Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Archived nominations

1 June 2007

[edit] June 2007

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 00:18, 7 July 2007.

[edit] Berlin

You are very welcome to comment on this article. The article seems already mature enough to promote it towards FA-status. ~~And please, can somebody fix the defect entry...~~ all the bestLear 21 13:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (Subpage created. Resurgent insurgent 13:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Object. Half of the lead is empty of wiki-links, which looks weird. The History section contains very few footnotes. Same goes for the Geography section. Also, why is Architecture under Geography? Doesn't seem right to me. It's mainly the first couple of sections that let this article down. — Wackymacs 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Problems will be tackled. Lear 21 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - lead looks ok, apart from modern zeitgeist (what does this mean?), checking prose....

The central part of Berlin can be traced back to two towns: Cölln (on the Fisher Island) is first mentioned in a 1237 document, and Berlin (across the Spree in what is now called the Nikolaiviertel) in one from 1244. - the latter part of this sentence does not sound encyclopedic, better to name and reference the documents with an inline ref.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

History section is underreferenced.

Architecture section is very listy. Paragraphs need to be combined and would be good to have some sort of overview. , and regains being it today. is a sentence which needs rewriting.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Problems will be tackled. Look up zeitgeist ... Lear 21 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There are some problems with the organization of the sections. It looks very bad to have a section "divided" into only one subsection (i.e. within a section X to have a subsection X.1 without also having an X.2). This is the case for the sections "Geography" (with one subsection "Climate"), "Cityscape" (with one subsection "Architecture"), and "Economy" (with one subsection "Media"). Also, it looks very odd for "History" to be divided up into "17th-19th century" and "20th century", with everything before the 17th century pushed into the lead of the section, and without an 21st century. Indeed, this entire section is probably somewhat too long; it should just be a summary of History of Berlin and as such not need to be divided into subsections at all.

A second issue is the images, not all of which have crystal-clear status as being freely licensed. I've left you a note on your talk page asking about Image:Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG and Image:PeopleBerlin.jpg; for Image:Berlin Mitte by night.JPG, where is the evidence that the author has agreed to license it under CC-BY-SA? For , where is the evidence that the author has agreed to license it under GFDL? Three images were associated with these terms of use, which specify non-commercial use only and no derivatives. I speedy-deleted two of them; the third has been listed at WP:PUI. I cannot support this FAC until the copyright status of all images is clear. —An gr 19:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no unusual organization. Compare other global city articles. All image have been confirmed via e-mail. Concerning the Image:Glücklich.jpg : it was a flickr image which is not available anymore. I´m not supporting the candidacy any longer myself. The candicacy is withdrawn immediately. Lear 21 19:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Object: The article does not comply with the the various WP guidelines. I left the (automatic) peerreviewer output on the article's talkpage as opportunities for improvement. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:56, 4 June 2007 (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 23:17, 6 July 2007.

[edit] Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

This article is my first self-nomination. I've been fixing this up for the FA status for a few weeks and I think it may be ready. I believe it is well comprehensive and well written for FA. Sjones23 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This FAC is now on hold. Sjones23 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

These issues are discussed at Talk:Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi#FAC. Sjones23 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This nomination will continue once these issues are resolved. Sjones23 01:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare is currently a Good Article and has recently been the subject of an intensive effort by WikiProject Shakespeare and others to bring the article to featured article status. Since this article is ranked among the 50 most viewed articles on Wikipedia, we feel it is of vital importance that this article reach FA status. To this end, the article has undergone several peer reviews, with the suggestions in the Wikiproject Biography peer review and the general peer review being extremely detailed and useful. After detailed discussions on these reviews, all relevant changes were made. Because a number of superlatives (such as greatest and pre-eminent) are often used with regards to Shakespeare, we have been extremely careful to both achieve consensus on the article's NPOV language and to cite as much information as possible. In all, there are 175+ citations. To reflect the dedicated work of the large number of editors who have taken part in the editing of William Shakespeare, a number of us are jointly nominating this article as a featured article candidate. Sincerely, --Alabamaboy 00:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Wrad 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC) AndyJones 07:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Romeo in love 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Support This article is simply incredible. I see nothing in this article to go against the featured article criteria. --HHermans 22:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Support ~~Comment~~ This is a good article on a key subject, ~~but needs some tidying up, and maybe some expansion yet. Some suggestions:~~

~~There are many claims in the opening, but no mention or analysis of why he might deserve these accolades. Is it prefacing an article about Shakespeare, his life and work; or Shakespeare, his fame.~~

Possibly done. I'm waiting to see if the revised lead is what Ceoil had in mind. --Alabamaboy 01:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

~~It is improved, but I still don't get a sence of why he is held in such high regard. eg: "works like Macbeth, Hamlet and King Lear rank among the greatest plays of Western literature"...for their...~~Ceoil 22:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"~~Two neighbours of Hathaway posted bond that there were no impediments to the marriage" - bonds.~~

Done

~~"There appears to have been some haste" - Needs to be attributed.~~

Y Done

~~"Modern criticism has also labeled some of his plays" - drop 'also', 'described'.~~

Done Wrad 23:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Therefore there are signficant textual problems (difficulties in identifying which plays he wrote)" 'Therefore' is not needed, 'textual problems' is explained by the blue link, no need to explain in parenthesis.

Done Wrad 23:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

~~At 27 kB text, is the article a comprehensive treatment.~~Ceoil 23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Unless someone can point out a notable fact that is missing. Wrad 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Its more about context and analysis than facts. Ceoil 23:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I should note that the article is 71 KB long, not 27. The reason we didn't go into greater detail in the lead on why Shakespeare has all those accolades is because of space concerns; the article does go into that detail later on. Are you sure that info belongs in the lead? Otherwise, I totally agree with your other changes Best,--Alabamaboy 23:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alabamaboy, it's 71kb incl. html and images; 27kb of text. Don't get me wrong, the article is very good - my point is that it would benifit if ye stated explicitly in the lead why Shakespeare is important in his own right, and not just from accolades. Ceoil 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding. I'll add in that info to the lead shortly. I also think the article is extremely comprehensive, as Wrad said. I'll let you know when I've made the changes you've referred to. Best,--Alabamaboy 23:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. Ceoil 23:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, comprehensive in context and analysis, too. There are quite an array of points of view in the group that has worked on this article, and all seem to be satisfied on this. Wrad 23:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In the lead I see neither context nor analysis, only what others attribute. Ceoil 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I thought you were talking about the article as a whole. I believe Alabama is addressing your concern. Wrad 23:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wrad, I'll post more suggestions later; great work so far. Ceoil 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of work since I last posted and its encouraging to see the editors respond so quickly. Reading further however, I think the entire text would benefit from a copy edit. To take one paragraph to give examples:

~~"The twentieth century saw the development of the a professional field of study known as English" - Typo, and meaning is unclear - surely there is a tighter definition than 'English'.~~

Done I recognize these are just examples, but I see no harm in fixing them. Wrad 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

~~"and his works were analysed from feminist and Marxist perspectives" - Left me hanging; needs to be developed rather than just mentioned.~~

This has been dealt with. Y Done RedRabbit1983 11:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"~~an ironic fate considering the social mix of Shakespeare's original audience" - I didn't notice, but have you explained who his original audience comprised of earlier in the text.~~ Ceoil 11:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I found this earlier in the article: Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate. Can I consider it done? RedRabbit1983 15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

~~"Shakespeare's plays remain more frequently staged"~~ - are more.

Done Wrad 22:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

~~"more frequently staged than the works of any other playwright. In addition, Shakespeare's plays are frequently adapted into film" - 'Frequently' apprears in consecutive sentences.~~

Done Wrad 23:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

~~"including Hollywood movies specifically marketed to broad teenage audiences" - No need for specifically, 'for' a broad...~~

Done Wrad 23:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

~~As a last point, there are a lot of stubby one or two sentence paragraphs, often on different aspects of the same thread. Could these be merged.~~Ceoil 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

~~The first three paras of "London and theatrical career" begin with the words "By 15** Shakespeare...".~~

Done Wrad 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

~~I count ten instances of the word also in the body text; eliminate as many as ye can, per the style guide redundancy (though this is not policy).~~
~~"Today, scholars assign Hamlet to a status of its own" - not explained.~~

Explained now. Y Done RedRabbit1983 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

~~"because they seem to mingle comic and tragic motifs" - 'mix', or 'incorporate both'.~~ Ceoil 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed this a while ago. Y Done RedRabbit1983 15:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Have switched to support in light of the extensive work over the last few days. Ceoil 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Fix needed~~ Some dates in the footnotes need wikilinking. Epbr123 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the format for this. Could you enlighten me? Wrad 00:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Full dates in the footnotes need linking, such as the access dates of ref numbers 156 and 97. Epbr123 00:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll handle this. And due to some added footnotes, those ref numbers are now 162 and 98. --Alabamaboy 00:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Already

Done Had to fix quite few of them. Should be fine now. Wrad 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The dates are linked if you use the proper citation templates, available on Wikipedia:Citation templates--Romeo in love 01:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything seems to be alright in that area for now. Wrad 01:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Object on 1a - this article's prose is at times repetitious, wordy and awkward. I suggest that the editors find someone who has not worked on the article, someone with fresh eyes, to copy edit it. Here are some examples:

~~The first paragraph of the lead has three sentences in a row that begin "He [verb]"; such repetition of structure is not effective here - it is only monotonous.~~

Done I can't find this in the lead. RedRabbit1983 06:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As a result of all this, Shakespeare is the most quoted writer in the history of the English-speaking world and has been adulated by eminent figures through the centuries. - Very awkward use of "adulated."

Done I changed this to "revered", and I split up the sentence so it makes logical sense. RedRabbit1983 06:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

At the age of eighteen, he married Anne Hathaway, aged twenty-six, under the authority of a bond dated 28 November 1582. - "under the authority of a bond" is unfamiliar language to the average reader.

Done Wrad 02:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Two neighbours of Hathaway posted bonds that there were no impediments to the marriage. - a verb instead of "that" perhaps?

Done changed to "stating". Wrad 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of Shakespeare's plays have the reputation of being among the greatest in the English language and in Western literature. - wordy

Done adjusted sentence. Wrad 02:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done - still wordy - it is the "being" part that needs to be removed

I changed it to "are reputed to be". RedRabbit1983 05:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Modern criticism has described some of his plays as "problem plays." This term is applied to overlapping groups of plays by scholars beginning with F. S. Boas, W. W. Lawrence, and E. M. W. Tillyard. The common element in the definition is that the plays so labelled present "a perplexing or distressing problem" in a way that raises rather than answers ethical questions. - wordy

Done I believe this has been fixed. Wrad 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, "drama became the ideal means to capture and convey the diverse interests of the time." Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate. - Inline citation should go after the quotation.

I object to this statement of opposition, since the inline citation is positioned a sentence later. The citation applies to the first two sentences in the paragraph.--Romeo in love 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

All quotations need to be cited immediately after the quotation marks so that there is absolutely no confusion about where they are being cited from. This is just a common courtesy to the person being quoted and the reader. Awadewit | talk 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've copied the citation to the first sentence. RedRabbit1983 06:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done by RedRabbit1983--Romeo in love 14:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Around one hundred and fifty years after Shakespeare's death in 1616, doubts began to be expressed about the authorship of the plays and poetry attributed to him. - placement of date is confusing

Done eliminated date altogether ("in 1616" not needed) Wrad 02:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

General points:

Question: While it is generally accepted in academic circles that Shakespeare's plays were written by Shakespeare of Stratford and not another author, popular interest in the subject, particularly the Oxfordian theory,[150][151] has continued into the 21st century.[152] - Then why does the page discuss the authorship question at all? Academics are the experts here and their work should be the basis of the page, not popular speculation. Note that your other two subsections in the "Speculation" section draw their arguments from academics.

The entire speculations section was already shortened quite a bit, based on your earlier proposals on the peer review. The authorship section was decided on very precisely over an agonizing debate. Some say that it isn't academic, others disagree. I think it is best to leave this section as it is. It is a notable argument about Shakespeare which has extended over centuries. Sure, it's debatable, but I don't see how we can make it any shorter without completely deleting it, and I don't see how deleting it would keep the article comprehensive. Wrad 02:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Since wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on the best sources available, which here would be literary critics and historians, removing this section would not make the article incomplete because the vast majority of academics believe that Shakespeare wrote the plays. Including the section only perpetuates the false idea that there is a "controversy." There isn't. The controversy wages outside the walls of academe. It would seem more responsible to include a link to the page on authorship in the "See also" section rather than granting it legitimacy with an entire subsection. I assume that the editors desire more space for other topics - removing this subsection would give them that. (Side note: I was surprised that the editors limited themselves to 27kb of text - that is a very short article for a writer as important as Shakespeare. I would suggest that editors think about expanding it, since they have the room. They could then include details so that each section doesn't sound so vague.)

Awadewit | talk 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave it to others to decide on this, but I will say that your point was brought up in the discussion, and again, that this was the result of a consensus involving a very large number of editors. I would also say that while academics largely deny the question of authorship, they do not deny that it has been questioned. The section does acknowledge that most academics don't accept it, so I don't know that it will mislead anyone. May I suggest a rewording, rather than a removal? Switching it around to say "although popular opinion still explores the issue, academics..." instead of the other way around? Wrad 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, literary critics do not deny that the authorship has been questioned (I never said that - strawman argument), they just know that the theories are bogus. Similarly, biologists accept that others question evolution, but because biologists themselves know that there is no "controversy" over the acceptance of evolution within science, the current debates over evolution in the United States do not merit a large section on the page (note that the evolution page discusses that issue in a single sentence that is embedded within a useful history of how evolutionary thought has been received). Nothing similar is being done here. The "controversy" is being granted legitimacy because it is being given a whole subsection on the main Shakespeare page. It should be its own separate page and linked to this article. Awadewit | talk 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The section is called "speculations" not "controversies". The areas of sexuality, religion and authorship inspire passionate well sourced debates that continue, and for some unexplained reason, seem to grow as the years go by. There are those who will argue tooth and nail that Shakespeare was or was not a Catholic. Many say the issue is settled but the debates rage on. Same with those surrounding Shakespeare's bisexuality. With ongoing hubbub in the media, amongst the populace, and even small pockets of academia, I think these areas of "speculation" certainly should be addressed. This article does that and no more.Smatprt 04:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the "Sexuality" and "Religion" subsections, as I made clear, because those are debates that the Shakespeare experts (literary critics and historians) are engaged in. The article is not obliged to present the "speculation" of uninformed writers, though. Just as the evolution article does not need to discuss creationism, which is not an accepted viewpoint within biology, the Shakespeare article does not need to discuss the authorship "controversy" because it is not accepted by literary critics and historians (the academic experts). As I said before, the authorship "controversy" should have its own page and be linked to the Shakespeare page, as is creationism. Awadewit | talk 11:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off as trying to set up a strawman against you. I wasn't. I was just pointing out that in my opinion, the authorship question is an important part of Shakespeare history, and should be included. You say the evolution section has one sentence on creation. This article has only three on this issue. I just don't think that this is giving it undue weight, though I would like to reword it. I'm also interested in where else you would put the information? It needs at least a sentence. Wrad 18:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that comparing authorship research with creationism is way off the mark. The authorship question has attracted interest from the likes of Mark Twain and Walt Whitman to Supreme Court Justices. Great men and deep thinkers throughout history have sincerely doubted the Stratford attribution. This is simply not true of fringe theories such as creationism, holocaust denial or moon landing doubters. The article, as is, does justice to all concerned. If anything, there should still be a sentence explaining why the speculation exists in the first place. This is currently missing from the Authorship section.Smatprt 20:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have great trouble agreeing that great men and deep thinkers have not believed in the creation! However I do agree that parallels with creationism are extremely unhelpful in a discussion of this subject. AndyJones 20:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Point by point answers:

in my opinion, the authorship question is an important part of Shakespeare history - The opinions of wikipedia editors are irrelevant - it is the opinions of the experts that determine what is included on a page. Awadewit | talk 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You say the evolution section has one sentence on creation. This article has only three on this issue. - That one sentence is embedded within a larger section outlining the reception of evolution which is very different than three sentences occupying their own subsection. Making something a subsection draws attention to its importance simply through the layout and argues for its significance. Awadewit | talk 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The authorship question has attracted interest from the likes of Mark Twain and Walt Whitman to Supreme Court Justices. Great men and deep thinkers throughout history have sincerely doubted the Stratford attribution. - It doesn't matter - they were wrong. Awadewit | talk 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This is simply not true of fringe theories such as creationism, holocaust denial or moon landing doubters. - This is incorrect. Until Darwin, nearly everyone, including such great thinkers as Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler believed in some form of creationism. Creationism is only fringe now because we have a scientific explanation for how life evolved. It obviously used to be a mainstream idea, even among scientists. Awadewit | talk 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The reason I made this parallel is because I have found in my discussions at wikipedia that examples are almost always necessary to explain an argument; it is often impossible to argue only in the abstract. The argument I made, which no one has yet responded to, is that "Because the authorship question is not one explored by the experts, it should not be included in the page per wikipedia policy of only mentioning the topics raised by reliable sources." Please note that I tried to make this argument twice without invoking any examples. When that failed, I tried using an example to make my point clearer. And, typically, the conversation has now focused on the example rather than the argument it was meant to illustrate. Please try to address the argument directly. Thank you. Awadewit | talk 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe we did address it directly, at least Alabamaboy and I did. Some scholars do think the idea has merit, and it is an important historical fact that the authorship has been questioned. Also, if the example is so persuasive, what's wrong with addressing it if we think it's faulty? Give us some credit. We're not out to get you. We have just been over this all before and came to the end we did after a lot of debate. Wrad 22:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to address the argument and your example directly:

YES, you are, of course, correct about the many deep thinkers on creationism - I am afraid my intention was not clear due to the way I constructed my answer (my bad). To rephrase: What I meant to say was that in spite of TODAY'S science there are still as many, if not more, great writers, artists, statesmen and even "experts" who still question the mainstream attribution, than there were 150 years ago when the first doubts were published. That is not so with creationism and true "fringe" theories.

