird~~
- Y Done removed the whole thing, don't think that's a reliable source. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~album eventually produced - why eventually?~~
- Y Done rmv (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
"single, was gradually recorded in increments after Linkin Park struggled with "Runaway",[14] and features a guitar" - change to - "single, which was gradually recorded in increments after Linkin Park struggled with "Runaway",[14] features a guitar riff and electronic percussion in the introduction which transition into a bridge with distortion-heavy guitars and aggressive drums."
- Y Done reworded (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~in which a girl named (Katelyn Rosaasen) is abused - huh?~~
- Y Done removed the whole thing; comes from unreliable source. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~"Papercut" was the album's third single, and its lyrics describe paranoia. - change to - "Papercut", the album's third single, features lyrics describing paranoia.~~
- Y Done reworded (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~song and is later - song which is later~~
- Y Done One of the many things removed because of rewording. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~(the two also directed the music video for "Papercut") - mention this in the Papercut part itself~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~“Brad wrote this riff, then went home. Mike - mention last names in [brackets]~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~Cite the above quote (even if it is the later cite itself)~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Release

~~remove all mention of eminem, keys and u2 and their albums... unnecessary~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~link 44th grammys, billboard 200~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~"Following the success" - huge sentence - split into two with the self tour in the other sentence.~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~appearing on charts - appeared~~
Although the notes are no longer on their website, they are available on fansites. - remove. Links to fan sites arent allowed (copyvio)
- Y Done removed the fansite link (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
In all, Linkin Park played 324 shows in 2001.
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
and the second disc - while the second
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Reception

If "Initial reception of the album was positive", why did an earlier RS review give negative comments while a later one gave positive ones? I think the tone of the section should be changed to "Mixed reviews" right at the start.
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~AMG is not italicised~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, remove that block quote; I mean, what is he even trying to say? Its so full of puncuation marks I cant even comprehend.
- Y Done did still include a chopped review though, the reader has to know why RS only gave the album 2.5 stars according to what ShadowJester07 says above. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~Ruhlmann also said - remove also~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
"described Hybrid Theory as " and "Hybrid Theory has its obvious drawbacks." and "Rock Sound"- MoS errors.
~~I think the whole kater recordings section should be shifted to the release section~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~in the traack listing mention 2002 japan for the bonus disc~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
~~All information is from the CD.[48][I] - no need to mention that. also remove that cduniverse as it links to non-free unauthorized content~~
- Y Done (SUDUSER)₈₅ 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Remove ALL fansites... "songsfacts" is NOT notable/reputable source of information. Seeing how this article sources a lot of its information from fansites, i'm afraid it is not yet ready for FA.

Indopug (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Support fits the bill. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Object Rockdetector.com isn't a reliable source. I'll remove my objection once an alternative source has been found. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay I removed the link. the information can be in the charts section. So please withdraw your objection. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 01:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Suduser85, do not remove my objection by yourself. That is frowned upon, and isn't the way FAC works. Editors remove their own objections (which I have now done). LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Object I've decided to take another cursory look at the article, and found other issues;

"Throughout the following years, the album continued to sell at a fast pace and was certified diamond by the RIAA in 2005 for selling 10 million copies in the U.S.[20]" - Whether the album sold at a fast pace or not is an opinion, and therefore a personal observation. For example, why wasn't it certified diamond in 2003 or 2004? Perhaps that would have been a fast pace, but being certified in 2005 means the album sold at a slow pace. For you to deem it to have sold at a fast pace, you must have compared it to the sales of others (therefore, making your own personal observations).
"Four singles from the album were released throughout 2001, three of which were chart successes on the U.S. Billboard Modern Rock Tracks charts.[22]" - "Chart successes"? According to whom? This is yet another personal observation - please stick to the facts, and not add your own personal observation. Whether they were chart successes depends on how an individual person measures success. How do you measure chart successes? How high the song peaks? How long it stays on the charts? For example, why didn't "One Step Closer" get to number on the Modern Rock Tracks charts? As it didn't, perhaps some could deem that as a failure. How you have measured chart success in this instance seems to be the fact that three entered the top ten of the Modern Rock Tracks charts, while one didn't. That is a fact, but that being a "chart success" is your own personal observation (POV).
"The album also charted in 11 other countries at fairly high positions and ranked among the “top ten” in the charts of the United Kingdom, Sweden, New Zealand, Austria, Finland, and Switzerland." "Fairly high"? Yet another personal observation, per the reason given for the alleged "chart successes".
"The band was signed by Warner Bros. Records in 2000, due in large part to the constant recommendations of Jeff Blue, who joined the label after resigning from Zomba.[4][5][6]" - Whose opinion is it that Linkin Park's signing with Warner Bros. Records was "due in large part to the constant recommendations of Jeff Blue"? Whose observation is this? A critic's? A member of the band's? Please attribute this opinion to whomever believes it, or else this is merely a personal theory. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
"The rap sections of most of the songs were significantly altered from the original, while most choruses remained largely unchanged.[10]" - "Significantly"? Whether something has been altered "significantly" or not is an opinion. You may deem something to be altered significantly, whereas someone else may disagree. Your source is just a track listing for the demo, and in no way way verifies that sentence since there's no text at that URL. Furthermore, the source is the "Linkin Park Assocation", a fansite. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In my opinion, the "Linkin Park Assocation" does not fall under this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
"The music of Hybrid Theory showcases the band's liking of various artists such as the Stone Temple Pilots, Depeche Mode,[4] Deftones, Nine Inch Nails and The Roots.[8]" - According to whom? Yet again, this is another observation and isn't factual. This time, it's the opinion of whomever wrote that biography for VH1.com. Either attribute this opinion to whomever felt it, or rid of it. At the moment, it's written as though it's a cast-iron fact. Simply put, it's not. It's an opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

These are just examples of POV found within the article, and indicative of a wider problem. I will list more once these have been addressed. This time, let me withdraw my own objection (should I personally feel you've addressed my objections). LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to say that I feel that this FAC is not really necessary. Why I say this is the problem is with all the sources - All the main sources are not reliable, but they are the only sources with the main information. The main thing is that no sources are actually from reliable mediums, and because of that, I think that this FAC should be closed. As for the other editors who took their time to review the article, I would just like to thank all of you. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 04:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you say the sources are bad? Billboard, MTV.com, NYTimes, VH1.com are fine, Rockonthenet is used reasonably. A few sites are not really familiar to me, but the only one that really jumps out is forfeitthegame.com. Hang in there. Two minor things: is "100, 000" intentional? and would you consider only using two columns for refs? Gimmetrow 06:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  - I am looking at your main sources, and they all seem reliable. The only one that does seem unreliable as Gimmetrow mentioned is forfeitthegame, which is a fansite. xihix(talk) 21:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, http://www.lpassociation.com/music/disco M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose and close per Suduser85. If there are problems with the sources, the article cannot be a FA. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not an actionable oppose because the user has not said what sources are not reliable. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: Suduser requested on my talk page that this FAC be withdrawn, but others have said the sources are reliable. Unless someone else is taking over this FAC, I will need to honor Suduser's request to withdraw it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
- MOS breach: final punctuation after closing quotes where the quote starts within a WP sentence. Lots of fixing needed.
- Edu justification for fair use is a bit feeble. "This sample shows the song's shifts between the verses, which are soft and melodic, and the chorus which is heavy and abrasive." Is that unusual for their style, or that of other bands in this style? What do those vague epithets mean, anyway? Tony (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

[edit] Linkin Park

previous FAC (00:52, 10 December 2007)

I believe that this article fully merits FA status. The last time it was nominated, roughly a month back, there was no opposition, just not enough support. I have done some cleanup, added a few references, and the gallery, and I really think that it's up to scratch. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments ~~- just getting started...~~I won't be too good on comprehensiveness as though I don't mind humming along to an LP song or two (my partner likes it alot more so I end up being forced to listen to it..) I am not hugely well-versed on them...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Recognized for their adaption of the nu metal genre into a radio-friendly style in Meteora and Hybrid Theory,[6][7] the band’s latest studio album, Minutes to Midnight branched away from their previous nu metal sound, venturing into a variety of other genres. - is phrased a little funnily. The first clause has the band as the subject, yet the 2nd clause switches to the album as the subject. How about "the band moved away from this and explored a variety of other genres with their latest studio album, Minutes to Midnight" or something similar in which the band is the subejct of the 2nd clause.

All fixed. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The album topped the Billboard Charts and became the third best debut week of any album for the year - an album is a week?

Fixed it up. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Update - I am pretty happy with the prose though will be happier once above two examples are tweaked. I am not confident to comment on comprehensiveness but will support if someone better versed comments positively. The article appears a little short - - is there anything else which can be added about criticism/critique/influences etc. Maybe from members biographies? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
oppose: a half of the page is about the biography; the prose isn't very good; there aren't some fundamental sections. But maybe I'll change my vote--Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you could point out some specific errors/omissions/problems...? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  - The article is like yesterday, I'm still oppose. --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    - Weak support: the prose is good. Now I underdstand Anonymus Dissident, but the article can be improve. --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 15:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, it's pretty hagiographic. Tempshill (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Care to ellaborate? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments
All Music Guide regarded it as, wrong. William Ruhlmann of All Music Guide - as with the other magazine quotes they are opinions and need to be attributed.
The single was acclaimed by listeners, reaching the Billboard Hot 100 days after its debut, what position? acclaimed because it entered the BB 100?
Last paragraph of Reemergence: Minutes to Midnight is poorly written with a new subject each sentence.
chose ~~popular~~ producer Rick Rubin.
was pushed off to 2007 - "pushed off"? how about "delayed"?
Recording Industry Association Of America _> of lowercase o
Ref 48 needs to be lowercase for the artists. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's all fixed, except the first. Not sure I understand your comment... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One reviewer does not represent the entire magazine, you need to attribute the quotes to the person who said them. In this case it is William Ruhlmann for All Music Guide. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I entirely agree. AMG have one review per album; that's the AMG review and can be shorthand referred to as AMG's opinion. Imho! Granted, when NME do an end of year writers poll that's clearly the magazine talking as opposed to a piece attributed to a named writer... I'm just not sure the distinction is terribly important. All reviews are by nature opinion anyway. --kingboyk (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, fixed it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

All three dashes are used in the members section, just use the en dash. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose This article is nowhere no FA status, given its blatant POV nature (serious 1d violation). A few examples;
"Originally consisting of three close high school friends from Agoura High School, Linkin Park’s foundation was anchored by Mike Shinoda, Brad Delson, and Rob Bourdon.[12][13]" - "Close"? In whose opinion? Whether a group of friends are close or distant is a matter of opinion, and depends on one's perspective. Of the two sources you have used, neither use that word. This is mere speculation on the behalf of whomever wrote the article, so therefore should be removed. On another note, can a [www.linkin-park-lyrics.com fansite] which commits copyright violation (by publishing lyrics) actually be deemed reliable? I certainly question the reliability of a fan written biography.
"Formerly of Arizona grunge band Grey Daze, Bennington was a standout among the applicants for his unique and vivid singing style.[13]" - "Unique and vivid"? In whose opinion? What are their credentials? What notable publications have they written for? In this case, you've used a fan written biography to cite the fact the Bennington's voice is "unique and vivid". This is an unreliable source, and therefore cannot be used. Furthermore, where does this biography even use the words "unique and vivid"? Exactly, it doesn't.
"The spontaneous vocal chemistry between Shinoda and Bennington helped revive the band, inciting them to work on new material.[12]" - "Spontaneous"? According to whom? ".. helped revive the band"? According to whom? What's their credentials? Nowhere in that article does the writer use the word "spontaneous", or suggest the chemistry between Shinoda and Bennington revived the band. Why does the article not only present opinions as facts, but use sources which don't even support those opinions.
"This renaissance culminated with name change from Hybrid Theory to Linkin Park, a play on words and homage to Santa Monica’s Lincoln Park.[12]" - Yet again, who claimed this was a "renaissance"? Certainly not the source you've used. Furthermore, it's a biased opinion.

These examples are reflective of a much wider problem, demonstrating that this article shouldn't have even been submitted to FAC. I'm also rather disappointed in the fact that not only have these POV opinions been attributed to whom believes it, the sources used do not even express such opinions. Due to its POV nature, this should not have even passed GA. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, though I think LM could have been a little more diplomatic he has some valid points AD, these echo the hagiography mentioned above and I should have picked them up on copyediting. Best thing would be to get some old Rolling Stone or NME magazines at the local library to get some in-depth critique. Alot of print stuff doesn't make it online and I see WP as a great opportunity to reference cool stuff that has never made it, rather than alot of fan-stuff which permeates the net. Cheer up, I recently had an FAC which crash-and-burned....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What LM says is very true. I cannot see how I didn't pick it up before. However, you will note that, because all of the examples are seen in the first section relating to the formation of the band, there could be a fix in sight. Later, I will read through the whole article and eliminate any POV that I come across. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have fixed everything LM has mentioned, but I will read through to see if there is anything more POVish. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I still feel my oppose is valid, and will expand further on this comment if needed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

You should really have a look at the notes and reference section. Note two for example was retrieved June 99 :).Baldrick90 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose There are some pretty major issues. The citations should be in {{cite web}} format, and include the author and date. There should be no need for citations in the lead, it is either all is cited or nothing in the lead. All you need to list under the discography is the studio albums, and you don't need a videography, all of that should be on the discography page not the Linkin Park page. Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 22:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This article reads like a fan website rather than an encyclopedia article. For instance, Linkin Park have received poor reviews from professional music critics (as is shown by the ratings in the album articles), but this is barely mentioned, their declining sales are quickly passed over and the account of their break with Warners ("at the same time, the band's relationship with Warner Bros. Records was deteriorating rapidly on account of several trust and financial issues") is hopelessly inadequete (what were these issues?). The last paragraph of the 'style' section also looks like original research as these claims aren't properly referenced. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

[edit] Seton Hall University

I'm nominating this article for featured article because ive done alot of work and i want to know if its good enough for a fa, and if not what is missing Rankun (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Many problems and I would suggest withdrawing the candidacy and taking the article to Peer review. The lead is too short; see WP:LEAD for ideas to improve this. Large chunks of the history section and elsewhere are either unsourced or do not use inline citations. The prose needs a lot of work and peer review may help. I am not a big fan of the external links in the Campus section. It is a good start but it needs a lot more work before it is at FA standard -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is already on Peer review, and has received no reviews. Rankun seems not to know it is necessary to tell others about the peer review. --Una Smith (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Its been in pr for a while and ive been telling people, if you guys see problems please add them to the todo list in the talk page if someone could help me with the GA consideration as apparently i am an idiot and have been having problems with it i would appreciate. any help with letting people know abot pr in other ways than putting it in the talk section, if you guys can help me with this id be appreciative and once i figure out how, withdraw it from FA considerationRankun (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - The article did not make GA earlier this year. I think it should be withdrawn from FAC and go through GA again. --Una Smith (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Support with revamp This article is off to a good start but needs a lot of work. You need to go through each section line by line. For example, the law school section. It can be improved, prose-wise, adding references, etc. A huge aricle and only 19 references? Don't want to be discouraging but I can think of a few comments per section that needs work. It can be done! Good luck! Congolese fufu (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I have been asked for advice and have agreed to help fix this article. Later, I found what seems to be plagiarism. I hope I am mistaken! (Whatever it is, let's fix and and not point fingers). However, if true, FA status cannot be granted. I have fixed the questionable part but have not reviewed the whole article for plagiarism. This is why citations are good. When you cite something, it's either not plagiarism or anyone can easily check to see that it's not. If I am wrong about the plagiarism, I think the re-write and checking will actually help the article. Don't worry, with a crash effort, this article can be ready in 4 weeks. With a moderate effort, 2-3 months. With a slow but steady effort, maybe 6 months. Wish us luck! Congolese fufu (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Not nearly as many references as it should have. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This article is far from FA:
Referencing is not FA standard:
- Only 2 references in "History" section.
- Paragraphs 2 and 3 of "Ever Forward Campaign" section are unreferenced.
- No references in "Schools and colleges" section.
- No references in "The Stillman School of Business" section.
- Only 1 reference in "Athletics" section.
- Only 1 reference in "Student Media" section.
- No references in "Notable Alumni" section.
- Only 1 reference in "Notable Faculty" section.
References 7, 8, 16 and 18 have formatting problems. Reference 11 says "Ibid" and nothing else. Also, the references in the "Campus" section must be fixed.
The article is not well-written. I can see a few short paragraphs with only one or two sentences. It needs a copy-edit but I cannot help because my English is not very good.
The article is not comprehensive. No "Academics" section. Some lists should be changed to prose.
Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose -- I just failed the GA for this article (why was there both a GA and FA open at the same time?) -- listed reasons extensively on Talk. Dylan (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Since this article was failed just this day in GAN, definitely, this one won't pass. BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Support but definitely too early - Today, I made some serious changes to the article. But, nevertheless I really think that this page should be WITHDRAWN from FA candidacy. It is way too early! I think that the very first thing that is necessary is to shoot for GA status. I'm not even really sure why this was submitted to FA review.