Who are they? Awadewit | talk 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And YES - the science vs. creationism debate is over because science now has a proven explanation - and there's the rub - there have been NO groundbreaking discoveries in the recent past that have provided any scientific proof of the mainstream attribution.

But the whole point is that the mainstream attribution has some evidence (such as the Folio, etc.) while the other theories have little or none. Awadewit | talk 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If your main argument is "Because the authorship question is not one explored by the experts, it should not be included ..." then you have not seen that there are numerous experts who have been cited on the topic in full compliance with RS policy, including both academics and persons of note.

I hope I have addressed your argument directly. Thank you. Smatprt 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that none of the sources you quote is a reliable academic source:

Delia Bacon, writing in 1857, is not considered a modern academic source.
Calvin Hoffman, "a Broadway press agent and sometime writer" is not considered an academic source.
The Ogburns: a family dedicated to proving that Shakespeare didn't write the plays. They are not academics. (By the way, the citation should say Charlton Ogburn, Jr.)
The Britannica citation actually relies on the work of "a 1920 book by J. Thomas Looney"; he was an English "schoolmaster," not an academic.
A U.S. News and World Report article by a journalist is not an academic source.
A self-published website by a professor is not the same as a peer-reviewed publication, thus the "Oxford and Music" article is also suspect. See WP:RS and WP:ATT.

I have, as yet, seen no evidence that academics debate this issue. As I said before, it is immaterial if others do, they are not the experts and it is experts that wikipedia relies on. Awadewit | talk 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See here [1] for dozens of academics who debate the subject or doubt the mainstream attribution.Smatprt 04:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; but are you serious? The site itself even admits that the topic is taboo in academia. Apart from the fact that a lot of their two hundred plus signatories don't even claim to be academics, who's auditing the signatures and the academic backgrounds (of which few are in any case appropriate)? It's a classic unreliable website and inadmissable as proof of anything.qp10qp 07:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. There is still no evidence to support the claim that academics take this debate seriously. Awadewit | talk 07:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The "See Also" section seems to contain a random assortment of unnecessary links. Why do we need "Famous English People" and why isn't the "Globe Theatre" linked in the article? "King's Men" is already linked the article, so it is unnecessary to list it here. Please carefully consider what to include here.

I'm unfamiliar with the protocol on this. Are we not supposed to list articles linked in the text? What is supposed to be there? If an article is comprehensive, why does it need this section, since all relevant articles would be linked in the text, supposedly? Wrad 02:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Many editors agree with you that there should be no "See also" section, but sometimes it is necessary. See here in the MOS in regards to this section. Awadewit | talk 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Famous English People" and "King's Men" RedRabbit1983 09:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of deleting the section, and adding a bit about Globe Theater. I'm surprised it isn't already in there. Wrad 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted it and added a bit about the theatre. After thinking about this a lot. I honestly can't see any links that legitimately belong in a see also section for this article without being repetitious or random. If anyone can see a way to make a good See also, please do. Wrad 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a See also section.

Done RedRabbit1983 15:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please give complete publication information for linked articles - author, website/organization/journal, etc. The user shouldn't have to click to obtain this information.

With all due respect, do the citation templates even provide parameters for this?--Romeo in love 02:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do. I thought we had covered this. Are there any in particular that are missing information? We may have missed some. Wrad 02:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I am new here, so I'll have to pass this job onto another editor to correct. I think we have to provide information such as: author, publisher, publication city, publication year, medium of access, etc.--Romeo in love 02:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the information I am looking for. Awadewit | talk 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Added as much as I could find for all web citations. Wrad 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

N Not done The notes are not cited consistently (for example, the author's last name does not always come first). Please decide on a style use the same style for every note. Awadewit | talk 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please include complete publication information in the "Further Reading" section and be sure that the descriptions of the books don't awkwardly run into the citations - they are hard to read right now.

Done Wrad 22:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is a fictionalized biography cited as further reading? Awadewit | talk 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't any longer. RedRabbit1983 06:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My change was reverted. Apparently the reason is: "I haven't read this but Greenblatt recommends it in "Will in the World," I don't think it's unreasonable to include it". RedRabbit1983 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just now noticed a reference to Sparknotes. That must have been added recently. Please find a more respectable publication to quote from for the sonnet, one that has been carefully edited rather than something thrown together by someone to make money off of desperate students. Awadewit | talk 03:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha

Done Sparknotes replaced with a .edu page. Wrad 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done Please see the description of the page and their editors: " A few years ago, my best friend, Ted, and I decided to assemble an on-line collection of some of our favorite poems." Surely there is a reliable Shakespeare edition online somewhere? Awadewit | talk 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Once these issues have been addressed, I will reconsider my "object." I think that the page is almost ready for FA, but is missing that attention to detail in language, citation and layout that make an article "professional" (1a) and the "best wikipedia has to offer" (FA). Awadewit | talk 02:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we can fix almost all of these issues. I agree that the authorship issue isn't supported by most mainstream academics, but that's why it's been cut back to a single short paragraph and placed in the "speculations" section. To remove this info totally might be seen as POV by many editors b/c there have been some academics who have explored this issue, as well as other well-known writers. Also, you raised the 27kb length. I want to state that this is a very long, in-depth article as is. At almost 9,000 words long (with over 5000 words of main body text, not counting citations and such), it's longer than almost most other literature featured articles like W. B. Yeats, on par with Thomas Pynchon, and only a bit below Uncle Tom's Cabin (another long, in-depth subject). We could easily make the article longer but we have followed Wikipedia policy and spun off large sections of this article into subarticles, such as Shakespeare's reputation and Timeline of Shakespeare criticism. Placing all that info back into this article would, I think, be excessive. Instead, the main article should sumarize and cover the main facts and present a complete picture (including context and analysis); readers can then go to the sub articles for more details. But if you think we are missing important info here, please let me know and we'll add it in. Best,--Alabamaboy 10:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a whole 1,000 words to work with! I am not suggesting that the subarticles be reintegrated (strawman arguments all over this FAC). I was simply pointing out that the page has some room to work with - frankly, I was surprised it wasn't bursting at the seams. (Yeats is missing significant areas and is under FARC, I believe, so that is not a good comparison.) My concern with the lack of detail on this page (summary without meaning in some places, I feel) is that I am not convinced that readers will bother to read all of the subpages. Teaching freshman to write has made me too cynical, perhaps, but I feel that whatever information you feel readers must know about Shakespeare should be included here. That is why I would recommend deleting the authorship controversy, which academics don't take seriously (see evolution analogy above), and including more detail regarding Shakespeare's works or his life. Here are two examples that occur to me immediately:

Ex: There is next to nothing about the history of the performance of Shakespeare's plays here.

Done Just added this subsection in.--Alabamaboy 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ex: The "Other poems" section does not even mention the topics or general themes of the poems - it only lists their titles. Awadewit | talk 11:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

DoneJust added all this in. Can't believe we were missing this. Can't believe I didn't realize we were missing this. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can add all of this in. It will take me a day or so since I can't edit much at the moment. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit, I'm still working on making your other suggestions, but I did want to bring an item to your attention. The subsection on the authorship debate has a parallel in the Encyclopedia Britannica article about Shakespeare. They actually give far more space in the main Shakespeare article than we do to this subject. While we're not trying to mirror them, the fact that they consider it important to include in their main Shakespeare article indicates that the subject should at least have a short paragraph here. Best, --Alabamaboy 23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because the Britannica is wrong doesn't mean we have to be. Again, Britannica is not the most reliable source here - literary scholars and historians are. Wikipedia is under no obligation to make the same editorial choices (here editorial mistakes) as the Britannica. I might ask also mention that the authorship question is discussed within a historical framework in the Britannica article, explaining how it arose and why it is discounted. Such a framework does not lend the same sort of legitimacy to the debate as a subsection in a wikipedia article does. I might also mention that wikipedia has an entire article on this topic while Britannica does not, thus I am not surprised that they mention it in the main Shakespeare article. Awadewit | talk 00:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Personally, I'd love to take out that tiny paragraph on the authorship debate b/c I have no desire to read conspiracy theories and hate having them in an article such as this. The problem, though, is that Wikipedia works under consensus. This article had a long--extremely long, way too long--debate about whether or not to include this info. In the end, the consensus was to cut back to the short paragraph you see here and leave the vast majority of the info in the authorship debate article. So while I personally agree with you on this subject, I am hesitant to go against a hard-won consensus view. Just my personal view of things. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but just because it is a consensus does not mean it is the correct consensus. I have seen many consensuses (consensi?) on wikipedia that were blatantly wrong simply because the editors did not have appropriate information with which to make the decision. Here, it would seem that the editors' desires or interests are overriding wikipedia policy. Awadewit | talk 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what I think personally about the whole authorship debate yet, but I did a simple search of academic journals and came up with thousands of articles, of which these are just a few:

Richmond Crinkley. "New Perspectives on The Authorship Question." Shakespeare Quarterly. (Jan 1985) 36.4 pgs. 515-522

This article, written by a former librarian at the Folger, is a critique of Ogburn's book. He explains why the Oxford thesis fails. Awadewit | talk 05:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Latvijas Zinatnu Akademijas Vestis. "On the Problem of William Shakespeare's Authorship." (Jan 1994) 3.560 pg. 38. ISSN: 08686556
"A Statistical Approach to the Shakespeare Authorship Question." The Elizabethan Review. (Sep 1993) 1.2 pg. 36 ISSN: 10667059. Subject: attribution of authorship; De Vere, Edward, Earl of Oxford; statistical approach
"The Shakespeare Authorship Question Revisited". Romantist. (Jan 1985) 9-10 pgs. 43 ISSN: 0161682X
"A Brief Review of the Shakespeare Authorship Controversies." Romantist. (Jan 1979) 3.23
Huston, Craig. "The Shakespeare Authorship Question: Evidence for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford." Dorrance. (Jan 1971)

Whether or not this or that is the correct view, if these scholarly, peer reviewed journals (Shakespeare Quarterly, The Elizabethan Review, etc.) aren't shy about printing something about the Shakespearean Authorship question, then we shouldn't be either. There is academic support in favor of at least addressing the question, which is pretty much all we do in the article, as agreed on by a larger group of editors than are presently here.

Unfortunately I only have direct access at the moment to one of the sources you listed. It supports none of the theories outlined in the article and specifically criticizes one of the works the article relies on. If the other articles are like this, they are not support for an authorship debate within academia. Do you have abstracts for these articles? I looked all of them up in EBSCO but none did. Titles alone don't tell you much about an article. Awadewit | talk 05:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If it is true that these articles support a debate among academics, why aren't they being used on the page, rather than the current unreliable sources? Awadewit | talk 05:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Please understand that I would be fully willing to accept the subsection, if the editors could demonstrate that there is a debate on Shakespeare's authorship within the realm of Shakespearean scholarship. Because I have been repeatedly taught as both an undergraduate and a graduate student in English literature that such debates do not exist, I am skeptical. But I am willing to look at all of the evidence as it is presented to me. So far, I do not see any evidence of such a debate existing in academia. If I did see that evidence presented here, I would obviously retract my objection to the subsection. Awadewit | talk 05:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I see two universities (Concordia and Brunel) are now teaching Authorship courses. Concordia is establishing a research center[2]. Dr. David Wright is surely an academic Shakespeare expert. I would hope these institutions and their professors would demonstrate what you ask.Smatprt 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

On a lighter note, on the first page of the first article listed above, it says: "Reconciliation [is] a daunting task, for the question of the authorship of Shakespeare's work rouses wild passions in people otherwise placid and uncontentious." How true! :) Wrad 04:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, and this was specifically about the Folger and the Ogburns. I am not a fan of quoting out of context. It often leads to serious misrepresentations. Awadewit | talk 05:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It was just a joke, which I think applies here. Just see below for examples :) Our Shakespeare project has had a long history with this issue, and I was just poking fun at it. Just was hoping to get a few good laughs, nothing serious. Wrad 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Awadewit that having a whole section about this phantom authorship question (if you go to Warwickshire and hear the rural speech rhythms, it is uncannily like listening to Shakespeare's rustic characters—and it's a very localised phenomenon) is a blot on the article. Why do academics and scholarly article writers even stoop to address this, then? For the same reason that Awadewit does and I am doing now: pure frustration, a desperate attempt to finish the notion off once and for all. You can bet your life that no respectable academic would support the idea that Shakespeare didn't write his plays. Having said all this, maybe the hope that Wikipedia could stay properly aloof is too idealistic: therefore perhaps a sentence on the authorship red herrings could be included—preferably one containing an angrily worded and damning dismissal from a respectable scholar—but surely not a whole section. qp10qp 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised by these statements. Are you really saying that Wikipedia needs anger and aloofness? "No respectable academic"? So any professor who researches the subject is suddenly not "respectable"? Can we attempt a bit of civility? Smatprt 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the first time I've been accused of incivility on Wikipedia. (I don't agree with you that I was; but I apologise if you feel offended at something in that paragraph). The point is that when it comes to conspiracy theories Wikipedia should find a way of staying aloof from them, preferably, or dismissing them in no uncertain terms, if really they have to be mentioned. Like Awadewit, I would welcome information on respectable literary academics who have advanced the theory that Shakespeare didn't write his plays; if such people exist, let them be referenced in the article. qp10qp 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. But I am concerned removing it would be impractical; it would just spring up again. It's a weed that will keep growing, despite its irrelevancy. Let's leave it in its section and prune it if it grows too long. We can all be good gardeners. RedRabbit1983 08:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we please not turn this into an authoship debate. It's only reasonable that the issue is mentioned, since it's a part of the public reputation of Shakespeare's work, and a lot has been written about it, even though almost all of it is amateur. It's only a small section. Awadewit writes "I would be fully willing to accept the subsection, if the editors could demonstrate that there is a debate on Shakespeare's authorship within the realm of Shakespearean scholarship." I think this is the wrong approach. It only encourages Smatprt to find more "evidence" of scholarly debate, which is then disputed, and so on. The fact is that this has been an issue for at least a century and a half, and it merits a mention. Paul B 11:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul--let's not reopen this debate here. The debate went on forever on the article's talk page (see Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_4 for more) and involved edit warring, 3RR blocks, and more. As people can see from the debate which sprang up here overnight, this is a passionate issue. Let's simply leave the issue alone and worry about fixing up the rest of the article. If this one section--all 69 words of it--keeps anyone from supporting this article for FA status, I'll totally understand. That said, perhaps a possible compromise on this issue would be to discuss all of this on the article's talk page once this FAC is finished. We can then see if consensus has changed. If it has, we can either keep or remove that section at that time. But going through another two months of discussions and debate on this at this time seems counterproductive.--Alabamaboy 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's move on. I hate long, heated debates leading to nowhere. Especially when they go over the same things again and again. There really hasn't been anything said here that hasn't already been said a million times. Let's just put this issue in a box and set it aside for later. Wrad 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's only reasonable that the issue is mentioned, since it's a part of the public reputation of Shakespeare's work, and a lot has been written about it, even though almost all of it is amateur. - I am not sure why some editors feel that the Shakespeare page should not follow wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources. However difficult the issue may be to decide (and it isn't according to wikipedia policy), that does not mean that it can simply be abandoned. The fact that there isn't really consensus on this issue does not mean that the material should be included. Moreover, it is the job of the page's editors to keep it from "springing up" again on the page if it were to be deleted just like other editors on other controversial subjects do. As far as I can tell, the only reason this is a passionate issue is because some editors are unwilling to follow wikipedia's policy and are more interested in including information interesting to themselves. It is not editors who determine that - it is expert sources. Awadewit | talk 16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the issue of what reliable sources are for. We have reliable sources that such a debate has occurred and is part of Shakespeare's public reputation. We do not have reliable sources that say "scholarly consensus is that this is a real issue" because the article does not claim that. It simply says that this debate has occurred. That is undisputed. Paul B 17:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the page does not use academic sources to prove anything. As I demonstrated in my analysis of your sources above, neither the sources discussing the authorship question nor the sources proving that the question has been raised are scholarly. One of the sources demonstrating that the authorship question exists, for example, is an article from U.S. News and World Report. Awadewit | talk 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, frankly, you seem to be concerned with more than such a very minor point, since these pages of postings on the subject seem to be about more than that. You know and I know that such a debate has occurred. There' no need to argue about it. Here's some published literature - Schoenbaum, S. Shakespeare's Lives, passim (esp part V1 pp. 385-451), OUP, 1993 edition. Holderness, Graham ed, The Shakespeare Myth, MUP, 1998 pp. 11-15. Kathmann, D. The Question of Authorship" in Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide, Stanley Wells and Lena Cowen Orlin (ed), OUP, 2003. Paul B 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

While I would be willing to lay-off this discussion for the time being, if Awadewit and qp10qp want to continue discussion, I really have only this to offer:

If the issue has boiled down to this objection: “So far, I do not see any evidence of such a debate existing in academia. If I did see that evidence presented here, I would obviously retract my objection to the subsection”, then I would ask that you consider:

Two universities (Concordia and Brunel) that now teaching Authorship courses. Concordia is establishing a research center. Dr. David Wright has been acknowledged previously on these pages (even my most mainstream editors) as a Shakespeare expert. I prefer not to rehash that argument unless requested.
Dr. Roger Strittmater, an Assistant Professor of Humanities and Literary Studies at Coppin State University, holds an MA in Anthropology from the New School for Social Research and a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Massachussets at Amherst. He has published articles in Notes and Queries (Oxford University Press), Review of English Studies (Oxford University Press), The Tennessee Law Review, and The Shakespeare Yearbook (forthcoming), a leading quarterly journal of Shakespearean studies.
Dr. David Richardson, a retired Spenser specialist from Cleveland State University and editor of the Spenser Encyclopedia (not an Oxfordian but very supportive of the debate);
Dr. Jack Shuttleworth, retired chair of the English Department of the U.S. Air Force Academy, author of several books on early modern literature and a committed Oxfordian;
Dr. Felicia Londre, if you take a look at her resume, is a very distinguished theatrical historian who has written several (perhaps dozens) of books, including editing a collection of essays on Love's Labour's Lost by Routledge and Kegan Paul;
Dr. Ren Draya at Blackburn college, is a trained and tenured Renaissance scholar holding a PhD.