To the FAC director: if it is at all possible, this article should be withdrawn from FA Candidancy and not failed. There has been a significant amount of work done on this article in the past few days by several editors. But it is nowhere ready yet. Therefore, I believe this article was submitted by mistake (perhaps an editor jumped the gun) and that seems to be what other editors are also saying here. Thanks. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 04:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

[edit] Shaktism

The article Shaktism is about the Goddess oriented sect of Hinduism. The article recently passed the GA process. I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because IMO it meets the FA criteria - well sourced and broad in coverage. The article is expanded mostly by User:Devi bhakta, while i have just helped him do so. Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Review by Dweller

Oppose but jolly close

POV: I'm certainly no expert, but the section "Misperceptions" may have POV issues, most notably the section title itself. It's not our place to judge controversy, just report on it. Lay out what the opposing sides say without being judgemental.

Opposing sides are laid out, For e.g. Other schools like Shaiva and Vaishnava, being viewed as superior (granting moksha) and the view of "serious theologians within Shaktism". Shaktism has a close relation with Tantra, but not all Shaktas practice the controversial (as viewed in mainstream Hinduism) ways of Tantra like panchamakara. Many confuse Tantra and Shaktism to be the same. "Misperceptions" aims to clear the doubts.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly clearing doubts with wording like this:

"These prejudices are based principally on ignorance and misunderstanding – both on the part of uninformed observers and unscrupulous practitioners of the left-handed Tantric practices traditionally associated with some Shakta systems."

To my mind, that reads as editorialising in a POV manner. I'm not sure how your response above addresses this, or the inherent POV of the section title. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be noted that the sentence is referenced, though a rewording can be worked on, if the reviewer insists.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Another user has retitled the section, and I agree that the new title is an improvement. I also agree with Dweller that the phrase "these prejudices" presents a POV problem, and I have accordingly changed it to a neutral phrase. The rest of the sentence, saying that misconceptions are caused by (a) outsiders' ignorance of authentic practice, and (b) some insiders' unscrupulous practices, is the scholarly conclusion of the source cited, in a 300-plus page study of the issue. Please let me know if further work is needed here. Thanks! (Devi bhakta (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

MOS: Some MOS issues, notably section names.

Done Section Names. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness: Worship section seems a bit of a mess, but this may be my ignorance. It seems to me that the first two subsections are not about worship and a subsection that should be included (everyday worship, as opposed to that on festivals) is missing.

The Worship section has sub-sections about the two sub-denominations Srikula and Kalikula and their worship. "Festivals" talks about the major Shakta festivals and "Temples" about Shaktas' places of worship. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Licensing: I know almost nothing about licensing of images on Wikipedia (I'm generally an ignorant person) but the acknowledgement in the photo caption strikes me as odd. Either we can or can't use it.

That was done on request of GA reviewer.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with it. --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Strasupport - acciderbolina Dweller, it's fantastic :)--Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't nothing of POV... --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 17:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

- Contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to be as helpful as possible - this article is not comprehensive and is unencyclopedic in many ways. The "Misconceptions" (I had to correct the title, btw - there is no such thing as "misperceptions") violates WP:NPOV and is unnecessary. The constant quoting of "Bhattacharya" and presenting the rival viewpoints is not the way to write an encyclopedic article - its not a seesaw between POVs. The "History" is too short and general - "Shaktism" is different from worship of female deities, so I don't see the connection of the brief notes on the pre-Vedic practices. The explanation of philosophy is insufficient. Compared to the deficiencies of the other sections, the "South Asia" section is quite large. It is unnecessary - one section describing the practice of Shaktism in different parts of India and the world. 71.178.134.184 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bhattacharyya laid the foundation for modern scholarship in the area of Shaktism, and he is quoted as befits his looming position in the field; however, numerous other scholars, of both East and West, are also heavily quoted. As the primary writer of this article, I believe that the resulting article does accurately represent the literature and the topic.

As regards the History and Philosophy section, I would note that it is intended only to summarize the linked daughter article, History of Shaktism. Could you kindly have a look at that article and let me know if your stated concerns are addressed therein? Thank you for your input! (Devi bhakta (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Re: "(I had to correct the title, btw - there is no such thing as 'misperceptions')" ==>

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Misperception \Mis`per*cep"tion\, n. Erroneous perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.85.12 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by user:Fowler&fowler: The article consists of little more than lengthy quotes and lists. Where is the prose? Consider the first section Shakti and Shiva (as of December 27, 2007). Of the eight paragraphs in the section, seven are quotations; the sole "prose" paragraph reads, "Shakti (i.e., the Supreme Goddess as Power, or Energy) is considered the motivating force behind all action and existence in the phenomenal cosmos. The cosmos itself is Brahman; i.e., the concept of an unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality that provides the divine ground of all being. Masculine potentiality is actualized by feminine dynamism, embodied in multitudinous goddesses who are ultimately reconciled into one." I won't even bother pointing out all the problems in the paragraph because I fear I will receive the "little green check marks" response (when none will have been asked for). This article is not salvageable. The authors will do everyone, including themselves, a service by withdrawing the article, figuring out what it means to write prose, working on the prose for at least a couple of months, and then worrying about FAs and the like. Sorry to be blunt, but this article really shouldn't be here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF Oppose: I have seen Devi bhakta and Redtigerxyz put a lot of hard work into this article and I commend them for doing so. I would really like to see such a wonderful topic become an FA one day. However, I share most of Fowler's concerns. I will be much closer to supporting this article once the bullet-point lists are converted into paragraphs of prose and the quotes are paraphrased. Half of the article at the moment appears to be more suited for Wikiquote. Gizza^Discuss ^© 23:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: We, the editors of Shaktism, are trying to address the concerns expressed, primarily the quote issue. We will be working on the conversion of the quotes into prose in the following days. As such, we request some time to mend the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

First of all, I would like to commend the authors of the article for trying to write on a difficult subject such as this. However, I would like to see lots of changes too.

I am skeptical about such sentences as (and would like clarifications about the time period mentioned) From the Goddess's earliest known appearance in Indian paleolithic settlements more than 22,000 years ago, through the refinement of her cult in the Indus Valley Civilization, her partial eclipse during the Vedic period'.

This criticism is of particular concern to me. The sentence mentioned above is a summary of the History and Philosophy section -- in, particular the full, detailed article entitled History of Shaktism, which was specifically removed from the main article due to a concern that its inclusion made the main article too long. However, this comment marks at least the third or fourth time someone has noted the article lacks in historical/philosophical coverage.

Now, I am assuming that those users who take the time to comment on the article are also those most likely to read it closely -- meaning that if these people fail to notice that the History of Shaktism exists as a sub article, then casual readers are probably even more likely never to see the History article. Thus I need to ask, very sincerely: Should I stop worrying about length, and return the History of Shaktism "daughter article" back into the main article? (Devi bhakta (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

P.S. You note "such sentences as" ... If there are other sentences that make you "skeptical", could you kindly note them specifically so that I may properly address your concerns? Thanks (Devi bhakta (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Need clarification on The religious historian V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar (1896-1953) expressed it thus:. Here, is the scholar religious minded or is he a scholar on religion?

I am not sure that I understand the distinction. Wouldn't the second by definition be the first? At any rate: Dikshitar was (in the 1920s-40s) a professor of history at St. Joseph's College, Bangalore; then (in the mid-1940s onward) Lecturer, later Reader, and finally Professorial Chair of the Department of Indian History and Archaeology at the University of Madras. He was also Honorary Reader in Politics and Public Administration at the same institution, and General Editor of the Madras University Historical Series. A posthumous bio notes that he belonged to a group of "avant-garde historians who introduced a new methodology into the study of Indian history"; he contributed "innumerable" articles on "various dimensions of Indian history" to scholarly journals both in India and abroad, including both "original treatises [and] translations." (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Added the above info to the article as a footnote at Dikshitar's first reference. (Devi bhakta (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

I would like the prose simplified in Shakti (i.e., the Supreme Goddess as Power, or Energy) is considered the motivating force behind all action and existence in the phenomenal cosmos.

It is interesting because precisely this sentence was singled out for special ridicule by user:Fowler&fowler above. Interestingly, if you glance back through the early history of the article, you will note that it is about the only sentence from the original article that survived my recent expansion! I guess that is either a tribute to the fact I edited as much as I did, or else a condemnation that I stopped without removing more! ;-) In any event, point taken, I will completely rework this poor sentence! (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

As mentioned earlier by other users, the list can become prose.

I believe Redtigerxyz has already addressed this; do you have another list from the article in mind, or should I disregard this? (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

These are just a few examples. The same sort of simplification and clarifications are sought through out the article.

Obviously, more specific examples would be appreciated. Having written most of the article, I am probably not a good one to judge where "simplification and clarifications" are called for. In a re-write of this complexity, I need all the guidance I can get. (Devi bhakta (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

I will come back and take a look later when copy edits are completed.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

[edit] Geelong, Victoria

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been though a Peer Review, all concerns have been addressed, and I believe the article covers all criteria for a featured article and covers the city in depth. Wongm (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You have fact tags and one-sentence paragraphs in the article. Were these not caught in the peer review? --Moni3 (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Moni3. I see a few unreferenced paragraphs, fact tags and short paragraphs with only one or two sentences. References 2, 17, 30, 35, 40, 41, 43, 59, 67, 79, 86, 88, 89 and 94 have formatting problems. Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Y Done Fact tags, unreferenced paragraphs, reference formatting and short paragraphs addressed. Done a bit of copyediting as well. Wongm (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Here are samples from the opening. The whole text needs careful copy-editing by someone unfamiliar with it.
- Reps: largest/city/state/Australia/largest/state/city/largest/cities/Australia/city/state/City, all in five lines.
- "car manufacturer Ford Australia, and"—remove the comma.
- "Geelong was named in 1837 by Governor Richard Burke, with the name derived from the local"—"with" is a poor connector, and it's already overused.
- MOS: double quotes required for terms.
- "mid-1850s".
- Get rid of the US spelling: "rivaLLing"
- "The city then diversified into manufacturing, rivaling Sydney, Hobart and Melbourne as woollen mills, ropeworks, and paper mills were established,[5] but the next few decades saw the population stay relatively constant, until the 19th century."—Does "but" introduce a contradiction here?
- "Geelong was proclaimed a city in 1910, with industrial growth from this time until the 1960s establishing the city as a manufacturing centre for the state,"—FOR the state? Sounds like Soviet-style state-ownership of industry. "Growth establishing the city" is ungrammatical, and again, "with" as an unsatisfatory back-connector. "... 1910; from this time until the190s, industrial growth established the ...". Tony (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have listed the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Geelong, Victoria for an outsider to check it. Wongm (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

[edit] Adam Air Flight 574

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets all the criteria (sources included, good sections) for FAC and is a part of an interesting topic Blackjack48 ♠^t ♣^c 06:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
Em dashes are usually unspaced.
"They had been moved 10–15 metres", "were 1,400 metres apart" - need conversions
"It was reported on June 28, 2007, that Adam Air..." "marine official said on January 24" - dates need linking
Full dates in the footnotes need linking.
En dashes should be used in the footnotes, unless part of a title where hyphens are used.
Ref 103 is unreliable.

Flight International is a highly respectable aviation magazine and I have utmost confidence in everything it publishes. What issues are there with it's use as a source?

Sorry, it appeared as though its Wikipedia article was being used as the source. Epbr123 (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A word only needs to be wikilinked once within each section, e.g. Flight 172 in Aftermath section.
"equating to U.S.$1 million" - the fullstops aren't needed, and only the first occurence of $ needs the US. Epbr123 (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm a little surprised to see this nominated as I would hold it still requires at the very least major reference conversion, and I'd like to trim it back a little, too. I'll try to get that done within the space of the FAC run, if I can. Otherwise, it probably is about ready to come here, but I did want to see the work done prior to nomination time. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Article says the black boxes "will be sent" for analysis - this can't be correct, can it? - there are other parts that were written long ago and need to be updated and deleted as appropriate
Section on the recovery of the black boxes is needlessly detailed, probably because of the same thing; it was written long ago when those details were interesting and important, and editors were probably trying to keep up with the news cycles
Intro paragraph says some of the family members have proposed a faulty valve, implying it's the fault of Boeing, but this isn't brought up later in the article (as far as I scanned)
I think personally that this article should not be Featured until there's a verdict from the black boxes' analysis. In my view, aircraft crashes are more like current events when the verdict isn't yet in. When the cause is ascertained, the event, or its reportage, seems complete. (Or if the black boxes are analyzed and "cause not ascertained" is the verdict.) This isn't the fault of any of the contributors to the article, of course. Tempshill (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

[edit] Raul Casanova

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe this is a very thorough, detailed, well-written, accurate and interesting article about baseball catcher Raul Casanova. Alex (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose – I believe the article fails some of the featured article criteria, and should be improved on some points:
- Fails 1.(b): the article barely addresses the years between 1972 and 1990.
- Fails 1.(c): many facts in the article don't have source references.
- Fails 2.(a): the article has a very short lead section; the lead is not a good summary, some information in the lead is not in the article.
- I noticed many sentences start with the word "He", some copyediting could be useful.
- I also think the section 'professional baseball' should be split up into subsections.