I am not trying to start a war or appear unreasonable - I am attempting to show that there is indeed academic research and debate on the subject. Thank you for at least considering this information. Smatprt 19:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Brunel University!qp10qp 02:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So how about sourcing the subsection from these more reliable sources? Could we compromise on that? Awadewit | talk 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added several Strittmater cites. On this subject, can someone fine a better cite for Kathman, David. The Spelling and Pronunciation of Shakespeare's Name. Surely there is a better cite than this personal website with no oversight.Smatprt 14:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

New sources have been added. Is the current version, with the current sources, acceptable to you?--Alabamaboy 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is no one reading the policy on reliable sources? I quote: "Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals." (And why am I forced to recopy my objections to these sources?):

Delia Bacon, writing in 1857, is not considered a modern academic source. Find an academic source for the Baconian claim.
Calvin Hoffman, "a Broadway press agent and sometime writer" is not considered an academic source. Find an academic source for the Marlowe claim.
Dr. Daniel Wright. A Few Curiosities Regarding Edward de Vere and the Writer Who Called Himself Shakespeare. This is a self-published website - you need a peer reviewed source. Has he published anything?
- Dr. Daniel Wright has been a member of the Concordia University faculty since 1991. He is the author of the acclaimed book, The Anglican Shakespeare, as well as over three dozen scholarly articles and reviews in publications such as Germany's Neues Shakespeare Journal, Studies in the Novel, International Fiction Review, The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, Renaissance and Reformation, The Sixteenth Century Journal, The Elizabethan Review, The Oxfordian and Harper's. He currently is completing another book, The Gothic Antichrist, a work that examines the inversion of sacred iconography and rhetoric in 19th-century British Gothic fiction. He teaches Shakespeare, British Literature, The Gothic Novel, Russian Literature, The European Novel, The Psychology of Authorship, Sports Literature, and a number of other engaging and popular courses. Professor Wright is the founder and director of the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference, the world's largest academic symposium dedicated to the investigation of the origins of the works by the writer who called himself Shakespeare. Among many affiliations, Professor Wright is an Associate Trustee of the Shakespeare Authorship Trust of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, and he is a Patron of the Shakespeare Fellowship--from whom he also is a recipient of the Outstanding Achievement in Elizabethan Studies Award. He is the Faculty Advisor to Sigma Tau Delta, the English honor society; and he is the Faculty Marshal for the College of Theology, Arts and Sciences. He lectures worldwide, leads study abroad tours, and directs residential study programs for CU in the United Kingdom.Smatprt 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ogburns: a family dedicated to proving that Shakespeare didn't write the plays. They are not academics. Please find an academic source for the Oxford claim.
Dr. Daniel Wright. The Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference. Concordia University. Retrieved on 21 June 2007. This is also a self-published description of the conference - it is an advertisement.

Note that on the page it says "The conference is especially dedicated to the presentation of publishable research that thoughtfully addresses, affirmatively or negatively, the possibility that a writer other than the orthodox candidate—a butcher's apprentice from Stratford-Upon-Avon—was the pseudonymous author of the Shakespeare canon." - Find that published material.

Right now, all that can be proven is that "popular debate persists" despite the fact that academics have dismissed it.

Like qp10qp, I also think that the sentences should be more strongly worded. It should be absolutely clear that this debate is summarily dismissed by all the major Shakespeare scholars. Awadewit | talk 04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

- Y Done 06:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional point: But we also have user:smatprt, who is very dedicated Oxfordian, insistent on presenting the issue as a real matter of doubt rather than of curiosity. - This comes from the article's talk page. Might I reiterate that it is immaterial what the editors' viewpoints are. The viewpoints that count are those published in scholarly, peer-reviewed sources. Awadewit | talk 05:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

*Support Compared to most FA articles, I think this one is excellent. I also believe the length is appropriate, especially considering all the sub-articles. I also think the editors have been more than thorough in their work sourcing the information and have been quite sensitive honoring POV issues. Along with HHermans above, I see nothing in this article to go against the featured article criteria. Smatprt 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Support~~Object~~ way too many footnotes in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body and as such if well written, the lead will need few if any footnotes. The vast majority of details should be in the body.Rlevse 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)...chg to support.Rlevse 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse, could you add to that? In itself, your objection about footnotes in the lead is a matter of taste rather than policy. Many FAs have references in the lead. Maybe you could suggest a principle for reducing the number of them in this case, and then the editors would have something to work with? qp10qp 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DoneWe're already fixed this issue. See comments below.--Alabamaboy 19:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I did see below; but I don't agree that it has been fully fixed. There's still an aesthetic difficulty at the very beginning, which is so disruptively tagged that I think it might put readers off:

William Shakespeare (IPA: ['wɪliəm 'ʃeɪkspɪə]) (baptised 26 April 1564 – died 23 April 1616)[I] was an English poet and playwright. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language[1] and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.[2] His surviving works include approximately[II] 38 plays and 154 sonnets, as well as a variety of other poems.

Firstly, I don't think there's any need to reference the dates of birth and death here; although there's certainly an academic issue on the matter, I don't think any reader would dream of challenging this without also looking at the treatment of the issue in the main article. So I would remove that note tag. I would also remove the tag after "language", because the note at the end of that sentence covers that point too (one of the encyclopedias says he had "unparalleled use of language"). Finally, I would move the tag after "approximately" to the end of the sentence. Together, these modifications would make the opening read much better, in my opinion (and perhaps help meet Rlevse's objection).qp10qp 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd be surprised what readers do to this article. Over the last two years, endless numbers of people have changed the baptism date in the lead to a birth date without checking the rest of the article. I'd prefer to keep note I about the Gregorian calendar (which is another point a lot of editors question about those dates), especially since this note doesn't really break up the flow of a sentence. But I've made your other suggested changes.--Alabamaboy 19:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes were added at the request of previous reviewers. Careful perusal of the article will, I believe, reveal that the Lead is a summary of the body, despite the footnotes. Wrad 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I find all of the notes unaesthetic as well. Is there a way to cite only the controversial statements or are they all controversial? WP:LEAD does say the lead should be referenced, but I've seen people argue against that since all of the information should be presented and referenced again. Awadewit | talk 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to remove all the citations from the lead, since those facts are also cited in the main body of the article. Unfortunately, previous people objected to not having the citations there. But if this is a condition of support, we will remove the cites. --Alabamaboy 17:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not a condition of support for me. If the citations could be reduced somewhat to make reading the paragraph easier, that would be nice. If not, then readers will have to make do. Awadewit | talk 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reduced them to only a few cites. As has been said, previous editors wanted these cites, but I wonder if they just didn't bother to read the rest of the article where this info was already cited. Best,--Alabamaboy 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree here, it looks much better now. Wrad 18:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Question How is the copy editing coming? Several reviewers have noted that the article needs a thorough copy edit by unfamiliar eyes. Awadewit | talk 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears the copy edit is complete. Different editors have cleaned up different sections. A quick read through leads me to believe all the article's copy problems have been corrected; the few problems that remained I fixed myself. If I'm wrong, though, please let me know what still needs to be fixed.--Alabamaboy 18:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree, although on each reading I still seem to find something that needs tightening. I agree this would be a good moment for those with worries about the copy-editing to take another look, though. AndyJones 18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Readers who want lots of footnotes in the lead simply don't understand article structure.Rlevse 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment and reply I've highlighted my concerns regarding copyeding on the talk page. RedRabbit1983 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To be done

Headache - Reading this page is giving me a headache. Even with all of the checkmarks put in to track the work being done, I really can't tell what still needs to be done. Can we highlight everything so that we can tell what we still need to do?--Romeo in love 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Copyediting and fixing citations, I think. Am I right? RedRabbit1983 17:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  - That's it??? :-D Romeo in love 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I believe so. It appears that Ceoil's issue with the lead has been addressed, and that the issue with the authorship section has been resolved. That leave the cites and the copyedit.--Alabamaboy 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      - What citations need fixing? I know of a few I've pointed out on the talk page, but are there any others? Wrad 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        LOL@Romeo, as they say at AOL. Headache is right! Anyway, I see plenty of work that still needs doing, especially copy-editing. AndyJones 18:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few examples (I did not go through everything - the editors can do that):

Brown, Calvin Smith; Harrison, Robert L. Masterworks of World Literature Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970, 4.
Craig, Leon Harold (2003). Of Philosophers and Kings: Political Philosophy in Shakespeare's "Macbeth" and "King Lear". University of Toronto Press, 3.

The dates are not in the same place - here and throughout the notes.

Dr. Mobley, Jonnie Patricia (1996). Manual for Hamlet: Access to Shakespeare. Lorenz Educational Publishers, 5.

Why is there a "Dr." in the author's name?

Ackroyd, Peter (2005). Shakespeare: The Biography. London: Chatto and Windus, pp 53-61. ISBN 1-856-19726-3.

Decide whether or not ISBNs are going to be included - inconsistent here and elsewhere. Also, decide whether or not to include hyphens - some ISBNs have them, some not.

Gray, Terry A. (2002) "The Lost Years," Shakespeare Timeline, accessed 7 Nov 2006.

Sometimes the notes say "accessed" and sometimes they say "retrieved."

NAGLER, A.M. (1958). Shakespeare's Stage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 8. ISBN 0300026897.

Why is Nagler's name in all caps?

Ackroyd, Peter (2005). Shakespeare: The Biography. London: Chatto and Windus, p220. ISBN 1-856-19726-3.

Once you introduce a citation, you do not need to repeat all of the information. You need only use the author's last name and page number (title if you are including other works by that author).

Schoenbaum, Samuel (1975). William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford University Press, 24-26 and 296. ISBN 0195051610.

If a book is listed in the "References," you do not need to introduce all of the information here, especially when you have already used the "author, page" format. Awadewit | talk 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be done (recopied for ease of reading). Feel free to add to this list.

The article is in need of general copy editing.
The notes are not cited consistently (for example, the author's last name does not always come first). Please decide on a style use the same style for every note. Awadewit | talk 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This should be easy to do for anyone familiar with the protocol. Can we get this out of the way now? RedRabbit1983 19:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

~~I still think it is a bad idea to include a fictionalized biography on a page purporting to put forth the "real" history of Shakespeare, whether or not Greenblatt liked it.~~

My change was reverted. Apparently the reason is: "I haven't read this but Greenblatt recommends it in "Will in the World," I don't think it's unreasonable to include it". RedRabbit1983 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
P4k is the person to take the issue up with. RedRabbit1983 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Message left on P4k's talk page. Awadewit | talk 20:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per [3]. Awadewit | talk 21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

~~The sonnet quotation still doesn't come from a reliable source.~~

Please see the description of the page and their editors: "A few years ago, my best friend, Ted, and I decided to assemble an on-line collection of some of our favorite poems." Surely there is a reliable Shakespeare edition online somewhere? Awadewit | talk 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Haha, didn't notice that. I replaced this. It should be good now. Wrad 18:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Replaced with an even better one, but I don't know how to add the editor's name (W. J. Craig). Could someone do that?~~Awadewit | talk 21:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Wrad 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried my best. Craig's name shows up now.--Romeo in love 21:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources used for the authorship claim are not reliable. Please replace them with reliable, academic sources.

Delia Bacon, writing in 1857, is not considered a modern academic source. Find an academic source for the Baconian claim.
Calvin Hoffman, "a Broadway press agent and sometime writer" is not considered an academic source. Find an academic source for the Marlowe claim.
Dr. Daniel Wright. A Few Curiosities Regarding Edward de Vere and the Writer Who Called Himself Shakespeare. This is a self-published website - you need a peer reviewed source. Has he published anything?

Dr. Daniel Wright has been a member of the Concordia University faculty since 1991. He is the author of the acclaimed book, The Anglican Shakespeare, as well as over three dozen scholarly articles and reviews in publications such as Germany's Neues Shakespeare Journal, Studies in the Novel, International Fiction Review, The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, Renaissance and Reformation, The Sixteenth Century Journal, The Elizabethan Review, The Oxfordian and Harper's. He currently is completing another book, The Gothic Antichrist, a work that examines the inversion of sacred iconography and rhetoric in 19th-century British Gothic fiction. He teaches Shakespeare, British Literature, The Gothic Novel, Russian Literature, The European Novel, The Psychology of Authorship, Sports Literature, and a number of other engaging and popular courses. Professor Wright is the founder and director of the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference, the world's largest academic symposium dedicated to the investigation of the origins of the works by the writer who called himself Shakespeare. Among many affiliations, Professor Wright is an Associate Trustee of the Shakespeare Authorship Trust of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, and he is a Patron of the Shakespeare Fellowship--from whom he also is a recipient of the Outstanding Achievement in Elizabethan Studies Award. He is the Faculty Advisor to Sigma Tau Delta, the English honor society; and he is the Faculty Marshal for the College of Theology, Arts and Sciences. He lectures worldwide, leads study abroad tours, and directs residential study programs for CU in the United Kingdom.Smatprt 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of my question "has he published anything" is that the article must rely on his peer-reviewed publications, not his self-published website. Please read wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. You cannot use a self-published website for this claim and it is absurd to do so when, as you claim, there are peer-reviewed publications available. Awadewit | talk 18:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ogburns: a family dedicated to proving that Shakespeare didn't write the plays. They are not academics. Please find an academic source for the Oxford claim.
Dr. Daniel Wright. The Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference. Concordia University. Retrieved on 21 June 2007. This is also a self-published description of the conference - it is an advertisement.

Note that on the page it says "The conference is especially dedicated to the presentation of publishable research that thoughtfully addresses, affirmatively or negatively, the possibility that a writer other than the orthodox candidate—a butcher's apprentice from Stratford-Upon-Avon—was the pseudonymous author of the Shakespeare canon." - Find that published material.

I found it in the work of Dr. Stritmatter. I referenced it as requested. Someone else has deleted it.Smatprt 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now, all that can be proven is that "popular debate persists" despite the fact that academics have dismissed it. Awadewit | talk 04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some current sources that might not stand up to scrutiny. Not sure if any of these are published scholars. Most look like personal websites - even

21. ^ Gray, Terry A. (2002) "The Lost Years," Shakespeare Timeline, accessed 7 Nov 2006.

Yes, this is a self-published website. Even if it is written by a scholar, which it might be, that is not good enough for a citation that is supposed to support this statement: However, no direct evidence supports these stories, and they all appear to have begun circulating after Shakespeare's death. Awadewit | talk 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

25. ^ Alchin, L. K.. William Shakespeare in London. William Shakespeare info. Retrieved on 2007-06-06.

Also seems to be self-published. Surely this fact can be referenced to a standard Shakespeare biography? In 1596, Shakespeare moved to the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate. Awadewit | talk 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

28. ^ Shapiro, James (2005). 1599 A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare. Faber and Faber, p122. ISBN 0-571-21480-0. (James Shapiro, MD was born in Leeds, England and obtained his medical degree at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He is currently a Canadian Research Chair in transplantation and the Director of the Clinical Islet Transplant Program at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. Not sure shy that makes him a Shakespeare expert.)

Wrong Shapiro. This book is reliable - it is written by one of the foremost Shakespeare scholars who is a professor at Columbia University. See James A. Shapiro. He's cool - I took a Shakespeare class from him. Awadewit | talk 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh - the link in the article reference was wrong. Go figure. I disabled it. If someone wants to link to the RIGHT James Shapiro, feel free.Smatprt 01:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

38. Wilson, Ian; Wilson, Ann (1999). Shakespeare: The Evidence. St. Martin's Press, 309. According to the acedmians on Shaxper.net, the Wilsons are not scholars.

Apparently Ian Wilson is a historian (see this book and since his book is published by St. Martin's Press, it is definitely more reliable. Looking at reviews of it in academic journals would let you know now good it is. I would not dispute this one. Awadewit | talk 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

82. Weller, Philip. Hamlet's Puns and Paradoxes (HTML). Shakespeare Navigators. Retrieved on 2007-06-08. (Clicknotes??)

The author claims to be a professor who teaches Shakespeare see here. That would have to be verified somehow (checking the university's website, perhaps?). I don't think you need this cite anyway, since you have another one for the same statement.