– Ilse @ 00:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose This article is horrible. The lead section sucks and there are not enough references. The article is not comprehensive and needs a personal life section. --Kaypoh (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please try to comment in a constructive manner. Instead of saying the lead "sucks", provide something actionable, such as "The lead is not comprehensive, and fails to include major points from the article, such as [example] and [example]." This both promotes a better atmosphere and better helps the nominator to improve the article. Pagra shtak 02:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, not even close to featured. There needs to be many more sources, the lead and the sections "The Draft" and "Overall Analysis" are uncomprehensive, and there is no image, to name a few problems. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- See Lee Smith (baseball) and Bob Meusel as examples of baseball players FAs, and follow that lead. Secret ^account 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Article is in a bunch of tiny chunks rather than prose paragraphs, the WP:LEAD needs to be expanded, etc. Take Secret's advice and look at those two FA's. Wizardman 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Not even close. See all above. Also much of the problem identified in the peer review have not been solved. Furhtermore, I think there is a reason for the quality hierarchy. Jumping from start classto FA is very ambitious, try to get it to Good Article first; that is easier to achieve; although the article would need substantial improvements even for that. Arnoutf 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

[edit] Western Chalukya architecture

I'm nominating this article for featured article because the Western Chalukya architecture is an important step in the development of South Indian architecture. The Western Chalukya architecture of 11th and 12th centuries is considered a conceptual link between the 8th century architecture of the Badami Chalukyas and the 12th / 13th century Hoysala architecture. This temple building style flourished in medieval Karnataka in southern India. The topic is well referenced and cited and is on the same lines as the earlier FA, Hoysala architecture. Please provide constructive feedback on format, grammar and presentation that would help make this a FA.

thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the "A" capitalized in the article title? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply I just started that way. If it is an issue, I can move the article and make it lower case.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Article title modified. - KNM ^Talk 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Redtigerxyz

Support ~~Comment~~: As requested by Dineshkannambadi, moved my comments from article talk page here, I have not gone through the whole article yet and may have some more comments to add tomorrow. Also, I will also make minor edits to the article, whereever neccessary IMO.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
~~{{fact}} tags added in article~~

Y Done. DK Added citations. Rectified sentences where applicable. Sometimes the meaning changes unintentionally during cpedits.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Added more.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Can the "Chaturmukha" image be brightened. The shadow is the most prominent thing in the photo.Else i suggest, it be removed.~~

DK This image is considered unique and only second in workmanship to the famous Saraswati image in Gadag (Cousens, p78, 1926). Thats the reason I added the image. I will change the image to a Jain tirthankar which is clearer, if you insist.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I have added the image of the Jaina also.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Yes, it may be the most beautiful piece, but whats the point in keeping it when it blocked by a huge shadow? My suggestion: Brighten it or remove it.~~ About the other Image - Jain tirthankar in "Temple Deities", the same murti can be seen in "Early developments" Image:Door Panel Decoration JainTemple at Lakkundi.JPG, thus a case of WP:UNDUE. So one of them should be removed, Preferably the one in "Temple Dieties" be removed as the other one shows the murti as well as Door panel decoration. Update the image heading of Image:Door Panel Decoration JainTemple at Lakkundi.JPG in "Early developments" documenting the fact the temple diety is also seen.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done updated image caption, removed repeat image.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try the brightening up myself.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone fix the tilt in Image:Door Panel Decoration JainTemple at Lakkundi.JPG.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In Temple Deities, "The temple has two other shrines dedicated to Murthinarayana and Chandraleshwari, the parents of Mahadeva, the Chalukya commander who consecrated the temple in 1112 CE" The 2 commas make the meaning not so WP:OBVIOUS.

DK Y Done rectified.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Examples of Hindu temples dedicated to deities other than Shiva or Vishnu are the Surya (called Suryanarayana) shrine at the Kasi Visvesvara" Is the temple called Suryanarayana shrine or Suryanarayana, the other name of Surya, is quoted?

DK Y Done I have corrected this. The Surya is portrayed as Suryanarayana. Hence its still Surya, the Sun god.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Janardana, a name of Vishnu? Thus the temple is probably dedicated to Vishnu. Check who the main diety is. Challenging "Examples of Hindu temples dedicated to deities other than Shiva or Vishnu are ... the Janardana and Durga Temples at Hirekerur in the Haveri district".^[1] The ref does not say so. Thus OR IMO.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply Y Done I have rectified this. Yes, Janardhana is indeed a form of Vishnu. However, the other temples mentioned are clearly neither Shaiva (dedicated to Shiva) or Vaishnava (dedicated to Vishnu). I can remove it if you feel the sentence is unnecessary, though.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Is 'Dravida' same as the Dravida of the this wiki article or is it an architectural term?If former applies, link the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)~~

Dk Reply The term Dravida style of architecture means architecture that developed in Southern India, distinguishing it from the Nagara style of Northern India (which itself is sub-divided into Kalinga etc based on region, and latina, Sekhari, Bhumija based on shapes of towers). Here Dravida is a general term and a broad Southern classification within which scholars use terms such as Pure Dravida (as in the some temples of Pattadakal and those at Mahabalipuram), Karnata Dravida - the variant that developed in Karnataka region and so on. The Dravida article tends to focus on linguistic groups (which is better accepted) and racial classifications (which as you may know is very controversial). However, one can broadly tie all these classifications together and call it Dravida or South Indian. Instead of linking it to Dravida article, maybe I should just provide a bracketed explanation and call it Dravida (meaning South Indian). What do you think?.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC) In fact this explanation already exists in the "Evolution" section in the very begining. Scholars do classify dravida generally as southern Indian.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, Dravida redirects to Dravidian people. Maybe something like: Dravida (south Indian), may be added at first occurence. Also sometimes dravida is spelt with a capital "D" (Dravida) , sometimes as lower case. Dravida (if proper noun) or dravida (if common) - one standard form be used. Most of article uses dravida.[17] But IMO, it is a proper noun as it refers to an unique style of architecture. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dk Reply Ok. Will do. I will take care of the other concerns also tonight.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Dk Reply I have made dravida lower case, provided (south Indian) and (north Indian) bracketed explanation for first appearence of the terms dravida and nagara respectively.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am adding link to Dravidian architecture, which a suitable link for Dravida style of architecture.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Is singular and plural of Mandapa same or is the plural Mandapas? Please Check. "On occasion there can be two or more open mantapa." in Basic layout~~.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Dk Reply mantapas is ok and is used in Kamath (2001), p116.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Drammatic overuse of phrase "The best example(s) of" or just "the best" or another variant "The finest examples of".[18] [19]. The article has many instances when a feature is discussed then you have "the best example of" X, Y, Z temples. The repetitive nature of the article makes reading a little boring (If I may say so) after a while. Needs to a copyedit to eliminate this.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done DK Reply I have cpedited this repetitive phrase out, for most part.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"The best examples of this style are the Muktesvara Temple at Chavudayyadanapura in Haveri district, which was renovated in the 13th century and whose vimana can be best described as sharp and tidy" in Unique plans - who describes the vimana as sharp and tidy? If a personal view, it should be removed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Dk Reply I have modified the sentence slightly and provided citation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I will go through whole article again and then only strike this out. Not now, Maybe in the evening. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"during this era remain as examples of the Chalukyan architectural style, the finest examples of which are " in lead. "examples of" repeated twice. The word "example" 5 times in lead.
"example(s) of" thrice in last para - "Temple Dieties".
"example(s) of" thrice in "Unique Plans"--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done DK Reply I have taken care of this issue now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

~~There is no info in text form about Stepped well (pictured).~~

Dk Reply Yes unfortunately, none of the books I own describe the stepped wells. But a recent book published by Gerard Foekema "Architecture of Indian subcontinent" has a few lines on it which i have lined to in citation 47.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That raises another issue: I observed that some pictures are placed with no reference in the text, looking out of place. Examples: The Image:Sculpture at Siddhesvara temple at Haveri.JPG is more revelant in Sculpture than in Temple Deities. While the Jain Tirthankar should be in Temple deities. etc. I suggest a rearrangement of pics so that placed "where they are appropriate to the subject." (WP:FA?) --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done movd images.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The windows of Manikesvara Temple (pictured) not discussed in text. The temple finds mention only in the list at the end.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Challenging "Unique Plans" title. Is it really unique - Being only one of its self ? Can it be referenced that the plans are really unique? else it may be a violation of WP:NPOV (a glorification of the subj).--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Dk Reply Yes, the 16 pointed and 24 pointed uniterrupted plans are isolated cases in India. All stellate plans (according to the author) in north India are the 32 pointed interrupted type, making the 16 and 24 pointed ones unique. However, so as not to draw undue attention to this issue, I have changed the title of that section which has all the citations needed. I can however add more if you so desire. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The {{KarnatakaHistory}} looks out of place in Architectural elements. The template be placed elsewhere or removed.

Y Done Dk Reply Moved to a less conspicuous location.Dineshkannambadi 03:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why has the {{Western Chalukya Temples}} template been created if it is to be used for 1 article? Just incorporate whole code in the article. Thats makes editing the article simple. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply Here, I request that the template be maintained. This is consistant with all other FA's I wrote. Some reviewers frown upon a "list" of temples and discourage lists. I either created a template for temples in architecture articles or a template for Kings in regular history articles. I want to expand this template and include more temples, further provide date of consecration, kings who commissioned it, may be even a column for articulation style etc (dravida, nagara). This way I can keep all details in one template and link from there to subarticles.Dineshkannambadi 03:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dk Reply I will look into this.thanks Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dk Reply I will look into your questions and concerns later today.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Though 2 small things to be done, those do not stop me supporting a great article and I trust Dineshkannambadi will resolve it too. IMO, now; the article is almost "WP:PERFECT". The word "almost" is included as perfection "is not attainable. Editing may bring an article closer to perfection, but ultimately, perfection means different things to different Wikipedians".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The article has a lot of images relative to the amount of text. It makes me wonder whether we need a new category of articles that are more strongly based around images. Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply Every image in the article is directly related to an architectural element or development that has been described in the article. I can reduce the images but find another reviewer suggest that the number the images are insufficient. Also, the number of images is consistant with my other architecture related FA.thanksDineshkannambadi 15:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by User:Tony1

~~Oppose~~—Improved writing; "small- star" errant space; huge white space in "Notable temples: PLEASE fix! Can't the images go to the side of the table? En dash for year range at top of table. Oh, and en dashes for page ranges in the reference list. Tony (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)1a. Long sentences, often complicated in structure, and redundant wording. Here are a few random examples from the top.

DK Reply I will deal with these issues right away. I somehow missed your comment. sorry about that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done DK Reply fixed en dashes. Will work on other issues tommorow. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done DK Reply Improved white space by adding additional col to template and dated monuments from sources.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

DK question Not sure what this means - "small- star" errant space. Can you please tell me.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done DK Reply reduced sentence length.Dineshkannambadi 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Large and small temples built during this era remain as examples of the Chalukyan architectural style, ~~well known among which are~~ including the Mahadeva Temple at Itagi in the Koppal district, the Kasivisvesvara Temple at Lakkundi in the Gadag district, the Mallikarjuna Temple at Kuruvatti and the Kallesvara Temple at Bagali, both in the Davangere district." It's a longish sentence with an awkward bit in the middle (well-known, please).

Done reduced length of many sentences, improved prose.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"The influence of this style is seen up to the Kalyani region and beyond in the north-east, in the Bellary region in the east, in the Mysore region in the south, and in the Bijapur-Belgaum region in the north, where they mix with the remnants of the Hemadpanti temples." What does "they" refer to? What is being mixed?

Y Done DK Reply clarified and broke into multiple sentences.Dineshkannambadi 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Caption: "11th c. CE"—c. means "about". You'll have to spell it out.

Y Done DK Reply spelled it out as "century". The exact date of consecratin of a few monuments is debated based on inscriptional evidence. So even historians simply give the 11th century/12th century rather then exact date.Dineshkannambadi 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Though Western Chalukya architecture identifies as an independent tradition by virtue of the various modifications attained by its builders, closer examination reveals that its basic plan can be traced back to the older pure dravida (south Indian) temple plans that developed simultaneously in the 6th and 7th centuries in the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu regions, then under the control of the Badami Chalukyas and Pallava empires respectively." Phew. "Although" is nicer in a formal register. Replace "identifies as" with just "was". Remove "various". "Attained" is strange here. Remove "closer examination reveals that", which is not quite necessary here, is it?

Y Done DK Reply corrected per above advice and reduced sentence length somewhat.Dineshkannambadi 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Study ... has revealed ..."—This is a bit laboured when you give the reference anyway. Why not just state it? "In the W C style, there is/was a distinct ..." I don't know; it's kind of complicated to unravel and simplify, but someone must do it. I'm getting confused about was/is, style/building. Avoid repetitions such as "architectural" in the one phrase. What is "articulation"—link or explain on first occurrence.

Is user Fowler&fowler still around? Or Samir? They might agree to help. Tony (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply the meaning of articulation (according to the scholars referenced) is given in the section "Temple complexes" and subsection "Basic layout" and goes like this, Ornamental components forming patterns that include the whole of the shrine such as projections and recesses of the outer wall are considered as architectural articulation.

Y Done DK Reply I have reduced usage of "architectural" term, chopped many long sentences into smaller ones, explained "articulation" on first occurance. Will continue to improve the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dk Reply I will look into these issues as well as others that may exist.Dineshkannambadi 12:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply I will continue to look for long winding sentences, complicated sentences and simplyfy it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Disappointed to find a glitch in the first sentence: "between the 11th and ~~the~~ 12th centuries". "about fifty monuments have survived ~~to date~~" "their style ~~mixes~~ is mixed with the". "These vanished structures"—ungrammatical. Now if these are just random pick-ups in the lead, there must be an awful lot in the rest. Tony (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Dk Reply I have taken care of these examples you have shown and will continue to cpedit and improve the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dk Reply I will look into this right away. I will also request an experienced copy editor to help me with this.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done DK Reply I have requested another user, not connected with the article to do a copy edit and improve prose. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done DK Reply I would like to thank user:Writtenright, user:Michael Devore and user:Epbr123 for their copy edits and spelling checks to improve the prose in this article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Support - A well-referenced, interesting article which we have come to expect from dinesh.Baka man 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support - Meets FA criteria. Well-written, and well-cited with ample images. "Architectural elements" section might require some minor alignments regarding images. Overall, very impressive work. - KNM ^Talk 17:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong support - Well referenced and meets FA criteria. Naveen ^(talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong support- Another beautiful FA from Dineshkannambadi, well referenced and meets the FA criterias. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ Huge whitespace in "Notable temples" section. I see a few wordy phrases ("are known to be"..."it is considered"..."it is known"), POV ("well known among them"..."an indicator of the prolific temple building activity"...""..."undoubtedly an important seat, if not the main seat") and weasel words (""may have been influenced by""..."it seems that"). But it's good enough for GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dk Reply I will look into your concerns shortly. However, it would be appreciated if you could point out which sentences you see these "phrases" in. As far as blank space, is there a wiki policy on that? I am not sure. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Dk Reply I have corrected several weasel words, wordy phrases etc. If you have any more concerns, please indicate the entire sentence and how you want it re-worded.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Done DK Reply I have reduced white space in "Notable temples". Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Michael Devore
Spelling variants

Here are a few spelling variations I found when looking through the article on the first passes. I'll try to do another couple of passes later today.

Chavudayyadanapura and Chaudayyadanapura

Y Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Banashankri and Banashankari

{Y DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hirehadagalli and Hirehadgalli

Y DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There remains one variation in the current version. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Done now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nanesvara and Nannesvara

Y DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There remains one variation in the current version. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Done now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Basavana and Basavanna

DK Reply This is ok. Basavanna is a person, "Basavana Bagevadi" with single "n" is a place where he was laid to rest.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Two are in the template Western Chalukya Temples. One is in the template Karnataka. -- Michael Devore (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into this today.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply All spelling issues have been corrected.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wording

While reading through the article I found sentences where the structure is likely in error. I generally do not make higher-level content edits on writing style, leaving the task to those more talented in that area, but I'll list found problematic sentences should you want to make changes.

Finally, the depictions that stand more or less by themselves, including miniature architectural components on pilasters, miniature buildings, sculptures and complete towers, categorised as "figure sculpture". This reads as a sentence fragment; as the simplest fix I would recommend adding an are before categorised.

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally, Chalukyan temples were built facing the east – although, exceptions include the Siddhesvara temple at Haveri. Wikipedia prefers the unspaced em dash for interruption, see Wikipedia:Mos#Em_dashes. (In fact, there are editors on WP with a history of making wholesale changes from space en dash to unspaced em dash.) A second problem, potentially, is that the sentence may have too much interruption: an interruptive dash, followed by the interruptive although, immediately followed by a pausing comma. Consider dropping the comma, or perhaps the entire although, (you use a lot of althoughs in the article). This may fall under stylistic decisions, however.

Done DK Reply The article has been copy edited by so many, I am not sure who introduced the "although", though I have no issue with it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Other sentences in the article have a space en dash and will probably be altered in the future by one of the aforementioned editors if you don't do it yourself, e.g. at articulation – namely, stones – each, and others.

DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Temples that fall in this category are the Mahadeva Temple at Jalsingi and the Suryanarayana Temple at Kalgi in modern Gulbarga district. The article probably should have a 'the' before modern. No preceding the is correct if you dropped district, or if district was capitalized as part of the full Gulbarga name. You already have a the on two other Gulbarga district phrases in the article, so consider that, too.

Y Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That wraps up my smattering of higher-level copy edit suggestions. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)]

DK Reply I missed your comments which you typed onto the talk page. I have copied it here. I shall look into your concerns today.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

comment

I did a modest rework of your first paragraph to make it read better (to me), while keeping your original sentence content to match the references. I didn't know what the references say and was therefore conservative in changing things around so as not to make the refs invalid. I'll try to get to the second through nth paragraph as time allows, but it's rather slow going given my unfamiliarity with the subject matter.

Clearly there is still room for improvement, so I won't be putting any scheduled League copyeditors out of work here. Revert if you don't like the changes, my feelings will survive intact. -- Michael Devore (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was rather more aggressive in reworking paragraph 3 to get a better read, but I think it retains your meaning. Michael Devore (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As Western Chalukya architecture is now edited by Finetooth, I won't be making further changes to the article except on the unlikely chance I clearly see a problem. -- Michael Devore (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply Thank you for your copy edits to improve the prose in the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by user:Fowler&fowler

Oppose The article has two major problems: it has too many grammatical and stylistic errors for a prospective FA, but more importantly it has major problems of cohesion. In my opinion, this is not an easy fix. It needs more than just a careful copy-edit; it needs rethinking about its focus. The article should be withdrawn, its text should be organized clearly, rewritten clearly, and then resubmitted. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going away for a few weeks, so I won't be around to offer any more comments or to follow up, but perhaps users SandyGeorgia or Tony1 can take another look at the article. Here is the first paragraph of the lead. (The text is in italics and my comments in parentheses. Sorry, if I sound too casual or brusque; I'm in a bit of a hurry.)

Western Chalukya architecture (Kannada: ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ ಚಾಲುಕ್ಯ ವಾಸ್ತುಶಿಲ್ಪ), also known as Kalyani Chalukya or Later Chalukya architecture, is the distinctive building style developed under the rule of the Western Chalukya Empire in the Tungabhadra region of central Karnataka, India, between the 11th and 12th centuries.

(The lead sentence defines the architecture as "the distinctive building style." The reader now wants to know what makes the style distinctive, but the following sentences drop the ball.)

Western Chalukya influence was at its peak in the 12th century, when it dominated the Deccan Plateau.

(The sentence is vague: what does "Western Chalukya influence" mean here? The influence of the empire or of the architecture? There are grammatical problems: the subject is "Western Chalukya influence," and therefore "it" clearly refers to the influence, i.e. "Western Chalukya influence dominated the Deccan Plateau," which makes is doubly vague. Also, the "Deccan Plateau" is a geographical feature; it is like saying that Mughal architecture dominated the Indo-Gangetic Plain (rather than the architecture of northern India). But the main problem for me is one of cohesion/coherence: the reader—after the first sentence—is looking forward to be told what is distinctive; instead, she/he gets a detour, to something that is irrelevant to that focus.)

DK Reply First of all, Western Chalukya influence means "political and cultural" influence, both of which have a direct impact on architecture. I will add this. Secondly, you need to get to the heart of the article to get the details. You cant expect me to explain what their influence was and what their achievements were in the LEAD section.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

F&f response to reply: No, you don't need to describe the influence, but clarify what influence you are talking about. Even so, what does it mean when you say, "Western Chalukya (political and cultural) influence dominated the Deccan Plateau?" Do you mean: "The Western Chalukya empire significantly influenced the politics and culture of the entire Deccan Plateau?" As for addressing what is distinctive about the architecture, you do need to say something, i.e. provide some identifying highlights. See Sicilian Baroque or Deconstructivism. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. DK Reply Clarified "political influence". Added generally what was distinctive about their style (decorative ornamentation).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Although, the central Karnataka region held its position as the nucleus of cultural activity, (something must be missing here) where the workshops built monuments with vigour.

(Again, the sentence is not grammatical, but, more importantly, what is the point of the sentence? The reader is still waiting to be told what is distinctive. "workshops built monuments with vigour?" Well, workshops don't really build monuments; they might turn out the building blocks of monuments (sculpture, ornaments etc.), but not the monuments themselves. Also, "vigour" would apply to the artisans or builders, but not really to workshops.)

DK Reply The point is to tell the reader where the architectural activities thrived. When you write of Mogul architecture, would you not want to explain where the architecture thrived?. You write something must be missing here. If you cant tell what is missing, I cant correct it. Again you are wrong in making a assumption. A workshop includes all sorts of guilds; sculptors, architects, masons, even miners who mined out the stone shafts. So your assumption that workshops dont build monuments is wrong. BTW, I used the term used by Dr. Adam Hardy, its not my invention.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

F&f response to reply: 1) The sentence, "Although (no comma here) the central Karnataka region held its position as the nucleus of cultural activity, where the workshops built monuments with vigour." is not grammatical (beyond the minor comma problem). You have the subordinate clause, but what is the independent clause? It can't be, "where the ..." 2) If the point of the sentence is to explain where the architecture thrived, then why not simply say: "The central Karanataka region was the centre of architectural activity."? 3) As for "workshop," here are some dictionary definitions: 1) (American Heritage) "A room, area, or small establishment where manual or light industrial work is done." (Webster's Unabridged) "a small establishment where manufacturing or craftwork is carried on by a proprietor with or without helpers and often without power machinery." If the word "workshop" is being used in an unusual manner, then perhaps it needs to be qualified, for example: "large medieval workshops" Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done DK Reply Added "large medieval workshops", removed "Although".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

These structures are a local variant of the basic dravida (south Indian) plan and termed "The Karnata dravida" tradition.

(Well, now it belatedly does mention the architecture, but instead of explaining it, it gives it another name, this time the tradition rather than the architecture, all of which is very confusing to a reader. The reader has no idea what the basic dravida tradition is. Also: "These structures?" You didn't refer to them in the previous sentence. Which structures are you talking about? The monuments?)

DK Reply I will change the word "structure" to "monuments". I will also add in brackets what karnata dravida means. This is a summry style article. You cant expect me to write in detail about pure dravida tradition here. But if you patiently read through the article, you will get an idea, I am sure.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

F&f response to reply: I'm not asking you to detail anything. I guess what I am saying is this. The subject of the sentence is "These structures." The compound predicate is problematic. The structures are not variants of a "plan," but rather built according to a plan. Similarly, the structures are not termed "Karnataka dravida" tradition, but rather define (or form, or belong to) the tradition. Do you mean local variants or regional variants? Do you want "variant" in the singular? The qualifier "basic" assumes some sort of familiarity on the part of the reader: either provide a link, or don't mention it. I guess if I had to write it, I might say something along the lines of: "These monuments, whose plans were regional variants of the pre-existing dravida (South Indian) temple plan, were to define the Karnataka dravida tradition."

Done DK Reply Replaced my sentence with Fowlers sentence for clarity and provided link..Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Temples of all sizes built during this era remain as examples of the Chalukyan architectural style.

(The sentence is ambiguous. Does it mean that all temples built during this era were built in the WC style? Or, that temples of all sizes have survived and together define the WC style? Still no explanation of distinctiveness.)

DK Reply I will reword this to ensure it means "Temples of all sizes built by the Western Chalukyas.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done DK Reply I have clarified who built the large and samll temples.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable among them are the Mahadeva Temple at Itagi in the Koppal district, the Kasivisvesvara Temple at Lakkundi in the Gadag district, the Mallikarjuna Temple at Kuruvatti and the Kallesvara Temple at Bagali, both in the Davangere district. Other monuments with notable craftmanship include the Siddhesvara Temple at Haveri in the Haveri district, Amrtesvara Temple at Annigeri in the Dharwad district, Sarasvati Temple in Gadag and Dodda Basappa Temple at Dambal, both in the Gadag district.

(Well, now the text goes off on an extended tour of the different locations. If the point of the lead is to list the geographical locations of the architectural style, then there should be a map, instead of the photographs, accompanying the text. In other words, an average reader would be hard put to summarize what she/he has read up to this point.)

It's not just the lead paragraph. I see the same problems in all sorts of random places.

DK Reply I dont agree that there should be a map. Now you are being vague by using the term all sorts of random places.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

F&f response to reply: OK, I'll provide a longer list below. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In the Evolution section: Although Western Chalukya architecture was an independent tradition by virtue of the modifications achieved by its builders ...

(Doesn't make sense. Modifications of what? If they are modifications, how are they independent?)

DK Reply Please patiently read thru the article and the modifications will jump at you. You cant expect me to write that in the first line of the first section after the lead. Historians normally consider the extent of modifications before calling a style "independent". Going by your arguement, no architectural style can be considered "independent". For example, the Western Ganga style is really not considered independent because it is much closer to pure dravida than Western Chalukya style is. BTW, these are the opinions of experts such as Cousens, Hardy and Foekema, not mine. I have provided the citations for your benefit.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

F&f's response to reply: I'm simply talking about the sentence: "Although Western Chalukya architecture was an independent tradition by virtue of the modifications achieved by its builders, its basic plan can be traced back to the older pure dravida temple plans that developed simultaneously in the 6th and 7th centuries in the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu regions." It seems you have the independent and subordinate clauses switched. I think you probably mean something along the lines of: "Although the basic plan of the WC style could be traced back to the older dravida style, WC architecture came to define an independent tradition as a result of the many innovations introduced in it." Also, "simultaneously" means "occurring at the same time." You can't have "simultaneously in the 6th and 7th centuries." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done DK Reply I have replaced my sentence with Fowler's sentence and removed the term "simultaneously".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In the Temple Deities section: Identification of the original presiding deity to which the temple was dedicated to, in case the temple had been appropriated by another faith, is made possible by inspection of certain features.

(Passive voice makes it too convoluted. "in case the ... faith" is a restrictive phrase. "certain features?" Too vague. Doesn't invite the reader to the sentences that come next.)

DK Reply How do you propose I reword it.? The "certian features" will become clear in the next few sentences. I can remove the second occurance of "to".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

F&f's response to reply: Something along the lines of: "If the temple has been converted to that of another faith, the original presiding deity can sometimes still be identified by looking for some salient clues." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done DK Response Changed sentence per above comment.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In section Temple Complexes (Basic Layout): Common to both plans are the use of two or more doorways and porches giving entrance to the main hall. Unlike the northern Indian temples, which have a small closed mantapa leading to the shrine, and the southern pure dravida temples, which have a large open pillared mantapa, the Chalukyan architects found a compromise and retained both.

(How could these sentences have escaped copy editing by a number of editors? It should be "Common to both plans is the use ..." The subject in the next sentence is "the Chalukyan architects." Surely, they are not being compared to north Indian temples. Other problems too.)

Done DK Reply fixed the grammar. Now architects are compared to architects.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply I will copy edit this sentence.What other problems?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see these problems pretty much everywhere I look. Other problems? Too much jargon in technical explanations. Also, no satisfactory conclusion: after the last section, the reader is left hanging. I think the topic is fascinating, but the article needs to be rethought clearly with regards message and focus, and then rewritten clearly. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply I though the idea was to explain what their "modifications " were. I thought the idea was to show the reader how Western Chalukya architecture" varied from pure southern and pure northern Indian styles. Now you you say "too much technical details", earlier you said "not enough detail". I am confused.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Response I am going to break up this mass into smaller manageable pieces.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

F&f response to reply: Well, in the lead I was asking for some identifying highlights, some salient features, something brief to hang my hat on. In the other sections, I find there is too much jargon, or rather an uneven combination of vague words and jargon. Look at the first paragraph of the Basic Layout section: The plan of the Western Chalukya temples can be classified into three features: the basic structure, the features of architectural articulation and the decorative features.

Done'DK Reply' Dr. Foekema says "distinguished into three features", but I have used "subdivided" as you suggest.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The basic structure defines whether the shrine has a pradakshina (path for circumambulation) or not, the size of the shrine and of the sanctum inside, and the basic distribution of the building. Ornamental components forming patterns that include the whole of the shrine such as projections and recesses of the outer wall are considered as architectural articulation. These are either stepped/stellate or square/rectangular. In the former, all or nearly all projections form projecting corners and the latter have only four projecting corners. There are two basic kinds of architectural articulation: the southern Indian dravida and the northern Indian nagara types.

Done DK reply The term "whole of shrine" is confusing. Its the "entire wall of the shrine that pocesses the projections and recesses".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In the first sentence you must mean "subdivided into three components." To "classify" is to assign to a class. "architectural articulation" needs to be explained briefly in simpler words, and not just as you do in a later sentence by describing what it is included in it. The next sentence "The basic structure defines whether the shrine has ..." is a disaster. The basic structure doesn't define ...; rather, it is those ... properties that define the basic structure. What is "basic distribution" (too vague)? Is it the blueprint or floor plan? Need a better choice of words. Look at the predicate: one part starts with "whether;" the others don't. That's like saying, "The Health report defines whether a person smokes or not, height, weight, blood lipid levels and basic health," when one means something like, "The Health report includes information on whether a patient smokes or not, as well as the weight, height, and blood lipid levels of the patient; in addition, information from a physical exam is included." The next sentence, "Ornamental components forming patterns that include the whole of the shrine such as projections and recesses of the outer wall are considered as architectural articulation" is too ambiguous. "Patterns that include the whole of the shrine?" (The shrine is not a pattern.) "such as projections and recesses" (Are they the ornamental components or the patterns?) Next sentence: "These are either stepped/stellate or square/rectangular" (The jargon is not explained.) In the next sentence: "In the former, all or nearly all projections form projecting corners and the latter have only four projecting corners." you mean, "In the former, all or nearly all projections form projecting corners; in the latter, only four do."

Done DK Reply I have rectified the meaning which may have changed over various copy edits.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But, the grammar aside, it seems to be a clunky explanation of those terms. The next sentence, "There are two basic kinds of architectural articulation: the southern Indian dravida and the northern Indian nagara types." gives us some information, but we don't know what to do with the information, as the sentences that follow talk about something entirely different.

DK Reply Is it the right thing to do (in a summary style article) to go into explaining what is dravida and what is nagara here.?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence, "Finally, the depictions that stand more or less by themselves, including miniature architectural components on pilasters, miniature buildings, sculptures and complete towers, categorised as "figure sculpture". is incomplete. Where is the predicate? Do you really want "depictions?" This is just one paragraph. I see this pretty much in every paragraph of the text. That is why I think this is not an easy fix: the article needs to be withdrawn, organized clearly, rewritten in clear, grammatical language, and then resubmitted. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done DK Reply Sorry but I dont see how the sentence is incomplete. Could you please explain how? The correct word is "representations", not "depictions". I have made that change.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply I have read your lengthy set of negative comments and I shall try hard to solve as many of your issues with the article as possible. Its too bad you wont be around to acknowledge my efforts, now that you plan to go away for Christmas.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply I will try and make suitable changes to the article to improve the grammar and clarity, though this may take me a day or two, given the number of issues.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DK comment Rewritten in clear, grammatical language, this article has gone through formal peer-review and has undergone several rounds of copyedits by different editors. If you have specific issues on any grammatical issues, please point them out, and I will try addressing them. Again, thanks for your efforts on reviewing this article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Mattisse

Comment - Agree with Fowler&fowler «Talk» 's statement above: "Where is the predicate? Do you really want "depictions?" This is just one paragraph. I see this pretty much in every paragraph of the text. That is why I think this is not an easy fix: the article needs to be withdrawn, organized clearly, rewritten in clear, grammatical language, and then resubmitted." Fowler&fowler «Talk»

DK Comment I have gone through your comments and find them very vague and unclear. You seem to have a problem with many sentences, but you dont state what is the actual problem.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Although the article has noticeably improved over the last few days, much to your credit, I believe you want the article to be the finest it can be. Why not take the time to make this article sparkle, rather than rushing it through FAC? For example, IMO, the article suffers from the following problems:

The writing style is dull and clumsy, not sparkling as befits an FA e.g. "The features that became common in the 11th century were used in addition to adding new features."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There remain many ungrammatical and oddly worded sentences: e.g.