154. Knight, Kevin. The Religion of Shakespeare Catholic Encyclopedia on CD-ROM. Copyright 2007. (Accessed 23 Dec 2005.) Religious/commercial site?

I've known people to quote this before. Note, though, that it was written in 1917 see here. For a claim like this: The Catholic Encyclopedia questions not only his Catholicism but his Christianity, enquiring whether "Shakespeare was not infected with the atheism, which... was rampant in the more cultured society of the Elizabethan age I would try to find another source. It is just the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia who think Shakespeare might have been an atheist? If so, that sentence should be deleted. (I am skeptical of this statement since atheism was far from "rampant" even among the educated elite during Shakespeare's lifetime. See this history of atheism.) Awadewit | talk 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

165 Kathman, David. The Spelling and Pronunciation of Shakespeare's Name. Retrieved on 2007-06-14. (this site is certainly a personal blog with no oversite)

Agreed, but the author seems very reliable - see here. Perhaps he has published on this topic and you can use his published material. Awadewit | talk 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the Kathman website, it seems pretty unprofessional, angry even. Can't find anything that has been properly edited and published that relates to the topic at hand. Still looking. Smatprt 01:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

169. Asquith, Claire (2006). Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare. US: PublicAffairs, 121. ISBN 1586483870. (Not sure if Lady Claire is RS!) Smatprt 22:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I spent a couple of unpleasant hours reading parts of this one on Amazon Search Inside. Yes, it's a published book; but it's by a diplomat's wife (seems to be her only book) who has the pet theory that pretty much every word of Shakespeare is written in a special Catholic code: it just goes to show that Shakespeare is a magnet for offbeat theories. If the article is to use only the best sources, it will find another one for the argument that Shakespeare might have been a Catholic, of which there should be many.qp10qp 23:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree - we should use the most reliable sources. But the book did receive some praise from at least one academic. Here is the opening line from one review in Notes and Queries in 2006: "This well-written, informative work is stimulating and controversial." Awadewit | talk 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's stimulating and controversial, all right. It's a properly published and edited book, so I suppose it might stand. It made my jaw drop, I must say. qp10qp 00:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Awadewit for the research. Qp10qp, I'm not sure what "properly published and edited" means anymore. The Charlton Ogburn book meets that criteria, for example, but I've been given contrary advice in that case: SingingBadger (and other editors) have written that Ogburn is RS for the same reasons you mentioned. Awadewit says that Ogburn is not RS because he himself is not academic (though, based on the comment above, if Ogburn received praise from "at least one acedemic" (like Lady Claire) then would he be permitted? Can you see why I am confused?Smatprt 01:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ogburn and his family are on a crusade (mom, pop and junior). That is one reason to look for another source. Second, the book was published by "EPM Publications." What is that? I've never heard of it before. Show me that it is a reliable publishing house. Awadewit | talk 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about EPM but the 1984 Ogburn was published by Dodd, Mead and Company in London, then re-edited and re-published by Viking Penguin in New York and Cardinal in London. I thought they were reliable houses, but you would know better than I their reputation as publishers. Smatprt 02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the name of the book? I may have been looking at the father's book. Awadewit | talk 08:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Mysterious William Shakespeare (1984). Yes, it's by Ogburn, Jr. Please let me know what you think regarding it's publishers. Smatprt 14:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I was right - first published by Dodd and Mead and then by EPM Publications, according to amazon.com. I have never heard of these publishing houses and I have heard of all of the major academic publishing houses since I am an academic. Who are these firms? As of now, I am skeptical of the book because it is not written by an expert and was not published by a major academic press. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't touch Clare Asquith's book with a bargepole. I agree with Smatprt that "properly published and edited" doesn't mean much in itself, especially in the overcrowded Shakespeare market, since any non-self-published book might claim that status. The way I look at it is that when the Verifiability policy says that verifiabilty is the "threshold", it means that is the lowest qualifier; the source should then pass other tests of reliability. As noted in the Reliability guideline: "A publication by a world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable sources available to its editors." In the case of Shakespeare, the most reliable would for me be the sources with the highest academic credibility: certain presses and certain academic reviews act as a good touchstone in this regard. But even then, I would avoid any source I didn't trust: that's where judgement comes in (as soon as I spot a couple of mistakes, it's goodbye book, as far as I'm concerned).

There's an overdue process of source-weeding going on at the WS talk page at the moment (even though the peer review recommended sources be rinsed): I think the trouble has been that all and any material about Shakespeare has been drawn upon for that article, including much of dubious academic rigour, rather than only the very best. This was done in good faith, but FAC requires raised standards. qp10qp 01:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this qp10qp. Awadewit | talk 08:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done this at the Authorship section (note also the new footnote after "circles") and I'd be grateful for comments on the extent to which it satisfies people's concerns as expressed on this page. AndyJones 09:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the concerns have barely been addressed. There are still no academic citations for the authorship claims. They cannot be included unless their academic citations for them. Moreover, how many readers are going to click on all of those notes? It is not an elegant nor a responsible solution. Smatprt keeps claiming that there are reliable sources for these claims, but I have yet to see any for Bacon, Marlowe or Oxford. I reiterate my objection to including material that isn't cited to Shakespearean scholars on this issue. If no reliable sources can be found, the subsection should be deleted and a single sentence should be inserted in the "Works" section such as: "Over the years, Shakespeare's authorship of the plays has been challenged, but scholars have dismissed all such claims as unsupportable." Awadewit | talk 19:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Stritmatter, Roger A. 'The Marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential Discovery, Literary Reasoning, and Historical Consequence', APPENDIX M: AN ABBREVIATED HISTORY OF THE AUTHORSHIP QUESTION. University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 2001. Retrieved on 22 June 2007. - Why are we using a dissertation? Dissertations should only be used when there is next to nothing published on a subject. That is not true of Shakespeare. Also, dissertations are notoriously unreliable because they are written by students just starting out in the field. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Because you asked for published material by one of the list of academians that I provided.Smatprt 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The references in this section have just been overhauled and are due for another look. Wrad 22:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

- I amended, adding "most", in deference to those academic circles (like those surroudind stritmatter and wright) who don't flatly reject. Is that a fair compromise?Smatprt 14:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You amended a lot more than that; I've restored AndyJones's version, which is more accurate. - Nunh-huh 15:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also brought over the consensus wording from the lead. Had no idea that would be controversial. Amazed that one can say "flatly rejected by academic circles" when such an all-encompassing statement is not accurate accoding to the cites withing the paragraph. I'll try the solo "most" edit one more time (without the lead wording) and would like comment. Also would like comment on why the wording in the lead is not suitable for this paragraph. I understand Nun-huh's POV about class warfare, even though it is inaccurate. Smatprt 15:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Oppose Even though I was one of those who nominated this article for FAC, I am withdrawing support b/c of concerns about POV pushing around the authorship issue. While I'm still open to supporting the article, I won't do so unless true consensus is reached on this issue, as described at Talk:William_Shakespeare#True_consensus_needed. --Alabamaboy 22:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Changing since there seems to be consensus on the authorship wording.--Alabamaboy 16:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This needs to be resolved. I'm confident that it can be if we're willing to let it be. Wrad 22:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please contact me once the authorship issue is resolved (it is making the article unstable), reliable sources have been added to the authorship section and the copy edit is complete. I will then reconsider my objection. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 22:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Done with Reliable sources in Authorship section, though the rest needs doing. Wrad 22:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree--the authorship section is making the article unstable. Unless this is resolved ASAP, I will not support.--Alabamaboy 22:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done Reposting comment: I would say that the concerns have barely been addressed. There are still no academic citations for the authorship claims. They cannot be included unless their academic citations for them. Moreover, how many readers are going to click on all of those notes? It is not an elegant nor a responsible solution. Smatprt keeps claiming that there are reliable sources for these claims, but I have yet to see any for Bacon, Marlowe or Oxford. I reiterate my objection to including material that isn't cited to Shakespearean scholars on this issue. If no reliable sources can be found, the subsection should be deleted and a single sentence should be inserted in the "Works" section such as: "Over the years, Shakespeare's authorship of the plays has been challenged, but scholars have dismissed all such claims as unsupportable." Awadewit | talk 19:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding comment: Who cares what Mark Twain thought about this issue? That is irrelevant. We do not include the thoughts of random people on topics - we include the opinions of experts. That has still not happened yet. Why must this be repeated ad nauseum? Awadewit | talk 23:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the article doesn't claim that these theories are true, just that they exist, and that scholars have rejected them, for the most part. These claims are all referenced with reliable, academic sources. Wrad 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Twain is not irrelevant. He represents the popularity of the idea among 'literati' at its height in the late 19th-early 20th century. It's a point about the history of Shakespeare's reputaton, not a claim about authoritative support for anti-Stratfordianism. If you are asking for reliable sources that modern scholars support Baconian, Marlovian etc ideas, you won't get it of course. As Wrad says, the cited scholars simply state that this has been a subject of debate and is a significant aspect of the history of Shakespeare's reputation. That's all that's being claimed. Paul B 10:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If all the editors want to claim is that there has been a popular debate which has been dismissed by academics, all they need is one sentence in the "Plays" or "Works" section, not an entire subsection under "Speculation." (I proposed this above.) Awadewit | talk 10:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I entirely disagree. It's quite an important part of his reputation in the public sphere, and has been widely debated. It's a very short section. Paul B 10:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter what you think is important. It matters what the experts think is worth talking about. And that is not this. There is no reason to perpetuate a false debate simply because random people have debated it. Awadewit | talk 10:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the experts do discuss this, repeatedly. There have been numerous books discussing this phenomenon written by experts. Why do you find this so difficult to grasp? My disagreement is with you not with the experts. Paul B 11:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish editors would consider the solution I've now suggested twice on the talk page. Simply remove the references/notes to Bacon, Hoffman and co. By leaving only references to serious academics like Schoenbaum, Awadewit's point about sources would be met. It's like this: the article should only reference reliable sources, which Bacon, Hoffman, Ogburn and co are not. So get rid of them. This might annoy Smartprt but no one else, as far as I can see. On the other hand, Smartprt will have won his main point that the issue should have a paragraph in the article. If this suggestion were taken up, we would have a passage which mentions the Bacon, Oxford claims, just as Schoenbaum does, through the prism of serious scholarship rather than through the distorting lens of unreliable sources. In which case, it would adhere to policy at last. qp10qp 23:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Do whatever you want with the footnotes. I was just trying to add reliable sources. At no time do I use refs from any of those people mentioned, except as primary source examples without anything they said directly mentioned. All of what I said is referred to in the refs I added—peer reviewed articles. I don't see the problem with leaving them there. I also see no problem with taking them out. Whatever we decide on. Wrad 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with both of you - under references only source to accepted sources. But under "notes", make reference to the various theories and the crticial reaction to them. I left an attempt, consolidating the notes into one (under the note section) and leaving all the refs to only reliable sources (in the reference section).For what it is worth, it is an attempt at a compromise. Smatprt 03:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Support but recommend renomination -- these nomination comments are far too long to ask Raul to try to gauge them. When I faced a similar situation I withdrew the article's FAC nomination after the issues raised had been addressed and renominated it later. I recommend that for Bill's article. BenB4 05:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that though this thread seems to have gone somewhat dead, the article is being actively edited to meet the objections raised.qp10qp 06:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Melodifestivalen

Self-nomination. Probably the largest pop music festival in Scandinavia, recently made a GA. I've been working on this article for the best part of seven months; first expanding the history section beyond the "milestones" that it was before [4], then getting completely carried away and expanding the entire article; to the point where I feel nothing is now neglected. A peer review also came in very useful. The article is very well-referenced (most of the references are in Swedish however, an unfortunate situation which could not be avoided, doing so would require the use of less reliable English-language sources or taking huge swathes of info out of the article), well-written and inclusive of both free and rationaled fair-use images. Actionable objections are — of course — welcome, but if none are present please support. Thanks :) Chwech | hum-dee-hum-hum 13:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Here's a few comments as I go through the article:

~~Why abbreviate Eurovision song contest to ESC? Looking through the article, you use the acronym twice; in both places, this could be replaced with Eurovision. Your call though.~~

Yeah it does seem a bit pointless. I'll change.

~~"schlager"? I wonder whether you should include a short description of the genre or not; after all, it does break flow when the viewer has to read the "schlager" article to discover what it is.~~

I'll add a bit about it mostly being orchestrated light pop songs.

~~"with varying degrees of success." Is this phrase necessary? These genres having made an appearance would suggest they were successful in some way.~~

I'll remove.

~~"Participating songs" sounds awkward; many instances of this phrase can be shortened to just "songs" or some other phrase.~~

I'm not so sure about changing it to just "songs", so I've changed it to participants/entries/contestants etc.

~~"She went on to win Eurovision in Rome later that year, after a tie with France" (from the Schlager section) I'm not sure exactly what's meant by this phrase; it implies she tied with France.~~

I've fixed that so it points out that there was a tie-break, which Sweden won.

"at the time" can probably be removed in several places. "at the time capital of Francoist Spain". Adding Francoist as a modifier suggests that it wasn't the Spain we know today. It's a minor point however.

Removed instances of "at the time" where necessary. Thanks for your new comments :).

I'll add more comments as I go through the text. Good work though!

CloudNine 12:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. All my comments have been addressed. All images and media have acceptable fair use rationales, and the references seem to meet WP:RS. Good work! CloudNine 09:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Chwech | hum-dee-hum-hum 12:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. Encyclopedic and comprehensive (well, actually I don't know but it sure looks like it). Leon math 19:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments "References are in Swedish unless specified." Since about half of your references are in English, and since this is the English Wikipedia, this seems backwards; the Swedish sources should have a language icon, while the English references do not need an icon. Per WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:RS, why are fan websites included in External links? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- You're quite right on the first point. Swedish sources are quite acceptable, but since this is the English Wikipedia, it's the Swedish sources that should be tagged with some language identifier. As for fansites, sometimes they're excellent sources for further information. Have you read any to see if they provide more than chat opportunities and pictures as most fansites do? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: I've added {{sv icon}} tags to Swedish references and removed tags from English ones. I've also removed the fan sites; I had originally been working based on the Eurovision Song Contest FA, but it seems fan sites were removed from there a while after it was promoted. Thanks for the comments. Chwech | hum-dee-hum-hum 12:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose—1a.
- Opening sentence: "Melodifestivalen[a] (Swedish IPA: [mɛlʊˈdiːfɛstɪˌvɑːlɛn], literally translated as The Melody Festival) is an annual music competition organised by Sveriges Television (SVT) and Sveriges Radio (SR) to determine the song and artist that will represent Sweden at the Eurovision Song Contest.[b]" Remove "literally". "The song and artist"—"that" will do for only the song; artists are people; reword.
- Third sentence: "The competition is a considerably popular live television and radio event—it is the most popular television programme in Sweden, a title it has held since 2000, at times eclipsing even Eurovision itself." "Considerably popular" is unidiomatic. The dash is uncomfortable here; you could remove "it is", maybe. What you've got there is not a title, which would require initial caps. "Even" and "itself"? Two amplifiers unnecessary.
- Fourth sentence: "In 2007, an estimated four million people—almost 44% of Sweden's population—watched the final, while the semifinals averaged around 3.1 million viewers." Four million is 44% of the Swedish population, but were they all Swedes? You mean "In 2007, an estimated four million Swedes—almost 44% of the population—watched the final, while the semifinals averaged around 3.1 million viewers.", don't you?