"Western Chalukyan figure sculptures are well rendered, one such sculpture worthy of mention is of the Hindu Goddess Sarasvati at the Sarasvati Temple in Gadag city."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by user:Fowler&fowler on Dineshkannambadi's response to Mattisse's review. I am afraid you are being a little cavalier in your responses to Mattisse's criticisms. Her concerns are neither vague nor unclear. She's doing you a big favor by pointing out examples of prose that would not be acceptable in any Wikipedia article, let alone an FA. It is not her job to provide the corrections as well. If you are truly unable to figure out the problems (both grammatical and stylistic) in a sentence like, "Western Chalukyan figure sculptures are well rendered, one such sculpture worthy of mention is of the Hindu Goddess Sarasvati at the Sarasvati Temple in Gadag city," I am afraid you don't inspire much confidence that you will attend to the remaining deficiencies in the text. You say that the article went through a formal peer-review. That doesn't justify the presence of mistakes. We are not talking about "mistakes" that are (in reality) disguised stylistic preferences of individual editors, but glaring mistakes of grammar and diction that no one would disagree about. If you think she is being vague, why don't you invite any of the editors who participated in the formal peer-review or for that matter any of the editors who have gone on record as supporting this FAC to defend Mattisse's examples. I will provide more criticism later in the day, but I would urge you to take Mattisse's comments seriously. If you don't understand them, find someone from the League of Copy Editors who does. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"But in the overall arrangement of the main temple and of the subsidiary shrines, they leaned towards the northern style ....",

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Apart from an occasional exaggeration in its pose, each principle deity had its own pose depending on the incarnation or form depicted."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also "found popularity" is oddly worded. Words like linga should be either linked to an explanation or explained.

DK Reply was already linked.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"At Hangal, the architects were able to provide a sekhari superstructure to the shrine while the lower half received a nagara articulation and depictions of miniature sekhari towers. This style of workmanship with a square plan are found at Muttagi and Degaon."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"In all three cases, the shrine is a 16-pointed uninterrupted star, a plan unfound anywhere else in India..." - there is no such word as "unfound".

DK Reply corrected typo. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Between the 12th and 13th Centuries there are no sharp differences between the styles, although the 12th-century characteristics become prominent."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"These differences manifest in the articulation and in the shapes and ornamentation of individual architectural components, giving them a unique place in Chalukyan architecture."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Too much weasel wording and passive voice. e.g. "Sometimes called the Gadag style of architecture, it is considered a precursor to the famous Hoysala architecture of southern Karnataka". And again in the very the next sentence: "It is known that the early builders the Hoysalas employed originated from important centres of medieval Chalukyan art." And again, "This change is observed in the Muktesvara Temple..."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I would stress that words that are likely to be unfamiliar to the average reader should be either linked or explained. There are many words in the article that I do not know the meaning of.

DK Reply This is perhaps the primary problem, in that you may not be intimate with or have the basics of Hindu architecture. Please point out which words you dont understand and I shall link orexplain it .Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

These are just examples randomly picked. If you go through the article following the many good suggestions given to you above by many other editors, it should noticeably improve the article. You tend to use their suggestions on the sentence they provide as an example, rather than generalizing the suggestions to the whole article. You cannot expect the FA editors to copy edit the entire article.

DK Reply I though it was a reviewers responsibility to read the article fully and then make suggestions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I question the basic overall organization of the article. Are the sections presented in an order that makes sense? It is hard for me to follow the article, but maybe others feel differently. Mattisse 15:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply Again you are being vague. What is overall basic organization.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply Mattisse, thanks for your review of the article. I believe all these changes you suggest can be made within the FAC itself. I dont see the need to pull it out. thanks for your effort in improving the article. If you have specific suggestions how the article can be improved, plese spell it out and I will surely consider it.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Fowler&fowler's comments of December 18

(I am traveling. I managed to find a weak connection to the internet; hope I can stay connected.) I am afraid there are still too many problems. I see some improvement, but mostly in the parts that I have already commented on. Here, for example, is the second paragraph of the lead. There are problems in every sentence of the paragraph. (PS. ~~I haven't had the time to read user:Mattisse's comments with great care, but I agree with most of them.~~ I have now read user:Mattisse's comments and I agree with all of them. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

The centre of these architectural developments was the region of Dharwad district (presently divided into Dharwad, Haveri and Gadag districts), and about 50 monuments have survived, an indicator of the temple building activity of the Western Chalukyan architects.

"The centre of these architectural developments was the region of Dharwad district (presently divided into Dharwad, Haveri and Gadag districts)," The region of a district is the region that lies within that district, not a larger region including that distict. "Darwar district," linked to the present-day district, can't be divided into other present-day districts that lie outside it. Better to say, "The centre of these architectural developments was a region encompassing the present-day Dharwad district and including areas of present-day Haveri and Gadag districts."

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"presently divided." The primary meaning of "presently" is "in a little while," or "soon." Although the word is sometimes used to mean "at the present time," this usage is disputed. It is better to say "currently." This, of course, will become moot if you rephrase as above.
"and about 50 monuments have survived." Where? Better to say, "... , ~~and~~ where about 50 monuments have survived"

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"an indicator of the temple building activity of the Western Chalukyan architects" Even one temple is an indicator of temple building activity. I think you want to say, "where nearly fifty monuments have survived, evidence of the widespread/prolific temple building of the West Chalukyan workshops. (You have already used the word "workshop" to include architects, craftsmen, miners, etc. Clearly they all produced the monuments.) Or, alternately simple stop after "have survived," since you have already referred to the "vigour" of the workshops.

Done DK Reply Done. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The influence of this style is seen up to the Kalyani region and beyond in the north-east, in the Bellary region in the east, in the Mysore region in the south.

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"up to the Kalyani region and beyond." Redundant. If the influence extends beyond a region, it certainly extends up to the region. Need an "and" before the third comma. Better to say something like, "The influence of this style extended beyond (weasel word though: how much beyond?) the Kalyani region in the north-east and up to the Bellary region in the east and the Mysore region in the south."

Y Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In the Bijapur-Belgaum region to the north, their style is mixed with the remnants of that of the Hemadpanti temples.

"remnants" means "that which remains," "remainder," or "residue." What does "remainder of a style" mean? I think you probably mean something like: "Among temples found in the Bijaput-Belgaum region to the north, the West Chalukyan style still predominates, however, influence of the Hemadpanti style can also be detected."

DK Reply No. that is not what I want to say. The author just says "the two styles mix" and in fact implies the influence of Chalukyan style is not obvious but exists never the less. He does not say the Chalukyan style predominates. He uses the word "remains of Hemadpanti temples". I have simplified the sentence now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In the west, apart from a few temples in Konkan, the Western Ghats practically acted as a barrier to the propagation of this style.

Dangling modifier. "apart from a few temples in Konkan" the temples didn't act as a barrier. (I am assuming the temples are the exceptions.)
"practically" is generally informal usage. "in effect" or "likely" would be better. A better way to say this would be: "Although a few West-Chalukyan temples can be found in the Konkan region, the presence of the Western Ghats likely prevented the style from spreading westwards (or, to the west).

Done I have corrected the sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All that remains of Western Chalukya monuments are their temples, built in the Shaiva, Vaishnava and Jain religious traditions. None of their military, civil and courtly architecture have survived. These structures may have been built with mud, brick and wood and hence were unable to withstand invasions.

This is a crucial piece of information. It comes too late in the paragraph (after we have already talked about the temples). It should come first.

DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"None of their military, civil and courtly architecture ~~have~~ has survived."

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"These structures ..." you can't have certainty in the second half of the sentence when you only have probability in the first. Better to say, "These structures may have been built with mud, brick and wood, and therefore may not have withstood invasions." Or, "These structures, which may have been built with mud, brick and wood, may not have withstood invasions."

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Map: Lastly, I think a map of the region is an absolute must for an article with so much reference to geography, especially when most links themselves don't have any locater maps and when the geography will likely be unfamiliar to most readers.

DK Reply I can have a map request made, since I dont know how to draw maps.

user:planemad is the expert. So, when the map gets done, it will contain "dots" showing the location and the corresponding place names.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So, as you can see, there are problems in every sentence of the paragraph. And this is still the lead. I will try to add something more, if I can find another connection later in the day.

As I had said above, this article cannot be fixed on the fly by responding to sample copy edits provided by the reviewers. It has too many problems of grammar, style, and cohesion for that. It needs to be withdrawn, reworked on with care, and then resubmitted. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply I will take a close look at your comments later tonight. As far as improving grammar, style etc, we are doing it right here and quite well.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

DK comment Fowler, I would like to thank you for the effort you are taking to improve the article, even when you are travelling. Your effort is appreciated.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Fowler. This seems to continue to need significant copy-editing.--Keerllston 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Comment Based on some of the responses from reviewers, I have requested the League of Copyeditors to help me out in cleaning up grammar and other issues on this article. So, when that happens, I will provide full co-operation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by user:Mattisse

Comment I am wondering if organization could be improved discussing sculpture in one place under the heading of Scupture instead of some discussion of sculpture under Deities, especially since that section is so long? Also, I am wondering why Deities is the second important heading? It seems like that section covers a mixture of topics. At least some of the information in that section might fit better (for the sake of clarity) under other headings Mattisse 00:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply I understand your concern. There are two sentences in the Deity section that one could argue belongs in the sculpture section. The first is the sentence is Apart from an occasional exaggeration in its pose, each principle deity had its own pose depending on the incarnation or form depicted. Consistent with figure sculpture in other parts of India, these figures were deficient in musculature and drapery. The second sentence is about the sculpture of Goddess Sarasvati at the Sarasvati temple in Gadag and its drapery and ornamentation etc. The reason I kept them in the deity section is that the discussion pertains directly to the main deity of the temple, not sundry/decorative/epic frieze scuptures. This I felt was significant enough to keep it in the Deity section. Regarding why the Deity section comes second; It would have been the first heading, except I felt I should add a section on Evolution and that it should preceed Deities.

However, if there is consensus to move the above two sentences from Deities to the Sculpture section, I would be happy to do so.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Support: very good article! --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 10:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by user:Finetooth

Possible typo In the "Stellate plans" section, a sentence says, "Between the 12th and 13th Centuries there are no sharp differences between the styles, although the 12th century characteristics become prominent." Since the rest of the paragraph describes change, I wonder if perhaps the second mention of 12th century is a typo. Shouldn't the text say, "...although the 13th century characteristics become prominent"? Finetooth (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply No. The second mention of 12th century is accurate. Dr. Foekema says some 12th century chracteristics were reinforced in the 13th century.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Time stamps in photos The red time stamps on some of the photos are distracting. The eye is drawn to them instead of to the temples and their architectural details. Since the date and time of data generation are given on the Wikimedia page associated with each photo, time stamps on the photos are superfluous. If you can possibly remove the time stamps from your originals and upload unstamped versions, it would improve the article. Finetooth (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DK ReplyI will request someone who does this kind of image editing, though this as one may expect, will take time.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply Where possible, I will leave out the date on the image, rescan the photgraph, if it does not impact the image in some way and re-upload. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply The images which have time stamps are from my photo CD collection. To remove the date stamps, I would have to process these images into positives, scan them back in and crop the date stamp, hopefully not impacting the image negatively. I will see how well this tuns out. There are cases where I cant crop the image manually, but can request a graphics person to erase them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done DK Reply Time stamps removed from images by user:Papa November.thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations, simple diagrams
Although the photos are extremely helpful to this article, I long for simple visual diagrams or illustrations of some of the geometric complexities presented here. It is difficult to convey an accurate sense of these structures using only words. For example, I can't quite wrap my mind around this sentence: "These are either stepped/stellate (star shaped) or square/rectangular. In the former, all or nearly all projections are projecting corners and in the latter, there are only four projecting corners." An illustration or simple line drawing might be helpful here to show the meaning of "projecting corners" and how they differ in the two basic plans. In this context, what is a "corner?" Is a corner different from a "projecting corner?" Is "projecting corner" the opposite of "recessed corner?" If so, these terms are probably unfamiliar to many readers, who will need all the help they can get. Finetooth (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply The corners the authors refer to , I believe , are projecting corners and not the same as any ordinary corner or a recessed corner which would be a vertex. As such, in an uninterrupted stellate floorplan, the number of projecting corners would equal the number of recessed corners or vertices. This is why I provided the first two images, to present the general idea. Regarding line drawings, I will explore how I can do it, if possible. This is ofcourse time consuming.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my request may be unreasonable. I would not know how to do such illustrations myself, and I would groan loudly if someone suggested that any of my articles needed them. Also, line drawings might or might not work. I'm not sure. I understand what you are saying above about the number of projecting corners equaling the number of vertices. Would it be accurate to call these corners "points"? I am thinking of the points of a star (not a real star but a stylized representation of a star). When imagining a stellate design, I see "points" rather than corners, though this may be an oversimplification of the architectural reality. Your mention of the first two images is logical. Let me think a bit more about this. Perhaps a sentence in the main text could direct readers to the particular photo or photos that illustrate the geometry under discussion. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply Yes. Could you word it to that effect and redirect a reader to those images.?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by user:Finetooth December 25, 2007: I've tried, but I don't think I can. My best shot at improving this particular sentence is, "If stepped and stellate, these components form many projections, and if square or rectangular, they form only four projections." I eliminated what I felt was the confusion caused by the word "corner," which I don't think is necessary and which, I think, means "point." However, I'm not happy with my fix, partly because I'm not sure "stepped and stellate" is an accurate rendering of "stepped/stellate". Perhaps "stepped or stellate" is more accurate; it seems to me that at least the right-hand section of the Mahadeva Temple at Itagi is stepped but not stellate. In short, I am confused, which is not a good thing for a copyeditor to be. If I make changes beyond the roughly 150 I've already made, I run the risk of introducing error where none exists.

DK Reply Actually its not "stepped and stellate". As explained in one of the sections, a stellate floorplan was obtained from a stepped plan by rotating the projections by 11.5 degrees. The author sees both of these as one type of articulation, the other being the square plan. I have corrected your cpedit.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If I were the main author, I would try to write for a hypothetical reader living thousands of miles from southern India and having little knowledge of it. I would imagine a reader fluent in English but untutored in architecture and completely ignorant of the temple architecture of India. For this reader, terms such as "articulation", "dravida," "nagara," "interrupted star," and "uninterrupted star" and many others must be explained as clearly as possible as early in the article as possible. This will be no easy task, but I have no doubt it can be done. However, a copyeditor with no special knowledge of the subject can't do it.

Y Done DK Reply I have provided many English language equivalents in brackets to terms such as "dravida", "nagara", "Bhumija", "Sekhari", "latina" etc., in some cases provided links to stubs like finial, aedicular, Stepwell etc. The terms "articulation", "interrupted", "uninterrupted" etc. is explained in brackets and in some other cases, the meaning of a particular Indian term is explained in the very same sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Because of the visual complexity of the subject matter, I'm still of the opinion that diagrams, drawings, and, yes, a map would probably be helpful. I didn't withdraw my earlier suggestion that illustrations beyond the photographs might be helpful. What I said was, "Yes, my request may be unreasonable. I would not know how to do such illustrations myself, and I would groan loudly if someone suggested that any of my articles needed them. Also, line drawings might or might not work. I'm not sure." That was a hedge, not a retraction. If I were the main author and no other way to solve the problem of lack of clarity could be found, I would figure out how to do (or how to get someone else to do) the illustrations, maps, or whatever, even if it made me groan.