I'm not going further. There's enough evidence here that the whole thing is poorly written. Collaboration with native speakers required (good ones, at that). Tony 08:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply: As I said in the peer review, prose was never a particular strong point of mine. Would you suggest I take the article to the League of Copyeditors? Chwech | hum-dee-hum-hum 15:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just added it there. Thanks for your comments. Chwech | hum-dee-hum-hum 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: Image:Lilla Melodifestivalen.jpg, Image:Melodifestivalen voting 2005.jpg, Image:Style at Melodifestivalen 1986.jpg, and Image:Mona Grain.jpg all lack fair use rationale for this article. Further, all four of these images are discussed only in the captions, and seem entirely decorative. There's no significance of the image to the inline text. There's nothing historically significant about any of the images, except Image:Mona Grain.jpg, being the oldest video recording known to exist...yet that's not discussed in the article either. This is all fair use overuse, and unnecessary to the article. At best, only the Image:Mona Grain.jpg should remain. --Durin 13:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I have deleted Image:Mona Grain.jpg (interesting, but if you ask me, not all that important to the article as a whole.) I've also got rid of Image:Lilla Melodifestivalen.jpg for pretty much the same reason (the content of that caption is mentioned elsewhere anyway.) I disagree with you regarding the other two. I certainly haven't seen anything in the Manual of Style (here would be the place, wouldn't it?) to suggest that information in image captions should be repeated (even in a reworded form) in the body of the article. I will make the fair use rationale for these images more specific though. Thanks for your comments, to be honest I'd rather this nomination failed than the article be left to languish at the bottom of WP:FAC with so few comments :) Chwech | hum-dee-hum-hum 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevant place isn't the MoS, it's Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Durin 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Gilbert and Sullivan

A very good short summary of their work. It's at the least very near FA level, and has a good team of dedicated people - of which I am one, if not as active recently as I have been - that will sort out any kinks that come up, so, I figured, let's give it a go. I will do everything in my power to fix any reasonable objections that come up. Vanished user ^talk 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments I usually check for the top editors; surprised to find I am one, since I only cleaned up references.
- Ssilvers 201
- Marc Shepherd 88
- Vanished user 51
- SandyGeorgia 28

I've watched Ssilvers careful work on and attention to this and other Musical theatre articles for a long time, and it's in pretty good shape. I'll clean up the references again, as I see a few are again unformatted. I'd like to see the External links pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed the links to the ones that seemed to be most informative, or otherwise important (the New England G&S society, for instance, produces an important newsletter. I'm open, however, to linking straight there, to bypass their somewhat awfully designed front page.) Vanished user ^talk 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better. What to do about those 500 px images, per WP:MOS#Images? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the really big one to centred below the text, as a divider. How's that look to you? Could drop the 400px one to 350 or so, if needed, or take details from it. Vanished user ^talk 22:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better. But ... WP:MOS says we shouldn't specify size at all, so user default prefs will work. I don't really understand what's driving that issue, so I'm not sure whether/when to object on that basis. Greek to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It goes on to give exceptions:f images with unusual aspect ratios, or where a detail is important, but couldn't be extracted without ruining the composition of the whole. The Utopia and the new Thespis image are wide, squat images (hence unusual), and the Sorcerer-Pinafore-Trial comes under the detail clause. Vanished user ^talk 23:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for the ref clean-up and other changes this evening, you two (and for the nice words). I think, however, before we worry too much more about image size and punctuation in the refs and links, that we need some more "macro-comments" from people. Where do people think the article still needs expansion, referencing, clarity, etc.? One thing that could be checked, if someone has time, is the many foreign-language articles on the subject - some of them have been given FA status in other languages (although it seems to me that FA is easier to get in many of the other language Wikipedias), and there may be some useful information that can be translated back to our version. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 04:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments:
- Intro is five paragraphs and could be considered too long (also doesn't necessarily need references, the lead should summarise what is in the meat of the article below)
  - It doesn't necessarily need references, but it contains things that could be considered surprising, such as how much they influenced, and it's usually best to immediately reference anything like that.
  - As for the length of the lead: It does look a bit longer than it is because of the images pushing it left (and in a trivial sense, it's now only four paragraphs). However, I must admit it is, in fact, somewhat long, but think it's justified because the scope of this article - with summarises of 17 other articles - is very broad. Vanished user ^talk 12:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Emboldened title of article does not appear at the start of the article (this is a pretty standard convention ... "Gilbert and Sullivan were ...) - makes it seem like a sentence is missing.
  - Fixed. Vanished user ^talk 12:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing about how/why Gilbert & Sullivan began to work together
  - Well... it's kind of boring: They did Thespis because they were asked to, but I suppose you're right that it should be included. I've clarified. Vanished user ^talk 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I added a little about how they met, but it's a little complicated, since they met socially at first, then worked together just on the Christmas entertainment, Thespis, and finally really came together in 1875 with Trial. I have added some description to try to clarify this. -- Ssilvers 13:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- The result was a new crispness and polish in the English musical theatre - unreferenced opinion?
  - Not really, though it does need referenced, maybe clarified: Theatre was a bit of a mess in those days, and the Gilbert and Sullivan works were much better rehearsed and directed than any of the competition. I'll mark it and dig out a reference. Vanished user ^talk 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not strictly related to the article, but why isn't Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan in the template at the bottom of the page?
  - Honestly? Because it was created a week ago and no-one's edited the template to add it yet. I'll do so now. Vanished user ^talk 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not much needed for a featured article - the prose itself is very good. Neil ╦ 10:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I also think the lead is excessively long. It could definitely be shortened to half of its size. You can merge of the removed info into other sections of the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've cut all of paragraph four, and a few other sentences. How's it look now? Vanished user ^talk 01:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we've responded to Neil's comments. Any others? -- Ssilvers 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm happy - good stuff! Support. Neil ╦ 12:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Support Everything looks good to me now. I would advise that you incorporate more book references. G&S have been documented in many scholarly works, and it would look more professional if you source your information from the books mentioned in the "References" section. For an example of referencing from books, see Samuel Adams. In that article, I tried to keep the online refs to a minimum, since the foremost and most accurate information on the subject come from books and other scholarly works. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it must be said that the internet sources used are, by and large, either from big names in Gilbert and Sullivan Scholarship (Crowther, Spencer, Tillett) or online copies of important books (The Reminiscenes of Jessie Bond, for instance, is the memoirs of one of the most important actresses in the original performances of Gilbert and Sullivan, who knew Gilbert well). Also, a lot of the footnotes have multiple references: Stedman, Ainger, and Wolfson are pretty well represented. Of course, the Cultural Influence section is a bit less scholarly and more newspaper-based, but, well, that's kind of a given. Vanished user ^talk 00:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. If you do add more references in the future, using book sources would be preferred. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add some more in when I'm doing the Arthur Sullivan FA push. =) Vanished user ^talk 00:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - I made a couple of minor fixes, but it's very good stuff. Promote away! Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 09:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The lead-in is poorly written, the section on Patience to Gondoliers is too brief. The references are incomplete. Many comments in the article are unsupported, e.g., "They had much respect and affection for each other...." (This is but one of numerous examples.) This article only recently made "Good Article." It's time to pause and put in some really high-quality work before promoting it to FA. Marc Shepherd 00:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons specified by Marc Shepherd. Let's comb through the references and put page numbers to the various assertions. I will undertake to work on expanding the discussion of the various key operas, and I hope someone else will work on the referencing. Let's not seek glory before we've earned it. -- Ssilvers 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Support—Mostly very well-written. But make "tuneful and memorable melodies" --> "memorable tunes". Is it in BrEng? "Quarreled" is US. "Short-story writer". It's so good that it won't take long for someone unfamiliar with it to catch the few little glitches. Tony 10:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose I've left some hidden comments, clearly you need to sort out the citation requests before the article can be promoted. Also, check the pd tags on the figures: "Reproduction is allowed for educational purposes." is that compatible with GFDL? Can you provide death dates for the artists/photographers so that we know the "100 years" does apply, etc. Thanks. DrKiernan 12:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

These photos were certainly published in the US before 1923, so I'd use the PD-US tag, unless someone has the info on the photographer. -- Ssilvers 14:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Although I've cleaned up the references in this article three or four times now, every time I return to it, I find unformatted references. Is the article stable if refs can't be maintained during FAC? Also, why is Marc Shepherd (talk · contribs)'s personal website used as a source, and what makes him a reliable source ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem as that this article became a FAC at a point when a number of editors still considered it incomplete. More references are needed, but I am not sure why those already supplied aren't being properly maintained. I am flattered that others consider my personal website (which long pre-dates Wikipedia) sufficiently reliable to cite. However, it is completely unnecessary to do so, as there are other sources for the same information. Marc Shepherd 03:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Idi Amin

Well written, well referenced GA status article. Very NPOV despite that the subject is contentious. Subject is interesting, and even more so after the recent movie The Last King of Scotland --Ezeu 03:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment There are inline citations that are missing accessdates. The {{cite web}} template can help you fix this problem.--Crzy cheetah 06:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Will be dealth with. --Ezeu 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Object. There are paragraphs without any citations. The Death section is too short. The lead should state the period he was President of Uganda. Early life section is also short. — Wackymacs 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Early life section is short because that is what is known about Amin's early life. He grew up in Bombo, then he was recriuited to the the army, thats it. --Ezeu 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Could you do another thorough copy-edit please. In the lead alone: "titulated" (?) ~~and two full stops at the end of the second paragraph.~~ Sorry, but even at a cursory glance I can still "Octtober" and a duplicated footnote (VC). Also, I'm a little uncomfortable with virtually all your sources coming from the internet, I would have expected more hard sources and perhaps some academic works cited for a figure as notable as this, who has been the subject of academic study. That isn't one of the criteria, I know, but I recommend that you at least add a "Further reading" section with some hard sources. Thanks. I'll revisit the article again to re-assess in a few days. ~~DrKiernan 17:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)~~ DrKiernan 12:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Well cited and well written, only complaints are the Death section is incredibly short, and the Erratic Behaviour section seems thrown in and doesn't flow i.e. mentions Amin adding CBE to his title, then says the radio announced his full title,seems like a bit of a superfluous fact, other than that great article Elementalos 04:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I oppose for now, but I think the article could be featured with a little more work. I've gone ahead and copy edited the piece, and I did some restructuring to remove some excessive section-making and stubby paragraphs (I did this in two edits so the diffs will be easier to read). Here are my remaining concerns:
- I don't think the list of Amin's titles belongs in the lead. Instead, I'd move this down to the main body of the article. At any rate, the information is not currently repeated in the body, and the lead should not include any new information not repeated later.
- The lead shouldn't need any source citations because it is only a summary of the main article. Move the citations down to the body.
- Please be sure that all full-form dates are wikified so that user-set date preferences will work. Also be sure that all dates are written in a consistent format so that non-logged-in users will see them the same way. Currently, the article mixes both the August 4, 2003, and 4 August 2003 formats.
- Similarly, I noticed some mixed usage of Commonwealth English and American English. Considering Uganda's colonial history, Commonwealth English should be preferred for this article.
- There are some weasely and passive constructions in the article. "Cheering crowds were reported" (who reported them?); "Lango and Alcholi soldiers were massacred" (who massacred them?); "who is considered by many" (red flag; who considers him such?); "and by others as a moderating presence" (what others?); "but that is also disputed" (disputed by whom?); "some sources say Amin claimed . . . " (which sources?).
- It would be nice to see the "Portrayals in the media" section rewritten as prose.
- References are not formatted consistently. All article titles should be in double quotation marks, for example. Each citation should probably end in a full stop.
- As far as comprehensiveness, I question the article's lack of a "Legacy" section. For a man who had such an impact on Uganda, there should probably be some discussion of how Uganda dealt with that impact after his exile. The "in popular media" stuff could be merged into a larger "Legacy" section.
- The "See also" section can be safely removed, and probably should be.
- There is a Category:Idi Amin, so all other categories on this page should instead be applied to that category. For example, instead of placing the article in Category:Presidents of Uganda, Category:Idi Amin should be placed in Category:Presidents of Uganda. In short, when there is a category with the same name as an article, the article of that name should probably not belong to any category but its namesake category.
- The article is overlinked. First of all, specific terms should generally not be linked more than once, at their first appearance (excluding the lead and picture captions). Secondly, only terms relevant to the article at hand should be linked. The reader is not going to learn too much to help him or her understand Amin by clicking links such as light heavyweight or football, for example. Take a long, hard look at each link and keep only the ones that are directly pertinent. This will enhance the value of these links rather than wash them out in a sea of blue.
That's it. I know a lof of this is nitpicky, but this is FAC, where our best material is supposed to be identified. I think this article can very easily be made to be part of our best material with just a little more work. Let me know if I can do anything to help. — Brian (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for now but great article nonetheless and, naturally, of paramount importance. I share Brian's concerns and there are other little things to fix. For instance, I'm no fair-use expert but not all of the fair use claims seem very solid and that should be carefully checked out. Pascal.Tesson 16:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Boy Scouts of America

Well written, fits criteria, overall what I'd consider a great work. Mouse is back 02:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I believe the article has an overwhelming table of contents; therefore, it fails criteria # 2 part c. My advice is to get rid of the sections under Other divisions and just write one good paragraph about these other divisions.--Crzy cheetah 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to comment Done. Feel free to edit if it's not very concise. Mouse is back 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Object. The article is an important one in the wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting, and a team of users (not including the proposer or myself) has been working on it for some time now. As the team has correctly assessed the article to be A-Class but not FA-Class material yet, it has not gone for FA candidacy, and I fully agree: The quality of the article, albeit good, is not superb yet, and therefore not FA-standard. I left some simple examples of recommendations for improvement on the talk page. Obvious things include:
- the opening sentence reads 'the BSA is a united states scouting organization,' stating the obvious
- 'with some presence in other countries', 'is administered mostly': superfluous words
- 'it has 2,938,698 members', nowhere else in the text referred to (WP:LEAD compliance)

And that is just the first paragraph of the article. Sorry, but not FA standard yet. I strongly recommend for the proposer to participate in the WP:SCOUT effort into further Scouting article improvement. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

- - CommentDead on analysis, Wim. I addressed the first two items you mentioned.Rlevse 01:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The article is just not ready yet, and recent additions make it less so. More opinions on how to improve it are certainly welcome, but I feel that fixing this pedophile thing is going to be a slow process. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Overall, it doesn't appear to be quite ready for Featured status. I agree with Gadget850; the pedophile debacle will certainly slow this article's Featured status down quite a bit. NSR77 ^T_C 05:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Opera

Self nomination. This article is very in-depth, and thoroughly discusses all of the important points of opera (history, terminology etc). It also meets the requirements of WP:FACR. Chrisch^Talk 15:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

While I very much appreciate the above comments, I must state that this article is currently undergoing major revision and is nowhere near ready yet. Therefore, I think the current FA candidacy should be withdrawn. Cheers --Folantin 16:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC) (involved editor)

I agree that this article is not nearly ready for a GA nomination, much less an FA nomination. It is under-referenced, incomplete, has some repetition and, as Folantin says, currently unstable. It's got pretty good prose, however, and is a reasonably solid B, I'd say. -- Ssilvers 17:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I too agree. Some constructive criticism: more citations. Cheers, ~ Wikihermit 02:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Spider-Man 3

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Panelmyth107 (talk • contribs)

Oppose - No where near ready. I know, I work on the page regularly. Sorry, no film still in the theaters is ready for FAC, especially when we have no idea what awards it may or may not win, and since Spider-Man films tend to have a bit of thematical undertones, we need a "Themes" section for this page. Bignole 09:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for now. In addition to Bignole's reasons above, there are a load of relevant citations on the talk page that could be implemented into the article. In addition, non-free content could be more improved, as these images have been around since before the film came out. Lastly, I think the writing could flow more smoothly in order to be recognized as one of Wikipedia's finest. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per above, it's not even close. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for now. The article is good, but an article about a movie still in theatres isn't approiate to be featured. Karrmann 05:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Image:Eddie Brock AKA Venom.JPG is disputed fair-use, and needs either to be removed or to have its fair-use rationales expanded. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters for the FA nomination, but the image has now been addressed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Vadodara

Vadodara, also known as 'Baroda', is the third most-populated town in the Indian state of Gujarat after Ahmedabad and Surat. It is one of four cities in the state with a population of over 1 million. It is also known as the Sayaji Nagari (City of Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwad) or Sanskari Nagari (Cultural Capital of Gujarat). Vadodara is one of India’s most cosmopolitan cities. Thanks to the vision and broadmindedness of the Gaekwad, the subsequent industrialization, the proliferation of academic activities and a strategically important geographical location, Baroda has welcomed a wide variety of people from all over India and also from all over the world. Vadodara also has a rich historical background. Vadodara was part of historic BBCI Railway. Railway was arrived in Vadodara in early 1860s. As part of such history, Vadodara caters as Railway Staff College of Indian Railway.

Vadodara is an important Education, Industrial & Tourism center. The world famous Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda belongs to this city. One of the earliest bank in India started in this city as Bank of Baroda. The discovery of oil and gas in Gujarat led to the industrial development of Vadodara in a big way. One of the biggest Oil Refinery located in Vadodara. Sayaji Baug is the biggest garden in Western India, created on the theme of Regent's Park & Kew Garden of London. Vadodara Cricket has a big name in Indian Domestic cricket; it has produced so many world class cricketers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bracknell (talk • contribs) 11:58, 20 June 2007

Comment - Articles located in the Category:All articles with unsourced statements, should not be nominated. --Crzy cheetah 21:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSE: I just found that this article was nominated for GA on 19th June and even before a GA review could happen, has been nominated for FAC. I suggest that the article goes thru GA and then come here for FAC. --Kalyan 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose: The article is not ready to be FA. There are many issues remain to be dealt with , poor referencing, poor wikilinking to name a few. DSachan 06:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as article has just failed GA. Evilclown93_(talk) 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Liverpool F.C.

(No biased Everton or Man Utd Supporters please)(Not meant horribly its just abide by Wikirules concerning this request)

I think, as do others, that this fits the FA criteria ¢нαzα93 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Fixes needed~~ It's a good article but these minor problems need fixing:

Web refs need to include the author and publication date when available.
Single years shouldn't be linked. See WP:MOSNUM.
En dashes should be used in scorelines. Epbr123 21:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixes needed Looks promising - some style things. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In LEAD - first sentence could be split in two.
- What "Liverpool Football Club are an English professional football club based in Liverpool."? Sounds fine to me. Or did you mean the second sentence? Buc 06:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

They lead the way in terms of English League titles with eighteen.., why not "They have won the most English League titles with eighteen.." and make the sentence longer by saying how many more than no. 2 team.

Liverpool are a founding member.. - "were a founding member.." (past tense as it is already founded)

I'd make some mention of rivalry with Everton in the lead.

...stadium. For the previous seven years the stadium had been used by Everton F.C. - I'd streamline this to "... stadium, vacated by Everton F.C. after a seven year tenancy." or something like it. The next two sentences are clunky too - try "The club had objected after Houlding, initially a leaseholder, had bought Anfield outrigth and raised the rent..."

The first post-war league season saw the club win their fifth league title, but this proved to be a false dawn, and was followed by a succession of mid-table finishes, and then relegation in 1954 - four clauses so split into 2 sentences.

He was aged 63 when.. - lose the "aged"

largely untouched since it's redevelopment in 1973 - lose the apostrophe

I'm not a fan of See also sections - both can be incorporated somewhere into the text and this bit removed.

Overall, these should be easily fixed and I can then support. The prose looks smoother further down the article (or maybe I'm just lazy). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC) (a Spurs supporter)

Oppose—Very poorly written. Take the top.
- "They have won the most English League titles with eighteen, their most recent success coming in 1990." I rest my case. Likewise, "They are third in terms of European Cup[2] wins with five,".
  - You haven't said what your problem with this sentence is. Buc 16:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hate the cross-reference in a lead: "They have also had success in the other cup competitions (see honours, below)."
- "Liverpool were founded in 1892, playing at Anfield, where they remain to this day." Tension between playing and remaining. "To this day" is redundant.

I won't read further at this stage. Tony 08:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

All issues have been addressed in some way Buc 06:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - there are a couple unresolved issues from the peer reviews, namely:
- The list of several songs of unclear notability in the Supporters section (You'll Never Walk Alone excepted).
  - there isn't a Supporters section Buc 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Club culture section (the equivalent section is named Supporters in several FA football articles, hence my mistake). Oldelpaso 09:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

- ~~Calling the Liverpool Academy "highly commended" is POV unless it is qualified in some way.~~
- There are still some areas requiring copyediting or rewriting, including but not limited to:
  - Liverpool F.C. were founded by John Houlding in 1892 to play in his vacant Anfield stadium vacated by Everton F.C. after a seven year tenancy. However, in 1891 Houlding, the leaseholder of Anfield, purchased the ground outright and proposed increasing the rent from £100 to £250 per year.[9] The Everton members objected, left Anfield and moved to Goodison Park. - This paragraph is chronologically backwards. vacant Anfield stadium vacated is jarring.
  - With Liverpool's 2006–07 season finished Rafa Benitez has pledged to mount a more consistent title challenge next year, and has already begun overhauling his squad. - This sentence conveys little in the way of useful information; all clubs and managers intend to do well in future seasons.
  - Check usage of "however" - on a number of occasions it is either redundant or misused.
- ~~The list of assistant managers seems rather minor information.~~ Oldelpaso 08:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

All Done Buc 15:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Image:Liverpool Champions League.jpg has an insufficient fair-use rationale, and its use here is not really justifiable. The article does not contain any critical commentary about the image, and as decoration is replaceable by any number of free alternatives. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Northeastern United States tornado outbreak of 1989

After peer review netted few comments, I am ready to feature this baby! Fire away...-Running On Brains 03:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Object—needs copy editing and compliance with the Manual of Style.
- "$275 million"—US dollars? (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Currency)
  - Y Done-Running On Brains 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- "produced 6 significant tornadoes"—spell out the number. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers)
  - Y Done-Running On Brains 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- "The damage actually began early in the morning."—No need for actually.
  - Y Done-Running On Brains 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- "In the afternoon, however, activity increased in severity."—No need for however.
  - Y Done-Running On Brains 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- "While official archives say that it was a single tornado, it was likely 3 or more tornadoes..."—This sounds like original research.
  - The citation below is a reference. Here is a sticky point; in tornado surveys, the "official" tornado assessment is the one done by the National Weather Service or the Storm Prediction Center, but since these surveys often require a large amount of man power inexperienced meteorologists are sometimes forced to make surveys. Thus renowned researchers like Ted Fujita and Thomas P. Grazulis (who is the author of one of my sources you may see) occasionally call into question the "official" record.-Running On Brains 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- "...F3 to F4 damage."—Why is every F instance bolded?
  - I have always done it as a way to make them stand out; the sentence always looks kind of choppy with a bunch of F-numbers in it, and I did this to help rectify it. If they are distracting or you feel they should be removed, I will gladly comply.-Running On Brains 16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

These examples all came from the first part of the article; the entire thing needs to be looked over and edited. Other problems: I see a reference that needs to be formatted. Full dates should be linked. The lead doesn't seem to summarize the entire article. Per Wikipedia:Lead section, it should be capable of serving as a stand-alone summary. Pagra shtak 15:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say, it is nice to finally have actionable comments...peer review was particularly frustrating, having the article on there for several weeks with only a few minor comments. I believe I have fixed the references problem. I also added a little bit to the lead, but I don't see much more essential material I could add there. -Running On Brains 17:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] iPod

previous FAC

Think its well written, and very informational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongesquid (talk • contribs) 03:01, June 15, 2007

Oppose Informational, yes. FA, no. Just at a glance, it fails to be adequately referenced (including several direct quotes). I will review later for further information, but that one is a showstopper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 03:29, June 19, 2007

Oppose I agree with the reviewer above regarding references. There are several paragraphs that are completely unreferenced.Legalbeaver 17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as well. The article is coming along, but still needs the aforementioned refrencing. Millancad 23:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose because:

The models table needs to be cut down in size/detail, just like how Nilchap described in the previous FAC.
The refs need some work (see comments from SandyGeorgia from Previous FAC)
Some sections feel like advertisements, like iTunes Store, and Models
Sales section needs to be in a global viewpoint (also mentioned in the previous FAC).--IE 08:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] No Diggity

This will easily make a great Featured Article, put it on the main page as it is! --Houghterside 18:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Object — very short, no references. Pagra shtak 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Object - your enthusiasm is greatly appreciated. To get an idea of what is needed for an article to acquire Featured status, please take a look at articles that are already Featured, as well as WP:WIAFA for the criteria of Featured Articles. Thanks! SeleneFN 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Object — and suggest removal as per WP:SNOW. Verisimilus T 10:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Object - but I will take this to the relevant WikiProject for discussion. --SunStar Net ^talk 08:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Object nowhere near ready, but I suspect this nomination was merely a prank.Legalbeaver 17:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry man but there are no references, the external link to Youtube in the middle of the text just kills the nomination in various levels, the first one being that it goes aganist Wikipedia's Manual of Style and the other is that Youtube isn't reliable even for External Links (serious copyright violations), a section on how the single was received would be nice also. -凶 10:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] La Toya Jackson

This article is true star quality and deserves a spot on Wikipedia's front page. Rhythmnation2004 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment, nearly all of the information comes from two sources. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The Cultural references section is trivia in disguise. The labels in the infobox should be formatted as a comma-separated list without parenthetical years. References should be formatted and not simply external links. There are two paragraphs that are only one or two sentences. And the article's hardly "comprehensive"; it doesn't even describe how her music sounded. ShadowHalo 17:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose -
1. The Notes and References section should be separated, for an example, see El Greco.
2. Online references are not formatted properly. See examples at {{cite web}}.
3. I refuse to believe that La Toya received only three awards and achievements. In other words, the awards and achievement section is too short either expand or remove.
4. There are several external jumps in the article, particularly in the Music career section. Should be switched to footnotes.
5. Early life and Music Career sections should be expanded. It fails the 1(b) criteria, this is not comprehensive enough.
6. Plus, whatever ShadowHalo and Phoenix2 said.
7. Lastly, why is there no link to this page in the discussion page?
  - I took care of that. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)--Crzy cheetah 21:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - This article is far below the benchmark which must be met for FA-promotion. You really should be using multi-cites for FAs, as you've really just repeated the same citations over. I also agree with ShadowHalo, the cultural references section is basically a trivia section. Finally, for this particular person the article is no where near long enough, and is far from providing a comprehensive look at her life. Paaerduag 07:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose it isn't nearly detailed enough to merit FA. The infobox needs a free image of some sort and i'm also not a fan of the bullets in the "cultural reference section". I think you should send it to peer review and at least try for GA before submitting it for FA. I'm not an expert on Laytoya Jackson, but in my opinion the article could be vastly extended. It does not seem complete.Legalbeaver 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose As Legalbeaver says, send to Wikipedia:Peer review. DrumCarton 18:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Image:Ltjcover.jpg has no fair-use rationale and is probably redundant to the first image in the "Playboy" section. Image:La Toya Jackson in Armed and Famous.jpg adds nothing to the article which isn't added by "She was in Armed and Famous" and is thus pretty decorative. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Gordon v. Gordon

I wrote this entire article and I must say that it is my best work. It reads like a television documentary script. This truly deserves a spot on the front page of Wikipedia. Rhythmnation2004 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Not comprehensive and doesn't follow the manual of style (the article doesn't have sections for example, and I'm sure there's a trial infobox that can be used). See Roe v. Wade for an example of a featured trial article. There are also some reference positioning issues (see WP:FN) and typos ("eachother" -> "each other"). Apart from that, it's a good start; the content's there. CloudNine 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, in the lead, it should state why the case was brought to court. Ideally, it should be two or three paragraphs long, although I'm sure it'll grow as the article expands. CloudNine 14:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Object—I did a little cleanup, but this article does not meet the featured criteria. This article needs a lead section badly, and there is a {{Fact}} tag. The article is very short. Pagra shtak 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment from Rhythmnation2004 I cleaned up the citations, added an infobox and section headings. Any other suggestions? Rhythmnation2004 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- The section headings make it worse. You shouldn't have a section per paragraph. Pagra shtak 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Almost all of the cites are from the same primary source. There's no evidence of wider coverage, as yet, though I'm sure there was some. Try submitting these articles to peer review instead for more useful advice on how to improve them. If this was part of a WikiProject, the article would still be Start-class - for a featured article, you have to give a more scholarly treatment than this. I would suggest covering the legal arguments in some depth, for a start. DrumCarton 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Per DrumCarton: Add some more, varied sourcing. Take it to the corresponding WikiProject (is there one?) and ask for an assessment. Try to go more in-depth, write as if it were a term paper or such document. Then, take it to Peer review and come back here looking good. --tennis man 13:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] 7:00AM-8:00AM (24 season 5)

previous fac

Nominated it a few weeks ago, changed some stuff like you guys said. Is this FA-quality? --Twlighter 23:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Quite simply it's too short. Buc 15:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I think the article should pass a GAC before being nominated for FA. It's not only too short (therefore not broad in coverage) but the image is in preparation for Speedy deletion. Furthermore, it's, currently, only a B class article not yet worthy of even GA status, let alone FA status. Much work needs to be done before even considering another FAC. NSR77 ^T_C 23:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose No information on the production, has a trivia section, and lead does not summarize the article. Jay32183 04:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Screenshot in infobox has no fair-use rationale, and is also a poor choice for identifying the episode. Absent any role in identification and critical commentary, it's only here for decoration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] St Michael's Mount

Peer Reviewed, several nice photos. Was included in the previous CDROM edition to Wikipedia. Llamabr 14:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry, but I've left a message on your talk page. DrKiernan 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per DrKiernan: It is a fairly good article but the lack of references makes it an insta-fail. Add some inline citations and you'll be good to go. --tennis man 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per above. -- Underneath-it-All 03:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose sorry, lack of inline refs plus may lack comprehensiveness. Check out some of the detail on successful FAs - how many people live on it? It seems pretty green; is this a garden, private or public, native reserve...etc. On the plus side, shouldn't be too long to get to FA, I just don't think it will happen this time 'round cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Birth certificate

Nominated by Rhythmnation2004 13:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose no references, nothing about the history of these types of documents, nothing about any countries besides Canada, US, and UK, long intro that doesn't summarize the article, etc. Not close. Matt Deres 14:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but I'm afraid it doesn't meet the criteria as set out at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. For example, it doesn't include information from outside the English-speaking world (see the sister articles in the French, German, etc. wikipedias) or have any references. DrKiernan 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose and withdraw as per two above... this isn't even GA, hasn't gone through peer review. I don't even think this should be voted on. Anthony Hit me up... 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose and WP:SNOW. This is well below any standard of quality encyclopedia article writing, be it FA, GA, or even the modest DYK standards. Doesn't need to clutter the nomination page any longer. Needs a LOT of work. AT best I would recommend a peer review. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] 2006 FIFA World Cup

previous FAC

This article is comprehensively written and a very good account of the 2006 FIFA World Cup. It is no longer merely a collection of match results, but covers the background of the World Cup and other facts relating to it. The prose is of an excellent standard and well cited. As the tournament has been over for nearly a year now, the overall content of the article is unlikely to change, and most edit wars regarding the content have been resolved. Hopefully you will all agree that this article has improved a lot since the last time it was nominated for FA status. - PeeJay 12:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Large chunks of the article are unreferenced or under-referenced. A significant amount of copyediting is required (random example: The team's veterans of the Golden Generation (like Zinedine Zidane, Claude Makélélé and Lilian Thuram), who had came out of retirement for the World Cup, combined with the more youthful talents of Thierry Henry and Franck Ribéry, and began to find their form as they came from behind to defeat Spain 3-1, having conceded the first goal of the match in the 28th minute.). IMO there's still quite a way to go before this meets the criteria. It might be a good idea to take this to peer review before going for FA. Oldelpaso 19:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. As much as I'd like to see this article at FA status, I agree with Oldelpaso. On top of that, the lead is poorly formatted (WP:LEAD) and generally the whole thing is just clunky. Needs to be fleshed out, referenced, and heavily copyedited. Suggest taking it to WP:PR as it appears this article is far from FA quality. JHMM13^(Disc) 03:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

[edit] Rickey Henderson

Self-nomination. This article discusses one of baseball's greatest players. I have maintained this article for a while and it includes excellent content. Timneu22 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose A nice recap of a great career, but almost nothing about his personal life. He came from a single parent home, but which parent? The quote box gives the answer, why not the article? Was his mom a widow? Any siblings? How did he meet Finley and why did they become friends? Lots of single-sentence paragraphs as well. Most of the Misc section could be incorporated into the text properly, the rest could be excised. This article is a decent start, but there's lots of work to do; I suggest you go for Good Article first and/or a peer review before trying for FA status. Matt Deres 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose as above. Personal life needs more info. Consolidate some of the sections, such as miscellaneous, malapropisms and unique playing style. The playing style section also seems to have some content about George Bush that isn't really central to the topic. Generally needs copyediting (spelling, spaces between a word and a full stop, etc). Needs some more references for unsourced statements. And a minor quibble: it is difficult to tell who is Rickey Henderson from the main picture, as two figures feature prominently. Recurring dreams 12:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. There are a lot of things that need to be cited and there really isn't a lot of flow in this article. Ever-so-slightly POV as well. I think the article can be close to passing as a Good Article, but more work needs to be done before it reaches FA. BTW, about the picture...that issue could be solved if I knew to add something to the template that allows for image captions. -- Transaspie 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose far too few citations. Every paragraph should at least have one. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose There are several issues with this article,

Very poorly sourced and some of the references are not that good (especially the salon.com one and the sports reference one that could be improved by a better source),

Alot of unneeded quotes that destroys the flow of the article, the quotes on the end of the Oakland Athletics section is a peferct example

The unique playing style section is unneeded and rather trivial and should be gone,

The accoplishments section, can be converted to prose, and most of it is already in the article already.