I've tried to think of other ways to make the subject matter clear, but I've failed. The first two images that you mention are positioned far away from the text that they might help explain. Moving them might damage the layout; in addition, those two images might be needed elsewhere as examples of other ideas in the text. I thought of assigning numbers to each photograph and adding notes such as "See photograph 4" in parentheses in the main text, but this seems clumsy; it would force readers to hunt for the photo, which might be anywhere. So, I've come back to thinking the article needs two more things I can't supply: visual aids and clear definitions of key terms. Finetooth (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree more with user:Finetooth's comments, especially her/his last sentence. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done DK Reply The definitions have been provided now. If any are left out, which I may have felt is self explanatory, please point them out and I will make the meaning explicit.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply Providing clear definitions of key terms is something I can easily do and will work on it right away. Visual aids take time and help from other users and can't be done overnight, but can be done on a ongoing basis even after the FAC closes. There are many types of floorplans; such as 16 pointed, 32 pointed, 24 pointed types in the interrupted and uninterrupted categories, stepped diamond its variations. So do we want to flood the article with only floorplans? You are right, line drawings can and will generate more questions and more clarifications. I question if this is within the scope of a summary style article. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done DK Reply Provided line diagrams for the four main types of floorplans: interrupted stellate, uninterrupted stellate, square and stepped diamond. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code, as this causes problems when it is archived (if necessary, use bolded headings)." - heading code removed and replaced with bolded headings--Kiyarrllston 04:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. I was responsible, not DK. Finetooth (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by user:Fowler&fowler December 25, 2007: I agree with user:Finetooth that diagrams are needed. In fact, they are a must. (I had been meaning to mention it last week, but couldn't find the time.) It is impossible to figure out what is what from the photographs alone. The explanations of the temple layout are still dense. For example, "open hall" is certainly not standard usage in English for what looks like a "pillared porch." Given the many meanings of the word "hall," terms like "open hall" and "closed hall" are best avoided in a Wikipedia article (even if they are used in the history books the main author has consulted). Similarly the explanation of "articulation" is still very poor. What is the wall of a shrine, when the word "shrine" is itself not clearly defined? Is it really the outer wall, or is it the outer surface (or outside) of the tower. As far as I can tell, stepped/stellate refers to the staggered star-like cross-sections (akin to mini-stories) that go into creating the pyrimidal tower. I am guessing that the inside of the tower is polygonal and not star-shaped, but I'm not sure. While a portion of the outer wall below the tower seems to have a cross-sectional shape similar to the tower, not all of it does, and in any case that shape is not evident from the photographs. For all these reasons, it is absolutely imperative that the text be accompanied by diagrams. As I have already suggested to the main author a number of times, I feel that he should withdraw the article from the FAC process, add a map of the geographical locations, add simplified diagrams of the temple cross-sections explaining various terms like stepped-stellate, closed/open halls, etc., organize the article better, improve the language (i.e. make is less discursive—not just have it copy-edited), let is simmer a little and then resubmit for the FAC. However, for some reason, he seems resistant to this idea. I will look at the text in a few days (when I have more time) and add comments on the language. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply Fowler, the earlier reviewer has withdrawn his statement about "line drawings". I dont believe line drawings are necessary. This is a summary style article, not my PhD. thesis. ~~Moreover, I dont have the tools or the experience to draw line drawings and maps. If you know someone who does, please inform me and I will contact that person.~~ Secondly, the original requirement was a thorough copyedit which has been done by two reviewers who have been positive and gracious enough to spend much time on this article, bringing about clarity and better grammar. BTW, you have already given your opinions on the article, which have been satisfied. Feel free to continue to read the article and propose changes. If your proposals are reasonable, I will surely try to accomplish them. Thank you for you time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, user:Finetooth has not exactly withdrawn her/his suggestion, but rather is being polite in view of your reluctance. Secondly, that has nothing to do with my assessment that the article emphatically needs diagrams. I didn't get that idea from user:Finetooth. As I explained above, it was the first thing I thought of when I read the details of the temple layout, which remain poorly explained even as I write. The vast majority of the Architecture FAs do in fact have diagrams, floor plans, or vertical cross-sections, as do both the Britannica and Encarta articles on Indian architecture. As far as I am aware, many of the Wikipedia architecture FAs are written in summary style and very likely none of are extracts from Ph. D. dissertations. Here is a list of a few. Please contact the primary authors and find out how they made their diagrams. It is imperative that you do.

7 World Trade Center, Angkor Wat, Belton House, Borobudur, Buckingham Palace, Cathedral of Magdeburg, Freedom Monument (Riga), Heian Palace, Holkham Hall, House with Chimaeras, IG Farben Building, Palace of Westminster, Palazzo Pitti, Palladian architecture, Point Park Civic Center, Prince's Palace of Monaco, Queluz National Palace, Sanssouci, Scottish Parliament Building, Shotgun house, and West Wycombe Park

Y Done DK Reply Line diagrams have been added per request.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The same holds for the map of the region showing the locations of the different monuments. You had stated earlier that you would contact a map-maker, but haven't stated since how that is progressing. As for your remarks, "... the original requirement was a thorough copyedit which has been done by two reviewers who have been positive and gracious enough to spend much time on this article, bringing about clarity and better grammar." Whose original requirement was this? From the start, I have unequivocally stated that the article's problems are much deeper than ones that would be fixed by a simple copy-edit. In fact, I began my first set of remarks (of December 17, 2007) by, "The article has two major problems: it has too many grammatical and stylistic errors for a prospective FA, but more importantly it has major problems of cohesion. In my opinion, this is not an easy fix. It needs more than just a careful copy-edit; it needs rethinking about its focus. The article should be withdrawn, its text should be organized clearly, rewritten clearly, and then resubmitted." As for the copy-editors spending time on editing the article, that of course is very creditable and they deserve everyone's thanks, but I myself have spent time copy-editing the article line by line, as my many remarks above indicate; as an FA reviewer I shouldn't have to do that. An article such as this, that had glaring mistakes of grammar and diction—mistakes that are considered unacceptable in high-school, let alone in the Ph. D. thesis you don't propose to write—shouldn't be have been a Wikipedia FAC in the first place. Has it occurred to you that you might be both exploiting and exhausting other editors' goodwill by continuing to be recalcitrant in leaving this article in the FAC process? Lastly, as I have indicated above, in a few days, when I have more time, I will make the determination whether the copy edits have taken (i.e. helped the article enough) and add further comments here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Reply Fowler, when you write that had glaring mistakes of grammar and diction—mistakes that are considered unacceptable in high-school, let alone in the Ph. D. thesis you don't propose to write—shouldn't be a Wikipedia FAC in the first place you are questioning the English language capabilities of people such as user:Finetooth and others who have graciously come forward to help me out, who have copyedited several FAC's towards a FA. This attitude I must say is not acceptable in wiki. Regarding any stylistic, grammatical, prose changes you further expect in this article, please find concensus with other copy editors. I cant trample on the edits of one copy editor to make another happy, unless I am convinced your suggestion is more appropriate. If you can find concensus, I can make the changes. What you may want in prose, someone else may not want. thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to DK reply by user:Fowler&fowler: No, at no time have I been critical of user:Finetooth's edits; far from it, I am impressed by them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or rather a Shakespeare) to see that she/he is a superb editor. I did make an inadvertent tense-shift (which I have corrected since), but, even so, it is clear from my sentence, "An article such as this, that had glaring mistakes of grammar and diction—mistakes that are considered unacceptable in high-school, let alone in the Ph. D. thesis you don't propose to write—shouldn't be <have been> a Wikipedia FAC in the first place," that I was questioning the wisdom of submitting this article as an FAC in late November, not questioning the worth of user:Finetooth's or User:Michael Devore's edits. To the extent that I may have inadvertently implied the latter, I offer my unequivocal apology. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fowler wrote (copy and paste from above comment). Has it occurred to you that you might be both exploiting and exhausting other editors' goodwill by continuing to be recalcitrant in leaving this article in the FAC process?

DK Reply I am grateful to so many experienced copy editors who have come forward to help me. Fowler, Has it occurred to you that you may be both expoliting and exhausting another editor's goodwill by continuing to make extreme and unreasonable demands and asserting that this article must be removed from the FAC process?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Comment Based on some of the responses from reviewers, I had requested the League of Copyeditors to help me out in cleaning up grammar and other issues on this article. user:Finetooth graciously completed a thorough copy edit job. user:Michael Devore also has played an important role in this process.thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose continuing ths FAC - When this becomes an attack on the editors who help you, then I believe it is time to withdraw the article and carefully rewrite it. You seem to be expecting others to write the article for you. Editors are requesting that the article be grammatically correct and well written which is not being oppositional. Your opposition to suggestions, such as you were to my simple grammatical points above, is part of what is exhausting to other editors. I think the article is unorganized, the wording dense and unclear, and multiple errors still exist. Every editor gets exhausted before going through the entire article and there is no one who has carefully picked through the whole article. Bracket is still not disambigulated! (You do not mean bracked as punctuation do you?) No one has gotten that far yet. None of the edtors that helped you so much can rewrite and reorganized the article for you. You seem to forget how much time and effort Fowler&fowler «Talk» has already given you. League of Copy Editors cannot rewrite and reorganize the article. As you say, you have had many copy editors and the job is still not done. Mattisse 01:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Dk reply I have already mentioned above that I will be disambiguiating any complicated architectural terms in the next few days. BTW, I dont expect others to write my articles. The article is grammtically far better than it was two weeks back, that is the point I am trying to make. That is what needs to be appreciated instead of scorning at others efforts. thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

- Agree with Matisse: FAC is not Peer Review - this has gone on long enough.--Kiyarrllston 02:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Matisse and Kiyarr. It's time to move on. Finetooth (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Finetooth, Matisse, and Kiyarr. It's time to pull the plug on this FAC. Since I am supposed to be on vacation (and since I am getting grief for getting back on WP), I will not be revisiting this page. However, I can do no better than to quote user:Finetooth: "If I were the main author, I would try to write for a hypothetical reader living thousands of miles from southern India and having little knowledge of it. I would imagine a reader fluent in English but untutored in architecture and completely ignorant of the temple architecture of India. For this reader, terms such as "articulation", "dravida," "nagara," "interrupted star," and "uninterrupted star" and many others must be explained as clearly as possible as early in the article as possible. This will be no easy task, but I have no doubt it can be done. However, a copyeditor with no special knowledge of the subject can't do it." I also agree wholeheartedly with user:Finetooth that this article "visual aids and clear definitions of key terms." I feel this task is not something that can be hurried through, but needs time. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done DK Comment A request has been made to user:planemad to draw up a map that shows places and placenames where this architecture thrived. I will have a map inserted as soon as he is free to complete the job.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Comment The good news is user:planemad has agreed to do the map for me.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Comment Fowler, thanks for all your efforts to improve the article. As I have mentioned earlier, I will be explaining any and every complicated term in this article in the next day or two. Your presence or absence from the article will not hinder my efforts.thank you again.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Final comments by user:Fowler&fowler: "Your presence or absence from the article will not hinder my efforts." Not sure how to take that. In any case, let me be perfectly clear: what the three editors (user:Finetooth, user:Mattisse, and Kiyarr) and I are saying above is not that this article can be fixed in a few days and that we have confidence in your ability to fix it. Rather, we are saying that the article has deeper issues of clarity and organization, which remain unresolved. In addition, it needs visual aids—illustrative diagrams and a map, of the kind that the many architecture FAs listed above have. Most importantly, we are saying that this article has been an FAC long enough (exactly a month today); it has had help from numerous editors, including user:Finetooth from the League of Copy-editors, who is concurring in this opinion; it is therefore time to end this FAC. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Final comments by User:Mattisse: I wish to make clear that my mentioning problems in cohesion, organization, grammar and wording with the article was in no way "scorning at others efforts" (the many editors that have worked so hard to try to improve your article) as you allege above. I have the utmost respect for those fine editors who, in my opinion, have gone beyond the call of duty in trying to help this article, especially this late in the FAC process. Mattisse 14:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

DK Response Thank you both for your valuable comments and suggestions. The effort to improve the article continues on my side. I am currently working on disambiguiation and providing a map that was expected for the location of architectural developments. Thank you once again. Once these tasks are completed, which should be in a few days, I will indicate that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done DK response clarifications, meanings and disambiguiation of complicated terms have been dealt with with links, bracketed meanings. If anymore exist, please point them out and I will clean it up.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done DK Response Line diagrams of the main floorplans have been added. These were drawn by user:Papa November who used the diagrams from my earlier uploaded raster images. Thank you user:Papa November.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose and close per Mattisse, Fowler&fowler and others. The article has major prose and organisation problems. You cannot quickly address the issues during a FAC. You should improve the article, give it a copy-edit and PR, then try GA first. Then if it becomes a GA, copy-edit and PR again, until you think the article is ready for FAC. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - agree with the above statement by Kaypoh. I would add that the article needs an entire reorganization. Subjects should not be explained in more that one place in the article. The heading "Deities" covers several subjects. And why is "Deities" the first and most important heading anyway, as I read nothing unusual about them regarding Western Chalukya architecture in this section? Mattisse 16:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by HPN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshkannambadi (talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, "Deities" are very important when discussing any South Indian architecture. The architectures are influenced by the choice of deities (and thus by the stories in puraNas about them) immensely. As I see it, the present section is not carrying anything outside the subject. In fact, there is some very valuable information about salient features that aid to identifying the architecture in that section. --H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 17:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - An excellent effort. Took me several days of free time to go through this exhaustive article. This article will be one of those that would be cherished the most. The photos are priceless and of great quality. It is conspicuous that a lot of effort and research has gone into this. Congratulations.

I have one doubt though: should "Amrtesvara Temple" become "Amruteshwara Temple"? "sha" has become "sa" on all occasions. Is this intended? As far as I know, the letter "sha" becomes "sa" in Tamil language. We could also consider using phonetic notations (if permitted) while mentioning the names of each temple. Cheers. --H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Your question on the sha vs sa in Kannada deity/temple names is not surprising. In modern Kannada sha is prevalent and may have replaced sa, just as ha has replaced pa since the 12-13thth century. However, the books I have sourced from keep to sa. I tried to compare these books I have referenced from against other articles and see a mixture of usages. So I just kept to the method followed by the authors. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Dinesh. I'm curious to know what the majority of authors have used. These are originally Sanskrit words, not Kannada (There's also a typo where it says "Amrtesvara"). If the author is a native speaker of Tamil, he would've obviously preferred "sa" instead of "Sha" as they are not accustomed to pronouncing "Sha". Shouldn't we be writing the names the way they are pronounced presently in the region? --H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Actually the authors are not from India. Foekema is Dutch, Hardy is English and Cousens is perhaps English, not sure. Regarding how the names sould be written, I have had some trouble with this issue. The authors may have used the names directly from old_Kannada inscriptions. As an example, in Modern Kannada, we call the great Chalukya King "Pulakeshi II". But his own personal edicts call him "Polekesi" where "kesin" is originally Sanskrit for "hair". Some authors even use "Pulakesi". Since I am providing citations from books, I felt it is better to stick to the authors' way of writing it, just to avoid controversy. I can try and look up what other authors such as Dhaky, Sinha, Fergusson call the temples. And as far as the typo is concerned, the book says "Amrtesvara" as opposed to "Amrutesvara". thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply here [20] is a link to a book on a Kalyani (Western) Chalukya temple construction, "The Temple of Muktesvara at Caudadanapura" by Dr. by Vasundhara Filliozat, a visiting scholar from Univ. of Paris. She too uses the "sa" designation for the temple. Another example is [21] in item #29, the "si" usage for a temple name, instead of the modern "shi" usage.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why have scanned images of (simple) diagrams from a book been added to the article and justified as images of book covers? They are surely not that. In any case, a book cover is allowed under non-free (fair) use if the article discusses (only) that book. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply When I choose the options for the correct license for the image file, it was "book cover or a page from the book". But once I went a few steps further into uploading the images, I could only find the "book cover" option. I will look into this issue ASAP, perhaps as early as today, and have it corrected. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply The license issue has been resolved.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - I believe the article is in a very good shape now after so much work being done. I support promotion of this article to FA. Gnanapiti (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

[edit] University of California, Riverside

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I am aware there may be MOS issues, but it would be easier for me to proceed in improving this article further if they were pointed out. Otherwise, I feel this article meets all other criteria for FAC. Amerique^dialectics 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to talk about the history/making/importance of the fight song rather than just putting the lyrics there? bibliomaniac 1 5 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll just remove for the time being... ~~there is a link to the fight song in the infobox.~~ Amerique^dialectics 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Or rather, there used to be. Someone reformatted the infobox template code awhile back and removed some of the values. Still, the fight song was rather crufty. Amerique^dialectics 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There are numerous WP:MOS violations that need to be fixed.
- Need to have metric conversions for each standard unit (for example, I see acres, pounds, feet, etc without conversions).

Done I believe I got them all. Amerique^dialectics 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

- ~~Need a non-breaking space between all units and their qualifiers (for example, 1200 acres should have a non-breaking space)~~

Done I believe taking care of the metric conversion issue solved this problem, as they are all templated now. Amerique^dialectics 05:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It also covers things like $435 million, 40 years, 52 minors, etc. Could you take a look at those, please? Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Think I got them all now. Amerique^dialectics 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

- ~~The history section is too short to need subheadings. Either expand the sections or remove the subheadings~~

Done Removed subheadings Amerique^dialectics 05:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

- ~~In unit conversions, if you write out the first number, write out the second one also~~

Done I believe I caught the only instance of that in the campus section. If there are others please let me know. I really appreciate your critique. Amerique^dialectics 05:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

- I think the list of colleges needs to be turned into prose, and I don't believe you shoul dinclude all of the information that is currently there. See other university FAs, such as Texas A&M University, Cornell University, and University of Michigan

Done Forked individual academic units to University of California, Riverside academics, summarized some info in first paragraph. Amerique^dialectics 05:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

- ~~Per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Spelling_out_numbers, numbers should be spelled out when they bein a sentence~~

Done I believe I forked the only instance of that to University of California, Riverside academics (corrected in the content fork). Amerique^dialectics 07:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There's one more instance in the Administration and Finance section. Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Amerique^dialectics 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

- Please make sure that citations are ordered: for example, this sentence More specialized collections not administered by the library but by individual academic colleges include an herbarium, one of the world's most important citrus variety collections, and one of the largest entomological museums in the United States. has citations [63][10]11 -> [63] shoul be last.

Done Changed a ref and removed some duplicates from the lead section. Amerique^dialectics 08:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

- ~~The rankings and libraries sections have a lot of very short paragraphs. Please try to combine these if possible~~

Done Edited into paragraphs. Calling it a night for now. Amerique^dialectics 09:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

- ~~In the housing section, you need citations for the number of students housed and the plans for new family housing, as well as that 76% of all first-year students lived on campus~~

Done Edited and provided available information as I could find it. (The actual student housing site contains provides almost no useful information on this.) Page 40 of the LRP provides the housing #s I put into the text. Amerique^dialectics 10:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

- ~~Campus security section paragraphs are too short to stand alone - please combine if possible~~

Done Removed Campus Security section per WP:Notability, moved emergency notification systems to the lead paragraph. Amerique^dialectics 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

- ~~"economical" should be "economic"~~

Done Got it. Amerique^dialectics 23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

- You should be able to easily find citations for the fact that the Women's Basketball team has made it to round 1 of the playoff, that the soccer team won, and that the baseball team won a conference championship. Also need a cite for the cross country team's "best season ever"

Done Got these and overhauled the whole section. Amerique^dialectics 06:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

- ~~Full dates within references should be wikilinked (i.e., ref 2)~~

Done Amerique^dialectics 21:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

- Newspapers and magazine names should be italicized in the refs. You can use the citation template with newspaper= instead of publisher=

Done In most cases, this was accomplished by both changing "publisher=" to "newspaper=", and, most heroically, by changing {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} to {{citation}}, which should make fans of consistency and fans of the {{tl|citation} template very happy. szyslak 02:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

...But now, the last two citations show up in the reflist as links to Template:Citation/core, and I can't figure out what's going on? Either it's a server problem or something that can be fixed by someone with more experience with that template than me. szyslak 02:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted back to the last stable version. No need to change every "cite web," as in some cases these are only websites not other media. Thanks for helping anyway Amerique^dialectics 03:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is taken care of now. Amerique^dialectics 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

don't forget about US News and World ReportKaranacs (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Got them and all other media that publish rankings lists. Best, Amerique^dialectics 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

- ~~All websites need a publisher listed separately (see 34 and 35 and 36)~~

Karanacs (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Done If I didn't catch them all, just let me know, but my Internet access might be sporadic for the next couple days (and will definitely be back on on Monday). Once I have access again, I plan to tackle Tony1's copyediting concerns as well. szyslak 02:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Karanacs' initial concerns have been addressed now, please feel free to point out anything else. Amerique^dialectics 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A few minor things here and there... as per WP:UNI's article guidelines, the Athletics section should be embedded inside the Student Life section. And Scotty the Bear in Infobox University might need a <br /> ("bear" is getting cut off to the next time at the moment) I'll take a closer look at it tomorrow. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... <br /> took care of that issue in the info box. I confess to having little interest in student life or athletics, but will integrate those sections once I've gathered some refs for them. Amerique^dialectics 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—The writing should do justice to both the standards of the institution and WP. Here are random examples, mostly from the lead, of why careful copy-editing is required, preferably by a new collaborator with strategic distance from the text.

FYI, UCR links to this article, under "related links," on its Chancellor search website: [22]. I would say the standards of the institution have been satisfied. Amerique^dialectics 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"1,200 acres (5 km²)"—hectares, please. Or start with square miles.

Done Amerique^dialectics 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

MOS breach and a clumsiness: "extending the citrus growing season in California from 4 months to 9 months"—"from four to nine months".

Done Amerique^dialectics 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, word order here is what we call a marked theme; I don't think it needs marking. And collections are equated with the institutions (the second and third items) that house them. "Significant science collections at Riverside include its famous Citrus Variety Collection, Herbarium and one of the largest entomological museums in the United States."

I'm not sure what you mean here by "word order" being a "marked theme." (And I'm well aware of the idea of markedness in linguistics.) Also, as should be obvious, the collections are all housed at UCR... unless you mean noting the respective academic departments that administer them, which I think would be too much detail for the lede, I frankly don't know what you are saying. Amerique^dialectics 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I thought you were speaking prescriptively as opposed to descriptively. Fixed the issue with the science collections. Amerique^dialectics 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"The campus is currently projected to grow by 6% annually through 2010"—MOS says not to use fluff words such as "currently" (there are others in the lead, too—perhaps "as of 2007"?); the meaning is in "is". "Through" is an Americanism I like, unless it's ambiguous, as it is here (during 2010, or through to 2010?).

Done I felt "currently" was an appropriate adverb to use with respect to the rankings because they change every year, but i'm not going to argue over it. Amerique^dialectics 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Who still puts clunky dots in "PhD"? MOS suggests not to, too.

Done Amerique^dialectics 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"In 1994, the UC campuses began receiving more applications than anticipated." Don't like this. "Since ... received"? Unsure, but do something. Tony (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean remove instances of passive voice? If so, I'm working on that. Ongoing. Amerique^dialectics 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony1 suggests the phrasing "Since 1994, the UC campuses received more applications than anticipated" (or similar) instead of "In 1994 ... more applications than anticipated". It has nothing to do with passive voice, and personally I don't think changing "anticipated" from passive to active would be helpful. The only way to do so would be to add superfluous verbiage like "more ... than the university anticipated". szyslak 08:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:32, 1 January 2008.

[edit] Flood (Halo)

(previous FAC) - renominating now that the article includes reception, out of universe information, and entirely reorganized. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Flood is a fictional parasitic alien life form in the Halo video game series. They are" – is it singular or plural? Firstly, it's an "is" and then it becomes a "they are". Am I missing something? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed. David Fuchs ^(talk) 14:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't anything mentioned about the combat, carrier, and pure forms in the physiology section? I think that the information on these should be moved from the appearances sections to the physiology section. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The basic physiology is mentioned in the said section, up to morphing to the various forms; it seemed to make more sense (not to mention be a little more out of universe) to talk about the changes in the respective games they appeared. David Fuchs ^(talk) 14:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this topic even notable? It's an obscure detail from a video game that cites what limited information does (or can) exist about it from a few sources about the video game in general, but I don't see why it has its own article. I'm surprised to see discussion under Feature Article Candidates instead of Articles For Deletion! 70.15.116.59 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are 8 secondary sources cited. See the second bullet point of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Notable topics. I'm currently reading to see if I think it meets the FA criteria. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments from James086 -
- Ref 36 (gzpro.org) doesn't seem to be working, I think that it was a temporary page. The wayback machine provided nothing [23], is there some other way of finding that source? Alternatively another source could be used.
- Also regarding that ref, could it be expanded to a bit more than "this treatment was received positively by critics" to say something more specific, a short quote maybe?
- The 2nd paragraph of the Halo 3 section has no citations, is that info in the beastiarum? If so I could add it but, it needs to come from somewhere especially when it says "According to Bungie..."
The article is very good; I would be happy to support once these are resolved. Nice work on yet another article. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Not to mince words (and apologies for being direct), this is too in-universe, fan-focused content for an FA; much greater attention needs to be paid to the real-world value, and in-game details should be radically reduced. Also, the prose is not up to FA standard and is not yet ready for simple copy-editing. Sentences like: "Breaking Quarantine" details the escape of Sergeant Avery Johnson from the clutches of the Flood, immediately after Keyes' squad is overrun during Halo. Due to a pre-existing medical condition called Boren's Syndrome, the Flood parasites cannot infect Johnson and attempt to kill him instead... read like a 7th graders book report, not a (featured) encyclopedia article. Eusebeus (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:32, 1 January 2008.

[edit] Gimme More

After having edited this article, I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's getting there. The page may not perfectly present a featured one but with your help (comments and suggestions), it will. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 09:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles should not be listed at both WP:PR and WP:FAC per the instructions at both; please close and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I closed the peer review myself; I did not fully and correctly archive, as this is something nominator is expected to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for rushing this article to be nominated without knowing further the process for nomination. Sorry also because I don't know how to archive. Could someone fix this? Thanks a lot. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments Citation 25 needs fixing. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Fixed already. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

""Gimme More" was generally well-received by music critics. Blender Magazine complimented the song for being an "unsettling disco dazzler," rating it four out of five stars[19] and Guardian Unlimited called the song "futuristic and thrilling."[20]." Firstly, Blender Magazine and Guardian are not music critics, but are publications. The Guardian did not call the song "futuristic and thrilling" either. Alexis Petridis, writing for that specific publication, did so. One critic's opinions is not representative of the publication as a whole. Othe critics whom write for that publication may have found the song appalling, but were not commissioned to review it. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Done I fixed some. I changed it to ~~added publications~~ critics for the reviews and I fixed the reviewers as well. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

""Gimme More" was one of Spears' most remixed single.[64]" - "Single"? Don't you mean "singles"? LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Done User:Phoenix2 fixed it. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Support - Frankly, I don't have any regard at all for Spears or this song for that matter, but the article is well-written so that's good, especially for a single so recent; you must be quite the fan! One thing I'd like to suggest is expanding the commentary about the sample in its box, I dunno, maybe tell the reader about the structure of the song rather than just about the lyrical interpretations? Only then will it be suitable for fair use. Also the changes addressed by LuciferMorgan also need attention. Otherwise, you have my full support for it's a very informative article indeed. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 07:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Done I edited it with some re-mentioned "stuff", like the electro thing. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Objection: Copy-edit please? - Generally not well-written
"However, it was also welcomed as an improved performance to her highly criticized 2007 MTV Video Music Awards opening." looks clunky to me.
"It is also influenced by electro elements which Kelefa Sanneh of New York Times described as "a nifty little electro-pop song." - ??? replace which with "and was therefore described by Kelefa Saanneh as [...]"
--Kiyarrllston 00:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea on reediting the first objection. Do you have some suggestions? Please... --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
that was described by Kelefa Sanneh of New York Times as "a nifty little electro-pop song." Is it fine? --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems we're not understanding each other regarding my second example - "nifty little electro-pop song" does not say that "it is influenced by electro elements" - it says it is an electro song. Are we on the level now?

Done Yah. I got it. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my first example - "~~However, it~~[The video was] ~~also~~ welcomed as an improved[ment] ~~performance~~ to her highly criticized 2007 MTV Video Music Awards opening." seems a little bit better - do you agree?

Done --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope I clarified why I object, hope this article can improve to FA quality.

--Kiyarrllston 05:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.=) --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose and close Articles cannot be on FAC and PR together. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Done SandyGeorgia fixed it. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Not ready for FA:
There is a tag on the article that says "This article documents a current single. Information is likely to change as the song remains on the charts." This means the article may not be stable.

The article will be stable since its chart performance is almost dropping. Only that the charting week will be updated. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is too short and unreferenced: "The track is constructed in a verse-chorus pattern. Mixed by Araica, it interpolates background vocals by Hilson and Jim Beanz."

Done I merged it. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

References 2, 3, 6, 17, 28 and 32 have formatting problems.

Could you pin point what that problem is? Like what formatting? Thank you. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

References always go after a comma or full stop, with no spaces in between. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I also fixed some mistaken formats written as "cite web" which are actually "cite news." --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Prose is not FA standard. My English is not very good, but I can see a few problems in the lead (but you must fix the whole article):
- "co-written among collaborators" I thought "co-written" and "collaborators" mean the same thing?

Done --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

- ""Gimme More" is the first single since In the Zone" Do you mean "her first single"?

Done --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

- "Dubbed as a comeback release for Spears however, the song does not feature lyrics about her musical return instead, it features racy lyrics incorporating uptempo beats." I think you put all the commas in the wrong places.

Done --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

- "first hit radio stations and digital stores where it was a commercial success and was released in the form of CD" The way you use "where" and "and was released" to connect the sentence sounds funny.

Done --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

- "in North America where it topped Billboard's Canadian chart" Again the same problem with "where".

Done --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

- "In Australia and United Kingdom" Put "the" before "United Kingdom".

Done --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

- "In both the US and Australia" The earlier sentence also started with "In" and two countries. You sure you want to repeat?

Done --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

- "introduces Spears pole dancing which was panned by critics" sounds funny. Only after I read it three times, then I understand what you mean, that critics panned Spears (apostrophe?) pole dancing.

Done --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You need to fix the whole article, not just the lead section. Can someone who is very good in English check whether the lead section is fixed correctly? Because some sentences still sounds funny. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am always addressing your objections. Thank you for that help. --βritandβeyonce^{(talk•contribs)}12:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. :) Now waiting for someone who is very good in English to check the lead section. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be waiting for them until this one got FA. =) --βritandβeyonce^{(talk•contribs)} 09:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose' Some misleading statements are within the article. Examples;

"It was a huge club success by reaching number one on Billboard Hot Dance Club Play chart on December 15, 2007 replacing Rihanna's contemporary "Shut Up and Drive"." - "Huge"? A "club success"? According to whom? Such adjectives are merely the opinions of whomever feel that way, and are not factual. People measure success in different ways, so therefore interpretations of what is and isn't successful differs from person to person.

Y huge was removed. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"The single was also successful in European countries." - Whether the single was "successful" in European countries is an opinion, dependant on whomever is drawing conclusions. The fact it charted in European countries is just that, a fact, and therefore irrefutable. Whether it was "successful" though is refutable, depending on one's criteria as concerns what is successful.

Referring to "Hollaback Girl", editors used "a successful single in Canada." Maybe the word also needs to be removed. I changed it to this: The single was also successful in European countries peaking inside the top five and top ten on all charts it entered. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"The single finally peaked on Billboard Pop 100 at number two.[45]" - "Finally"? What is the reasoning behind using this adjective. When someone uses this adjective, it's usually to show they're happy something has finally happened. Therefore, the word needs removing.

Y finally was removed. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"It performed well in North America where it debuted at number nine on the U.S. Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart on September 6, 2007,[37]" - The fact it debuted at nine is a fact, but whether it "performed well" is an opinion.

Referring to "Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song)," editors used a phrase "performed moderately well in North America." --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Elsewhere, "Gimme More" proved to be a moderately successful track." - "Moderately successful"? How do you personally measure what is "moderately successful"? Singles which don't reach the top ten? Singles which aren't RIAA certified? Singles which quickly enter and disappear from the charts?