I do agree with above that the personal life section should be expanded, and same with the minor leagues section, there are a couple of books and countless newspaper articles about Henderson outthere because of his longivity

Poor prose thoughout, many one sentence paragraphs, grammar errors, etc, I recommend to work on the article much more before sending it to GA, as it isn't close to past that. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Many one-sentence paragraphs. Where? Timneu22 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC) I appreciate some of your edits, Jaranda, but I had to undo several them. Timneu22 10:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are two in the intro; that's not a good start. I only saw a couple more, but then the last whole section is nothing but point form lists. Those lists could be turned into proper prose or removed and the intro needs a pretty major re-write anyway. Matt Deres 10:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the intro needing a rewrite. It explains who Rickey Henderson (a former player with two records), gives a brief discussion about his career (leader in walks and such; people consider him one of the best leadoff hitters); and it gives a quote from a famous statistician about his impact on the game. What are you looking for in an intro? Timneu22 23:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Cantabria

Cantabria is a Spanish and Esperanto language featured article translated to English by the collaborative proyect "Spanish Translation of the Week". Uhanu 15:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Recommend a Peer review to help prepare for FAC, including work on WP:LEAD, cleaning up listiness, referencing, formatting sources, and other MOS issues (such as the rambling TOC, 500px images and what looks like an oversized infobox). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
OpposePremature nomination. Lead is too short. Too many red links. Some sections are just lists. Hardly any references. Needs a peer review. Probably needs a copy-edit as well to top it off. — Wackymacs 15:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Red links are not an relevant objection. Raul654 19:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  - If you take a look at the article, you'll notice they almost outnumber the blue links. — Wackymacs 20:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I noticed. Be that as it may, the fact that this article links to non-existant articles has nothing to do with the quality of this article. Raul654 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
      - It may, however, indicate that the article is overlinked. For example, it's very likely that not all of the people listed having researched the origins of Cantabria warrant their own articles. ShadowHalo 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
My primary concerns:
1. Those long, wide images should probably be placed in their own line instead of forcing text to the right; it would make the section look a lot tidier.
2. The lead is much too short for an article of this length.
3. Several sections are much too listy and either need to be eliminated or converted to prose.
4. Though it's probably difficult, a few more English references would be helpful. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 04:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, I´ll have in mind your suggestions, specially about the lead, lists and images, in fact I´ll add to Peer review. Concerning red links, some members of Wikiproyecto Cantabria we are working in them, but as Raul654 says, it is not a criterion of quality of the article. This shortage of links ins explained because this article was the first of a series of Cantabrian subjects. Thank you very much.Uhanu 09:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New longer lead added.Uhanu 04:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] J. R. Richard

I spent a week writing this article before sending it to GAC. It was promoted, and now I think it's ready for FAC. It meets Featured article criteria since it is well-written, well-sourced, stable, compliable with WP:MOS, has appropriate image licensing and is of suitable length. Please address any issues that this article might have (potential problem could be the fair use image) here. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Support with a few comments:
- "Richard collapsed while playing a game of catch before an Astros evening game and suffered a sudden and nearly fatal stroke." - so that means he collapsed due to something else other than stroke? The way this sentence says it suggests he collapsed before having the stroke.
  - Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    - No, the reword still has the same mistake. Just swap the stroke and collapse parts: "he had a stroke and collapsed". For comparison, "The bank repossessed my house and I could not repay my loan" has the same mistake; the correct form would be "I could not repay my loan and the bank repossessed my house." Resurgent insurgent 01:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      - Yeah, that was a dumb mistake. Fixed now. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        Looks okay now. Resurgent insurgent 15:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- ~~"the stroke had debilitated his reaction time" - debilitated isn't used this way. Just use slowed or decreased.~~
  - Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- ~~"Richard wore #50 on his jersey" - I don't think # is used as an abbreviation for number around here, and not everyone might be familiar with the convention. Just spell it out.~~
  - Done. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- "In the off-season, the Astros traded away Claude Osteen to the St. Louis Cardinals, and lost pitching ace Don Wilson, who committed suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning at the age of twenty-nine on 1975-01-05.[28]" - how is this sentence related to the rest of the paragraph? I don't see how it's related to Richard at all.
  - Moved to next section, and I added a little note as to why it was relevant. Both of these players were in the starting rotation, and their departures from the team opened up starting rotation spots for J. R. Richard. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a few tiny fixes needed. Resurgent insurgent 23:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not too crazy about the overstretched infobox image and the wild unorthodox coloring. Is these necessary and can't a better fair use image be acquired? 99.244.236.210 01:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Original coloring was the current Astros' colors, but another user changed the colors to the old colors from the 1970s. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm not a big fan of the colors in the infobox. I don't like the long one para lead, and would prefer the lead didn't have citations. Also, I'm not sure that pic doesn't fail our first fair use criteria. Quadzilla99 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- From what I see, I think the picture meets the first FUC. Lead also split into two paragraphs, but I've left the citations in the lead. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm sorry it doesn't and based on that I have to oppose. I've edited Hakeem Olajuwon over 500 times, and have done a ton of work on Phil Simms, Mark Bavaro, and Leonard Marshall. I'd like to nominate all of those articles but they're not going to be able to get above GA status because the pics just aren't currently available to make any of them FAs. It's unfortunate but that's the case here. I hate the fair use restrictions as much as anybody, so I'm not some copyright paranoid person who's opposing here. It fails criteria 3 and after Ian Thorpe, I think the policies on fair use pics of living people should be pretty clear. Quadzilla99 07:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Fair enough. From my research online, I could not find any free equivalents. There are probably some people who do have free pictures, but I don't know who they are. Also, do you mean criteria 1? Criteria 3 is minimal use, and I think that's covered in the article. Criteria 1 is what I believe you are referring to. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      - I'm speaking of the article failing in terms of criteria 3 of WP:WIAFA, sorry for the confusion. The picture fails criteria 1 in my opinion and the article criteria 3. Quadzilla99 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        Oh okay. Thanks for the clarification. Also, you mentioned something about the infobox colors. What do you suggest it be changed to? Feel free to edit the infobox with your color recommendations. If you go back in the history, you'll see that I originally had the current Astros' colors, but another user changed them to the colors from the 70s. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment CITATIONS!!!!! great. I have only read the lead and the infobox
- The infobox is wordy in the awards and highlighs section compared to say Tom Seaver or Fernando Valenzuela. Each line should be shortened to prevent wrap-around.
- I think the lead for an article of this length should be 3 or 4 paragraphs given that 4 is the max at WP:LEAD.
- I would link several things in the lead such as basketball, baseball, homeless, high school, depth perception, minor leagues, draft.
- I would add the word statistical before or after the word pitching in the first para. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed all, except the first point. It's long, because I grouped stats together. I'll split them into separate bullet points, and it will make it longer (but no wrap-around). Nishkid64 (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Since many people don't know simplified baseball statistics designations such as BB/9 or K/9, I'd rather not simplify it down that much. I've made corrections now, but there still is wraparound for few of the bulletpoints. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
~~Object~~ - basically much terminology is used awkwardly. See the many of the following for starters.
- Still unsure about infobox. Unnecessary to link to the same article more than once (E.g., 1979 in baseball)
  - Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- In early life was standing -> stood
  - Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Still need to link first use of minor league
  - Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Reword "exercised a low hits per nine innings (H/9IP) ratio" maybe just change verb to compiled.
  - I've seen it used many times in baseball writing, but I guess our target audience is the general public, so "compiled" would be more suitable. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- If I recall my grammar correctly which is faster than that of most major league pitchers modifies the prior noun which is slider. I think you need to reword to speed of over 93 so that it is modifying speed.
  - I've changed it now; tell me what you think. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- called up into the big leagues is usually phrased as called up to the big leagues
  - Didn't sound right for me, but I guess that's how it should be phrased. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Willoughby threw just two batters into the fourth inning, -> either Willoughby threw to just two batters into the fourth inning, or Willoughby faced just two batters into the fourth inning
  - Reworded. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Object (reiterated) The article needs a thorough copyedit. If nothing else please take it to WP:PR/WP:BIOPR or WP:LOCE before bringing it here. I could quickly find 5 more bad grammar/usage errors and you or I could fix them and then I would have to point out 5 more to object. Here are two quickies from a glance at the next section.
- "His 3.02 ERA was slightly higher from the previous season" -> His 3.02 ERA was slightly higher than the previous season.
  - Your version is wrong. It's "higher than that of previous season".
- "Regardless of his start to the season" -> Despite his start to the season.
- I don't see any problem with the previous version. In any case, I have fixed it now. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

- - If you are going to be able to get the proper picture to overcome Quadzilla's objection above, I will spend the time on a copy edit. Otherwise send it to one of the places I mentioned above for a more thorough review.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I said that I could not obtain a free equivalent anywhere, and my best option as of now is to use a fair use image. Given my options, I don't think I could really flag down someone who just so happens to have a picture of Richard (he pitched 20-30 years ago). Anyway, I'll put it up for WP:LOCE for now, but any help from you would be appreciated. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Support Meets criteria Dinojerm 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Support It meets the criteria. Cbrown1023 talk 01:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have copy edited this article as well as I can (not knowing anything about baseball or Richard), so those reviewers above who had copy editing concerns should re-peruse the article in a day or two. I have left quite a few internal comments that the editors can respond to (I could not change phrases such as "knocked up," not really knowing what they mean in baseball - to me, it sounded like the pitcher was pregnant). I have one major concern after I read the article. Do we know nothing about Richard's life except his baseball statistics? There is very little in the article except for that. What did he do outside of pitching (there was one tiny bit on fishing)? The article seemed too focused for an FA - not quite comprehensive, yet. For example, nothing is said of his high school basketball skills (they are just asserted, not proven). What about his family? We hear he has two ex-wives, but we don't even get their names! Does he have children? When did he marry exactly? You have the exact dates of every game he played in - surely we can acquire these other basic facts. Did he participate in any charities while he was a player? I guess I was just looking for a more well-rounded portrait and instead I was beseiged with numbers. Biographies should not only be stat cards, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 06:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the copyediting, Awadewit. I'm in the process of making the necessary corrections now. Anyway, from my research, I never could find any specific details about Richard's life outside of baseball. He's not as well known of a player to be documented in biographies, and most of the stuff I could find came from statistical websites which provide logs of every single game he played in. In any case, I will see if I can dig up any more information, but I'm not too confident that it will happen. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  - No Sports Illustrated in the '70s detailing every aspect of players' lives? What a shame. :) Awadewit | talk 00:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I've added a quote from a 1978 SI issue; there was also an article on Richard and Ryan in the April 21, 1980 issue, and a profile of Richard in the June 1980 Baseball Digest, but they don't seem to include anything new about his background (they do include some of the same "early life" material about his HS play). The 1978 SI article is a little better, though. It would be useful if we could add to the article some quotes from contemporaries about Richard; it's a bit dry at the moment, and I'm concerned that some of the game-by-game details cause the forest to be overlooked for the trees. MisfitToys 22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      - Um, I was joking there. I was under the impression that those SI biographies are a bunch of PR rubbish. Nearly tabloid status in some respects. Am I wrong about this? Awadewit | talk 23:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        I was replying only indirectly, so the joke was understood as intended. But SI is published by Time, so it can likely be regarded more seriously than some others; their reporting is pretty good. MisfitToys 23:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose per criteria 3 of WP:WIAFA. It does seem kind of unfair though. Trevor GH5 19:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that this seems manifestly unfair. Would a picture of a baseball do? You know, not all biography pages have pictures of their subjects. Some never had their portrait painted or their head sculpted for posterity. In those cases, we often use something related to the figure. Could we do that here until a picture is available? Nishkid64 could post a request for an image or even to write to Richard himself and hope something comes up eventually, but until then, how about a picture of a baseball or a stadium or something? Let's be a little creative. I thought that the idea here was to produce excellent articles. The article can still be good without the picture, don't you think? This is not an article about a piece of art in which the text is referring to a picture that we cannot see, in which I might see the problem. Awadewit | talk 19:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I know the image can be a problem, but I think an image of a baseball could suffice if it was featured on the Main Page or something. It's really hard to track down anyone who may have a picture of J. R. Richard, and is willing to freely license it. It's even harder, since I'm not 18 yet :-P. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Support, meets criteria, I can't find fault. Malla nox 22:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Support. Meets criteria and very well written. Kudos to Nish. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a and formatting. Here are a few examples of why the whole text needs scrutiny.
- "Richard led the league twice in strikeouts, once in earned run average, and three times in hits allowed per nine innings between 1976 and 1979, winning at least 18 games each year." Does the "between 1976 and 1979" apply to the earned run average too? Word order.
- Metric equivalents, please.
- "two hundred", but "52" and "8"—the spell-out boundary is usually nine–10. Make it consistent.
- "4-11 win-loss"—two en dashes required.
- Why are plain years linked? Tony 07:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Manhattan

Self nomination - Over the past few months, significant effort has been made to expand, improve and source this article, which covers the heart of the Big Apple. In response to requests made during this article's successful WP:GA effort, dozens of new sources and ample new material were added. A peer review has been open for a week and no changes were raised. The combination of the strong quality of the article and its broad appeal make it an ideal candidate to be a featured article. I look forward to any suggestions and addressing any comments to the best of my ability. Alansohn 02:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Looks really great. All web references should have publisher and author information, if available. Some web references in the article do not have that. Please attend.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done All references were reviewed, verified and corrected to include publisher and author information. Alansohn 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Many sources have no publisher identified: I just added three as an example only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment "History" section is pretty large. You can consider creating a daughter article and summarize the section here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Geography" The island is 20 mi² (51.8 km²) of land measuring 13 miles (21 km) long and 2.3 miles (3.7 km) across at its widest point. However, soon, Manhattan Island is 22.7 square miles (58.8 km²) in area, 13.4 miles (21.6 km) long and 2.3 miles (3.7 km) wide, at its widest (around 14th Street.. Please rectify and remove redundancy.

Y Done Thanks for the catch! The differing -- and unsupported -- numbers initially cited were removed and the sources and numbers retained were reverified. Alansohn 17:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

" Neighborhoods" The distinction between streets and avenues can be mentioned. (Or is it there already? Hope I didn't miss!).--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done I guess its obvious to us New Yawkas, but the text was clarified to explain the difference between north-south Avenues and east-west Streets. Alansohn 17:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - seconding the comment about the history section; I think it can be shortened, possibly by treating more of it as a summary of History of New York City - I assume the two must be identical for large periods. A bit of the prose here could do with improvement (particularly in the history section), will see if I can have a look The Land 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply The section was long already and some recent additions stretched it out even longer. I will also take a look at tightening the prose. Alansohn 21:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Update History section has been further tightened. Any additional comments would be most helpful. Alansohn 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Support, a precious one. //Halibu tt 20:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, 1a, 1b, 2, and 3. Not comprehensive, doesn't cover territory covered by other cite articles. A major city article with no crime information? Many sources have no publishers identified. Please see WP:CITE/ES. See also templates in the wrong place, per WP:GTL. ~~External link farm needs to be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply Crime section has been added. Sources have been reviewed, with publishers added as described in examples. Link farm has been heavily pruned. Please review and indicate if there are any other issues to be addressed.

The "Crime" section jumps from 1933 to 2005... I know mentioning city's bad reputations with crime is a touchy subject, but if you look at any movie or TV show set in NYC from 1970 to the mid-1990s, crime almost certainly appeared at some point and was often portrayed as nearly omnipresent. Can something from the "crime in NYC" sub article be moved here to cover this gap? Also could the difference in "crime in Manhattan" and "Crime in NYC overall" be touched on? Does Manhattan traditionally have a lower or higher rate? If this stuff is even known. --W.marsh 15:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply Data has been added to describe the sharp jump in the crime rate starting in 1960 (when modern crime tracking started) and rising until the 1980s. It was this period that gave New York City its reputation as a crime capital. As sharply as it rose, virtually every category has declined sharply since 1990. Current data for Manhattan showing the decline since 1990 is provided, but I have not yet found a comparison of Manhattan crime rates to those of the outer boroughs. Please let me know if any further changes are required. Alansohn 17:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Some other things to work on: the Economy section looks sparse for Manhattan. Also, see WP:DASH. Hyphens (-) are for hyphenated words, ndash (–) is for separating ranges of dates and numbers, and mdash (—) is for punctuation. See WP:UNITS about non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement. And, see WP:GTL on placement of templates at the tops of sections. I made some sample edits to illustrate some of these items. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for the comments and the sample changes. Formatting changes have been made for units of measurement, dashes, PDF files, use of ALL CAPS in lieu of Title Case and standardization of image widths. The economy section has been expanded, as requested. I'm still not sure what the template issues are, nor do I see anything in [{WP:GTL]] that would be relevant here. Any further input on this (and any other issue) would be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

On the template issue, I fixed them — pls see instructions at {{See also}} and at Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Body_sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Never mind, I'm undoing my strikes, as I find you reverted the work I just completed. I was also attempting to complete other MOS work, but will stop now.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

PS, it's not a good idea to mislabel in edit summary a revert of someone else's work; this caused me to re-do the work unnecessarily, creating the impression of an edit war. Whenever you revert someone else's work, you should indicate that in the edit summary and explain why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Since you also reverted my changes to the image placement in Demographics, I suppose you have another plan for preventing the overlapping images and tables, which are unreadable in my browser, as I indicated in my edit summaries ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no intention whatsoever to undo your changes. I'm not sure why my edits were applied to a previous version as I'm certain that it wasn't marked as an earlier version. I'm baffled!!?!? Alansohn 16:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ What's there in the history section is good, but seems very uneven in treatment of various time periods. The 17th century is discussed at length, while later centuries are glossed over. There's a paragraph in the history section that discusses water supply. This sounds like a better fit for the geography section. Then the article jumps back and mentions the 1600s again, jumps ahead to the end of the 19th century, regarding boundary changes. Then skips the first half of the 20th century. Again, the early history material excellent, but needs to be worked with the subarticle (History of New York City, and various subarticles of that), with some details transferred there. A better balance of other time periods, as relating to Manhattan would be good. For example, how African Americans migrated from Tenderloin up to Harlem (good discussion of this in the Harlem article). --Aude (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply Point well taken. The history section was completely reorganized, offering a more thorough history of Manhattan, not just its early formation period. Any comments on these changes will be graetly appreciated. Alansohn 05:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The history section looks much better. Though, I'm concerned about placement of the "see also" links, and other style/prose issues as mentioned by Sandy and Tony. --Aude (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The concenrs with the history section seem resolved. But the "see also" links at the end of various sections should go at the top of sections instead, per WP:LAYOUT. --Aude (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~—Much improved writing. There's a ref tag floating under "19th-century growth". Note the hyphen, which most US editors would prefer. And see MOS about capitalising subtitles. 1a. This is not good enough at all. The lead, you'd assume, would be the subject of particular care in the writing, since it might end up on our front page as a display of WP's "very best work". Not this, I hope.
- "also includes"—my favourite redundancy. Remove "also", of course.
- "The name Manhattan derives from the word Manna-hata so written earliest in the 1609 logbook (Record of October 2) of Robert Juet, an officer of the Dutch East India Company yacht Halve Maen or Half Moon, captained by Henry Hudson.[3]" Too much is awkwardly packed into this snake of a sentence. A comma is required after "hata", and what follows must be grammatical; "so written earliest" is not. Why not "Manna-hata, first recorded October 2, 1609 in the logbook of Robert Juet ...." Either back-refer to Hudson in the next sentence, or break after Juet with a semicolon and a new clause. Really ... It's a tangled mess.
- Manuscript map—is this a regular term?
- "on the west as well as the east side of"—no, this is ungrammatical (s) and verbose: "on the west and east sides of.
- "manifold"? Just "many", or if possible remove it altogether.
- "would have been"—you've already got "supposed" as the hedge word, so make it just "were". "Some" could refer to the "people", so should be clarified for smooth reading.
- A few commas would make the reading easier.
- "Manhattan is the borough most closely associated with New York City by tourists; even natives of New York City's outer boroughs will describe a trip to Manhattan as "going to the city"." Why bring tourists into it if the association is more widely used by, let's face it, people who are more significant to the topic. "Residents" would be nicer than "natives", to avoid the possibility that the original people are the referent here. Might cause offence, too.
- "An international center of finance and culture, Manhatten ..." would be less clumsy.
- "Manhattan has many famous landmarks, tourist attractions, museums and universities. It is also home to the headquarters of the United Nations and the seat of city government." Category problem in that museums are tourist attractions. I'd remove "tourist atractions" and add another item. (There's a wealth to choose from.) I think the "also" could probably go; why create a laboured relationship between it and the previous list?