The phrase "moderate success" which is near to "moderately successful" is being used in "Hollaback Girl." --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

These critical comments made within the article, ones that are misleading, need to be addressed. Other instances are also prevalent within the article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for always using Gwen Stefani songs as a reference. Its just that they're worth emulating; they're all FAs. Just tell me further objections and I will address it as soon as possible. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant of whether 17Drew used them, I am still objecting per criterion 1d. I personally don't find the Stefani articles flawless, but that's my personal opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But letting some articles arrive FA statuses bearing this kind of "problems" would mean "inconsistency." We should be objective here and not subjective; as they say, it's all business. Anyway, I fixed the article. I removed adjectives that seems you don't like. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:32, 1 January 2008.

[edit] Dartmouth Medical School

Self-nomination: I think this is a very strong article and meets -- or will meet, with your suggestions -- the FA criteria. Dylan (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Oppose seems like too strong a word but "Support" and "Oppose" are the choices. I would support with improvement. I support the article as a good article. I do have some suggestions. More may come.

Nothing is mentioned about residency training. This is where doctors learn to be specialists or primary care physicians.

Residency training is indeed discussed under "Academics", although not in great detail. I can expand the discussion, but as residencies are more or less the same everywhere (in terms of what the residents do), it didn't seem to me that it needed more of a mention than that it exists and how many residents there are. What sort of information would you like to see? Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm no medical expert. But I think some fields are missing at DMS like PMR, ENT, eye, etc.Congolese (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is mentioned about the Brown-Dartmouth program, which may have been recently discontinued.

I had never heard of it before; none of the sources I used mentioned such a program. It seems you are likely correct about it being discontinued, as the only link to it that I found ([24]) is broken. Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I found a link in 10 seconds. There are more but here is one http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2007/04/25/CampusNews/BrownDartmouth.Medical.Program.To.End.In.2010-2879631.shtml Congolese (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is mentioned about tuition.

Do you want it simply stated what the cost of tuition is? That seems like kind of a non sequitur; it wouldn't flow in any of the sections. Also, in my fairly extensive experience with articles on educational institutions (including FAs), I can't think of an instance in which the tuition is listed. Unless the tuition itself has some particularly unique or notable aspect (very high or very low; controversy over it; in-state/out-of-state discrepancy), it doesn't really seem relevant in encyclopedic coverage. Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are New Hampshire students charged less?Congolese (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Very little is mentioned about the teaching hospitals. Aren't the hospitals a major component of medical schools, more so than even medical libraries? Perhaps under academics a new section or sub-heading about clinical education could be added?

The teaching hospitals are given a full paragraph under "Campus," and discussion of clinical training is included in the year-by-year rundown of the M.D. program. I'm happy to expand that, though; what sort of information would you like to see discussed in that proposed section? Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the residency part is equally important as the medical student part. If you don't know what to write, I'll think of something even though I'm no medical expert. I just know how to pull up references.Congolese (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do they have residencies in otolaryngology, ophthalmology, or physical medicine and rehabilitation as they don't have these departments on your list (and might not have these departments at all, if your list is accurate).

That list is comprehensive -- follow the citation -- and according to DHMC, nope, no such residencies. Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't accuse you of censorship. But Harvard has a full complement of residencies, DMS is a bit short, probably because it is in a small town. Congolese (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of the school being a 3 year medical school ini the 1970's and 1980's when most other schools were 4 years in length. Why was it 3 years? How was it different?

Unless I missed it (I double-checked), the sources I used didn't ever mention such a thing. I asked Google, and no other sources seem to indicate as such, either. That seems to suggest to me that either that wasn't the case (though you sound pretty well-versed in DMS history, more so than me, so I balk at questioning you there) or that it's generally seen as an unimportant detail not worth mentioning. I'd be happy to include it if you can direct me to a reliable source discussing the matter. Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm pretty stupid except I remember what I read. See http://library.dartmouth.edu/cdp/read.php?cdp_id=55 under history. It was a 3 year medical school that was changed to 4 years in 1979.Congolese (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the hospital move from the main campus in the 1990's?

Yes. This is explicitly explained in "From the 'refounding' to present" section. Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why include Boxer Wachler as a famous alumni? Even if we restrict it to the same specialty, John Bullock is more famous, at least according to google listed sources.

The famous alums that are there are listed because they have Wikipedia articles. As far as I can tell, that's an exhaustive list of alums with articles (I checked every "What links here" for possible alums). Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the internet, it looks like Boxer is a salesman who got a WP article. Again, I'm no expert but Bullock is in the same field and he was a department chairman. If you choose other specialties, there are even more famous people from Dartmouth. Maybe you got fooled by the guy? Congolese (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Aerial photo possible? I can't see if the school is small or large?

I don't own a plane, so no, at least not a free one. And an un-free one wouldn't be acceptable under fair use because it would be a picture of existing buildings. I checked my files for a picture taken from Baker tower for a good shot of the Medical School -- but nothing doing -- it doesn't offer a clear view. I also tried find a citation describing the exact acreage of the campus, but there doesn't appear to be any such information. Any other ideas on how to convey size, verifiably? Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want an aerial photo you could always list it under external links. A plus but not a requirement for a FA. Congolese (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The above are content issues. About style issues, can you find more references so that they are not so heavily dependent on Dartmouth sourced references? One of the FA criteria is neutrality. This is partially achieved if more non-Dartmouth references are used.

I'll try to migrate away from Dartmouth sources, but it's worth noting that the Dartmouth sources are largely used to cite: (1) information that is only available from Dartmouth, like the specific programs offered (i.e. no one else covers that topic in as much detail); and (2) non-controversial information, like what degrees are offered and the enrollment breakdown. The only source I could find to offer critical opinions was The Princeton Review, which I did cite, even though it had almost exclusively positive things to say. Nevertheless, I do agree that this article could stand to include more opinions, so I'll try to root out some more and use more non-Dartmouth sources. Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are all the photos free use or not?

Yes, they are all free Commons photos except for the school seal, which has a valid fair use rationale. Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are the lead 2 paragraphs really the best that you can do? Is it really a good summary?

Well, you tell me. What's wrong with it? I think it's a pretty good summary -- it touches on all the major sections to be discussed. If you point out what you don't like about it, I'll work on improving it. Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit it, like the 2nd paragraph under history, the sentence is not grammatically correct.

I've changed that particular sentence and have requested a copyedit from the LOCE. Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are all the references checked to see that there is no author? If there is an author to a webpage, then it must be listed.

Yes -- every citation was added by me when I totally retooled the article, and I added authors whenever one was provided. Most of these sources come from general information sites (often DMS's site itself) which do not offer information on individual authorship. Dylan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the requirements is being comprehensive. This can be met by including some of the content issues mentioned. Congolese (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

On Oppose seeming too strong a word: "Objection" or "Object" are also choices, where you have specific objections, but believe that they will be addressed, an objection is not for where you believe there are "endless" objections that won't be addressed during the FAC, the difference is subtle and mostly irrelevant. I personally like the word objecting more than the word opposing.--Kiyarrllston 14:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. My comments are meant to help improve, not to say that the article is bad. Congolese (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, for now. Too much rehash of information easy to find on the Web (eg, the school's own website), too little use of any other sources. Some questions I have:

Is the tertiary care hospital there part of the university, or separate? How are they related, and what is the history of that relationship? That hospital is a regional referral center; how large is it relative to the medical school, and to the university apart from the medical school? The article mentions there is a relationship but gives no details; this part is very unclear.
How does the hospital, and the school, compare to others in the region?
Is there a school of nursing too? How is it related to the medical school?
Greater interaction between medical schools and graduate schools, particularly via biology departments, is a growing theme among the Ivy League universities with medical schools; what is happening at Dartmouth along these lines?
What is the history of women, minorities, foreign nationals, etc. at DMS?
The article needs a map of the area, so the reader has some idea of how far apart the towns are that are mentioned as locations of DMS and the hospital(s).
due to a national shortage of physicians and government incentives for schools that increased their class sizes, Dartmouth Medical School graduates began to experience difficulty in trying to transfer to already-full clinical schools of medicine. The two situations were coincident, but the causal relationship is not apparent. I would expect a shortage to lead to less difficulty for transfer students, not more.
DHMC serves a patient population of 1.6 million. Say what?!
I don't understand the "composite" MCAT score of applicants.

I hope this review inspires more research and writing. --Una Smith (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:32, 1 January 2008.

[edit] Crown Fountain

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it was promptly promoted to WP:GA when it was nominated and remained quite stable thereafter. I have recently learned how to research the New York Times archives and have expanded the article to something that represents the fountain fairly completely, IMO. I think it is a very fine article now with great detail and breadth. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Objection Copy-edit Readthrough please?
~~"in addition to an artistic structure These children made" missing a period...~~
~~"Unlit sculpture. (This actually happens every five minutes.)" - rephrase caption removing parenthesis in a manner such as "The sculpture is unlit every five minutes"~~
--Keerllston 14:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up both of these issues and am doing a general once over.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  - I am not informed as to your expertise in copy-editing - might I suggest recruiting a copy-editor?--Keerllston 03:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    - I gave it a once again once over. It should be improved. I hope you can support now or at least not oppose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments. I think the article still needs a little work. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.
- The lead is not supposed to contain information that is not in the body of the article; it should only be a summary of what is already there. The information that is currently in the first paragraph of the lead does not appear anywhere in the body of the article.Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Prose issues:
  - I don't like this sentence: "The fountain is known for its artistic contribution to Millenium Park both from the academic perspective of trained architects and from the human perspective of the ordinary city residents and visitors" It seems a little pretentious; I would reword along the lines of "The fountain has been praised by both trained architects and ordinary city residents for its artistic contribution to Millenium Park"Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~"What does this mean? "The fondness of the public for the fountain made it a beacon for public opinion during a controversy on surveillance cameras."~~Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~duplicated 2006 in (e.g., the water feature was opened on April 15, 2006 in 2006)~~Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  - ~~overuse of phrase "a bit", especially in Architecture section~~Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think there are too many images for an article of this length, and most of the images are right-justified. Please consider culling a few images and rearranging the placement of others
  - Holy cow. I just saw this after working most of the gallery into the article. I will revisit this later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    - One suggestion: the picture in the infobox also appears in the series; maybe replace that one with either the night view or 50-foot opposing towers photos. In my opinion, the two pictures left in the gallery don't add much to the understanding of the fountain either; as long as the text is in the article, you could probably do away with those and be fine. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
      - I have rearranged to eliminate the gallery. We are now using all the great pictures that we should be happy to have for this article in ways that help depict the sculpture and its features. I don't think the article would benefit by deleting any of the pictures as they are now used.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 08:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
      - I still think 13 pictures in an article that is less than 20kb long is overkill. I think you could eliminate the last picture (water spouting) because it is almost the same as the third picture in the series. I also don't see a need for a picture of the unlit tower, and I don't understand the need for the pictures of the grating and the cracks. That information can be incorporated into the text, and the pictures don't add much. 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
        
        Here is my explanation for the four pictures you contest. In truth probably an entire paragraph could be written on the drainage, which would justify the pictures. We have reference to the water recirculation in the article and the drainage system is unique. Those pictures thus help depict the sculputure. It is actually a surprise to many that the fountain is unlit at any time because it is unlit for just a few seconds between videos and people don't really notice. This picture documents that. The last picture is really present so that the last section has an image in it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 04:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    - It seems to me that each included picture is illustrating something about the article. This includes the ones in the gallery. Hmmmm.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Too many unnecessary words wikilinked. Iron, pumped, nozzle, tubing? Those are examples of words that should not need a wikilink
- ~~Need a citation for the assertion that the "children made the design a bit of a legal challenge as well as a physical challenge"~~Y--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- ~~Do you have any information on why the fountain was commissioned or why it was designed as it was?~~ Karanacs (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  - I have made it clear that the fountain was part of the Millenium Park opening. Do you want more?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  - I guess that is good enough. I don't know anything about Millenium Park and wasn't sure whether that was a big deal or not. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    - I may be able to find something about the motivation for Millennium Park, but I am not sure it should go in this article as this is a main article created to expand upon a section of that article. I will look into it over the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
      - I have found more on the motivation of the general park and added it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Support I enjoyed learning about this interesting place in Chicago. I would like to see it when the weather is good.Babybambam (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Babybambam (talk · contribs)'s second contribution to Wiki; first was to TonyTheTiger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes. I am visiting my mother for x-mas and showing her WP. She seems to have learned what is important:-)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Very Very Very Strong Oppose: GA, 'cuz it's too short and there isn't the history section!!!! No GA - no FA! it's not ready! Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]}
- The length itself is not a valid reason for an oppose as long as the article is comprehensive. Since the fountain has been in existance less than 10 years, there really isn't a need for a history section. Do you see any other gaps in the text? Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I believe I have addressed all of your concerns except the linking. My thought on the linking is that this is a very technical article from an architectural/engineering perspective and the links that you consider controversial are links to technical terms. They help the reader understand what things like tubing and nozzle mean in this technical article. Can you support now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- "There isn't the history section" seems to relate more to organization- an extension of "quality of writing" than to comprehensiveness. Length - "too short" would mean requiring expansion - it is rather hard to show incompleteness... - and I would not ask necessarily for examples - although such a comment is valid - the rationale for improvement is "needs expansion due to lack of comprehensiveness" - proof of this was not provided so we are left with only the reputation of the reviewer to back this comment up, and since Briskelly had not the reputation of other reviewers - like the very respected Tony1 - the directorship is not likely to take this claim as worthy of trust.--Kiyarrllston 15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up to objection "The artist intends to portray the social [[evolution]] of the city by [...]" -evolution which this sentence links to says at the very top: "This article is about evolution in biology" - I'm guessing not the intended link

I see no problem with the evolution link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to continue to require copy-editing.
- I note that it continues to have 16 sources total. (a inordinately small number)
-of lesser importance naming a section "artistry" would hopefully mean that you talk about artistry and not about "background" or "miscelanea"
I encourage you to seek more reviews through Friendly Notices if you wish for more involvement - see WP:CANVASS for proper form
-Kiyarrllston 00:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does not appear to have an issue with citation coverage. If you see specific instances in the article where something is not cited and should be, please mention it, but there is not a minimum number of citations required for an FA. Karanacs (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

hi there, there is indeed a minimum number of citations. I believe that number is "greater than one". I believe there is a maximum as well, per the size of the page. The "greater than" would depend on many things, in general I expect an FA quality article to have 50-100 citations.--Kiyarrllston 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] January 2008

[edit] Future of air transport in the United Kingdom

[edit] Apple

[edit] 2007 ACC Championship Game

[edit] 2008 Orange Bowl

[edit] King Lear

[edit] Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)

[edit] Victoria Wood As Seen On TV

[edit] Slipknot (band)

[edit] Pablo Honey

[edit] Lagaan

[edit] Tel Aviv

[edit] Golden Film

[edit] Iran

[edit] Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

[edit] FC Steaua Bucharest

[edit] Macau

[edit] Ron Paul

[edit] Michael Jackson

[edit] Columbia, Missouri

[edit] Kevin and Kell

[edit] Polish minority in the Czech Republic

[edit] Out of school learning

[edit] Wallachian Revolution of 1848

[edit] Rongorongo

[edit] Ian Svenonius

[edit] Mitochondrion

[edit] Super Smash Bros. Melee

[edit] Russia

[edit] Wicked (musical)

[edit] Art Houtteman

[edit] Mumia Abu-Jamal

[edit] Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki

[edit] St Buryan

[edit] 2007 Hawaii Bowl

[edit] Sea Otter

[edit] Jonathan Pryce

[edit] Pale Fire

[edit] The Sweet Escape (song)

[edit] K Foundation

[edit] The Chaser's War on Everything

[edit] Barbara Gordon

[edit] New Year's Revolution (2007)

[edit] California State Route 160

[edit] Al Gore

[edit] Loose (album)

[edit] Doing Time for Patsy Cline

[edit] Lisa Gerrard

[edit] Trojan War

[edit] The Simpsons Movie

[edit] Hybrid Theory

[edit] Linkin Park

[edit] Seton Hall University

[edit] Shaktism

[edit] Geelong, Victoria

[edit] Adam Air Flight 574

[edit] Raul Casanova

[edit] Western Chalukya architecture

[edit] University of California, Riverside

[edit] Flood (Halo)

[edit] Gimme More

[edit] Dartmouth Medical School

[edit] Crown Fountain

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search