Now just fixing these examples I've laboriously exposed won't do the trick. Fresh eyes are required to sift through the whole article. Really, this is by no stretch of the imagination a professional standard of writing. Our readers deserve much better, and so does Manhatten. Tony 11:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Extensive changes have been made to the "Manhatten" [sic] article to address the grammatical and style concerns raised. Alansohn 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There are serious problems with the economy section. I don't know how many workers Manhattan has, but it's considerably more than 1.5 million (which is just the residential population, and discounts the huge daily commuter influx).--Pharos 01:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: The employment numbers provided were correct. The text you read did not say that there were 1.5 million workers; it said that there were 1.5 million workers in private industry in addition to the 280,000 in financial services. These numbers were taken straight from the source provided from The New York Times. As I'm sure there are a few people among the 1.5 million residents of the borough who are not working (perhaps a few children, elderly and other unemployed), 1.5 million jobs would be a staggeringly large number in and of itself. The latest total employment number in Manhattan -- over 2.3 million, which also includes the substantial government sector -- has been added to the article to explicitly answer the employment question. Alansohn 02:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Some other things also need to be cited (or be cited better), for example that there was a settlement in Lower Manhattan in 1613, that New Netherlanders had "liberties and freedoms unlike those available to New Englanders and Virginians", the idea that Chinatown is "the largest concentration of Chinese people in the Western Hemisphere" (yes, there's a cite but that's from a tourism agency. Flushing's Chinatown, to pick one nearby example, is clearly larger.)--Pharos 02:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: The Chinatown statistic is from New York City's official city-sponsored convention and visitors bureau, not just some "tourism agency". Additional sources will be added to address the other material cited (or not cited). Alansohn 02:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Support This article just can't seem to stop getting better. I tinkered with it a little for GA status, but it has been taken over by passionate New Yorkers I think lol. Judgesurreal777 07:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Object The article is a whopping 100+ kbytes long: that's a huge read. And I left quite some recommendation for simple WP guidelines compliance issues on the article's talkpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimvandorst (talk • contribs) 23:16, June 4, 2007
- Still objecting. ~~I objected to the WP:MOS problems almost a month ago, and started fixing them myself, but my changes were reverted. There are still MOS issues, as outlined on the talk page and above.~~ Also the prose size is 62KB, above WP:LENGTH guidelines. There are numerous sections that could be further summarized, per WP:SS, including History, Neighborhoods, Demographics, and probably others. It's interesting to note that the Manhattan article is much longer than the New York City article. And there are still random copyedit needs (... and the nation's first public park.[22]</ref>[23]). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Note; we are going to be working on these items over the next few days, so I hope the FAC will stay open longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    - MOS issues addressed, but article is still 60KB prose, and there are still some missing publishers in sources; I can't go through almost 200 footnotes myself :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is Manhattan in the lead referred to as a borough in the 2nd sentence, then later on in the sentence, referred to as a county, and then in the 4 sentence, is referred to as a "borough and county"? These inconsistencies need to be addressed. Also, why is there a hypothetical, "[i]f all five boroughs were independent cities" in the lead. The fact remains, they aren't independent cities, so this is just kind of useless information. And if the point absolutely has to be made, does it belong in the lead? The Geography section has way to many details. I would suggest that the entire "The Commissioner's Plan of 1811" paragraph be removed and added to the subarticle. The point of the section is to give a summary of Manhattan, all these streets/avenues can't be that important. The transportation section is also rife with specifics - the cost of subway fare and the cost of the PATH fare. Details about the MetroCards and the PATH cards most certainly do not belong here. Looks like the article has enough content, just too much content. Much effort must be made to streamline the article and cut out any unnecessary details. Oppose. Pepsidrinka 21:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose the chart shown in the section of demographics is pretty outdated, i.e. year 2000. Titles are basically poorly written on these pictures, e.g. Manhattan compared, historical populations, etc. The comparision from the chart (Manhattan compared) is not that comprehensive indeed; it is only in the scope of NY state. The part of culture mentioned too much unnecessary details like Landmarks and architecture, sports, etc. I personally think that crime shouldn't be mentioned in the section of government. Basicaclly, this is not a good topic to be promoted to the FA status at this moment.Coloane 23:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: The historical populations title is provided by the USCensusPop template, the preferred Wikipedia medium for presenting US population data. The most recent United States Census took place in 2000; only some of the data is available in more current form, and very little would change in any material fashion. Furthermore, these same formatted tables (with "City" changed to "County") are used in the New York City article, a Featured Article that passed without any criticism (or mention) of these "poorly written" tables. It's hard to view architecture in Manhattan as "too much unnecessary detail". I will be more than happy to attempt to address any specific constructive suggestions, if you have any. Alansohn 00:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  landmarks and arch. & sports mentioned too much detail indeed in the section of culture (actually I don't know if they are appropriate for putting under this category), go to take a look carefully. I don't care actually when the Census took place, but you had better provide the up-to-date information to us. If the most recent census took place in 1980, are you going to use it? well, I don't think so. Again, the table is not that comprehensive indeed to compare in wider scope. If you said that criticism (or mention) of these "poorly written" tables is poor, why don't you go there and improve them, but sit down and find the excuses instead? Again, oppose! it is not a good article, period! Coloane 00:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident

Respectfully self-nominate this article about an incident involving a crime by a U.S. servicemember in Okinawa as a featured article candidate. The article passed GA review, and I thank Deryck C. for his thorough review and helpful suggestions and Neutrality for the copyediting. CLA 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The article seems to meet most formal criteria and is good writing, as far as I can tell. But it approaches the subject from a journalistic perspective. It looks like an article in magazine not an encyclopedia article. This is in conflict with Wikipedia is an encyclopedia from WP:5P and It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail from WP:FACR. Of course we have many article like this, but we shouldn't promote this approach by giving them FA status. --Pjacobi 14:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- In order to be able to address this concern, I'll need some specific examples from the article to support your argument that, if I understand right, it isn't encyclopedic enough. CLA 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As this is about the general presentation, it is hard to find specific examples. But let's work out together the problem.

The central questions:

What constitutes the important knowledge related to this case which should be documented in an encyclopedia article?
What will be of value for a reader in 25 or 50 years reading about the case?
What makes this case distinct from the millions of cases of (alleged) rape not in the encyclopedia?

My (partial) answers to these are, that especially the "pre-trial" and "trial" timelines fail these tests and should be replaced by summary style. On the other side, if possible I'd like to see a short summary of previous cases very early in the article, which will make it clear, that we are not talking about an isolated incident. And as the notability of the case rests on the public percaption and media coverage, these point should be expanded. Instead of being hidden in timelines.

Pjacobi 08:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand now where you're coming from. What you're suggesting might entail a rewrite of the entire article, which I'm willing to do if necessary. I'd like to get more opinions on the article as is first, though, before I consider a rewrite. CLA 05:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I myself may be outside the majority opinion on enwiki. I mostly contribute at de:. --Pjacobi 09:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. I went to archive the FAC and ended up reading this very interesting article instead... Raul654 15:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I shaved 4KB from the article size by removing the empty parameters in the cite templates; can you run through the dates per WP:MOSNUM? There's a lot of inconsistency in the linking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, but it may take me a couple of days. CLA 00:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I went through the manual and fixed the date formats and linking in the article. By the way, thank you for deleting the empty parameters in the citations. CLA 03:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would fix this sentence, but I'm unsure what it means to say: Although the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement proved that servicemembers would only turned over to Japanese law enforcement if indicted, ... provided that? could only be ? Also, I saw some common terms linked that might not need wikilinking per WP:CONTEXT; I would give examples, but I prefer to leave this to your discretion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to read, "Although the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement stated that servicemembers would only be turned over to Japanese law enforcement if formally indicted..." and I removed a couple of wikilinks to words/phrases that were fairly self-explanatory. CLA 06:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more of common words like "police" and "wallet", which I unlinked, since most English-speaking people should know those words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. I respect Pjacobi's reasoned comments above, but think that the article (at 18KB readable prose size) gives just the right amount of information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Procedural issue—Hello, Raul, it's not up to you to declare your support or objections, since you are the final judge, and there's necessarily a subjective side to that judgement. There's a clear conflict of interest when you interfere in the process. Natural justice demands that justice be seen to be done. Please desist from playing reviewer. I ask that you strike through your text here. I'll be interested to see whether the nominators now bother to address my objections below, since they can rest in peace that you're on-side and will probably promote this. Not good. Tony 09:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Object—1a. It's not well-enough written yet. Get someone who's unfamiliar with the topic and good at copy-editing to go through it carefully.
- Fails the requirement for "professional" formatting in its overlinking. We do speak English, did you realise. Please delink common dictionary terms such as "assault", "police", "media", "mobile phone". It's not Wiktionary, and these useless links dilute the high-value ones.
  - The link for "media" actually links to "Japanese media" and the one for "police" to the "Japanese National Police" so linkages there are appropriate. I did, however, remove the links to "bartender," "assault," and "mobile phone." CLA 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- "sparked a public debate over the controversial issue of the U.S. military presence in Japan as well as the fairness of the Japanese legal system and the practices of the Japanese police." Try this defluffed version: "sparked a public debate over the U.S. military presence in Japan, the fairness of the Japanese legal system, and the practices of the Japanese police."
  - Done. CLA 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- "The case also dealt with the Treaty of ...". No, "The case involved the Treaty of ...".
  - Done. CLA 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- "a 19-month long trial"—spot the redundant word.
  - Done. CLA 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- "ommitted by U.S. military personnel in Japan, the U.S. and Japan entered into negotiations aimed at ...". First word is misspelt. Why not avoid the repetition by writing ", both countries entered into ..."?
  - Done. I checked Merriam-Webster and "committed" is the correct spelling. CLA 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe I've addressed all of your concerns above and I appreciate the constructive feedback. CLA 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't I make myself clear enough? I provided only examples of why the whole text needs close attention. Time to locate some new collaborators. Please let me know when you've had it worked on thoroughly. Tony 14:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

All of your examples were from the article's intro. I write the intro, with help from other editors, after I write the main text of the article, and is usually my Achilles' heel, because I unfortunately, up to now, have regarded it as an afterthought, rightly or wrongly. I believe the main text to be tight and good to go. If the main text has problems, I hope you'll detail them, because the main text has been through a GA review plus review from members of the Japan project. CLA 15:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Object until Tony's concerns are fully addressed. Once Tony's confirmed he no longer has any qualms with the article, feel free to then disregard my objection. LuciferMorgan 11:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Neutral—nice article, but Tony's right about the main text needing a final pass. Here are a couple examples from the main text:
- "According to Brown, these injuries prevented him from being able to do the physical actions with Nakamine described in her police report." "prevented him from being able to do the physical actions" can probably be shortened.
- "21-year-Marine veteran" The hyphen before Marine is unnecessary.
- "On July 2, 2003, Japan and the United States opened negotiations into modifying the SOFA but the negotiations failed to produce any change to the current agreement." Missing a comma before the conjunction.
- "To many in Okinawa the incident involving Brown appeared to fall under this new provision in the SOFA." A comma after Okinawa is recommended because the phrase is more than five syllibles. I believe it's optional, though.
- Some names are redlinked, but others are not.
Nice article; it just needs final tweaks in the body. — Deckill er 18:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that I've addressed all of your concerns in the article. Thank you also for the constructive feedback. CLA 07:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. When Tony supports, I will as well. — Deckill er 15:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comments. Not much has been done to it. MOS says put the final punctuation outside the quote marks. Do we need "US$" linked every time? "21-year Marine" --> "21-year-old marine". "Brown. Brown". "which dismissed the appeal in July 2004, letting the verdict stand."—Shouldn't the last phrase be removed?

These are just random things my eyes fell on. I'm certain there are good copy-editors out there who'd spend 40 mins on this. Needs someone different. Check out edit histories of similar articles, especially FA, for copy-editors. Tony 10:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The MOS says that punctuation should be outside the quotation marks unless the punctuation occurs naturally within the quotation, which is the case with most of the quotations contained in the article. I moved most of the punctuation, however, outside of the quotation marks in the article to try and comply with your concern. The MOS does say that every reference to currency should be linked. He's not a "21-year-old Marine", he's a 21-year Marine as the text currently and correctly points out. I fixed the "...Brown. Brown..." I removed the last phrase. CLA 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Pentecostalism

I wish to nominate this article because I believe it is a class FA article, and is a very interesting and well established look at Pentecostalism. It failed to achieve this in 2004, but 3 years on I believe it should be a Featured Article. It uses a NPOV, and I believe that the quality of the article is first class tmjsmith 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixes needed - the lead needs expanding to two or three paragraphs (per WP:LEAD). I also notice that there's a cleanup tag in the External links section. CloudNine 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed external links - I cleaned up the External links section, and I am working on expanding the first few paragraphs tmjsmith 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  - I think a few more links could go - that "Some statistic" link confuses me, and I don't think it passes WP:EL anyway. CloudNine 14:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Practically no inline citations. Some Harvard referencing, some notes...please choose a style and stick to it (preferably footnotes). Please see WP:CITE. Lead is far too short. Not a single picture...are there no famous members of this church? Famous structures perhaps? JHMM13 18:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, lead is weak, lack of inline citations. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 01:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Support As a contributer to the article, I believe that this is a good article. I will add a few more pictures to it tmjsmith 11.35 14 June 2007
- Images aren't the main concern here. As others have mentioned, the lead is too short and it lacks inline citations. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 00:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The lead is too short. The lack of citations makes it difficult, if not impossible, to acquire Feature status at this time. Please look at other Featured Articles for a sample of the level and amount of citation that is required. The statistic section should be either summarized in prose form, or place in a separate article as a list. Copy-editing is also needed. SeleneFN 00:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] The Amazing Race

This article is well written, of decent length, and a decent amount of references. There are not many factual errors, and the article is very informative. (lemonflash)^talk 01:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Most the images are fair-use only and they don't have fair-use rationale. The detour, roadblock, (and other similar images) all seem to be used for decorative purposes only. I haven't read the text so I can't comment on that, but the image issues need to be corrected. Pepsidrinka 12:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment it certainly seems to cover all the bases. The low number of cites in some sections does concern me slightly. There is also a lot of listing which might be suitable for conversion into prose? Also, has it actually had a peer review? A link to it on this FAC would be useful if one exists. SGGH ^speak! 12:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: All images need to have fair use rationales written for them. Also, many sections are unreferenced. -- Underneath-it-All 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Flag of Canada

I am nominating this article because it is an outstanding piece of work that has covered all aspects of the flag and has no more possible information to be gathered. Dreamy 18:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Support - Good article, but I'd prefer to see more inline references. For example, it is not clear where some of the information in the history section comes from. My standard is no less than one ref per paragraph.--Danaman5 19:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - References four and twenty-one need to be fixed for consistency. The Protocol section could use a lot more references. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a, 1c and (first point) the requirement for professional formatting.
- Why are dictionary words such as "flag" and "comic book" linked? Why is "French" linked twice? Why is "twentieth century" linked? There are lots of high-value links that these are diluting.
- "Most of these flags contain the Maple Leaf motif in some fashion; either by having the Canadian flag charged in the canton or by inclusion of maple leaves in the design." Semicolon is wrong.
- "The points of the maple leaf were determined by taking various samples of leaves and putting them in a wind tunnel to see what looks the best." Real leaves were put in a wind tunnel, or flags with leaf-shapes printed on them? "What looks the best" might be the wrong tense, and is kind of informal. Rather than reference a web page of unknown authority, why not go straight to the texts it refers to?

And more. Needs fresh eyes throughout. Tony 14:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose In Quebec, the provincial flag (a blue cross with four fleur-de-lis) is often considered a national flag along with the Maple Leaf flag, from that statement, it needs more elaboration. What is the view of French Canadian? I personally think that this article is not comprehensive enough to be promoted to the FA status at this moment. Coloane 04:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] United States

Previous FAC

selfnom: GA since December of 2005, this article was nominated for FA three times in 2006. Opposed editors and the author of a September peer review pointed out numerous places where the article could be trimmed and improved. As far as I can tell, nearly all grounds for objection have since been remedied. The article's source is lengthy, at 116,256 characters, down from 123,361, but the size when measured per WP:LENGTH, stripped of wiki markup, references (of which there are over a hundred), images, and infoboxes, the article weighs in at a sleek ~58K. I hereby renominate this article for FA status. MrZaius^talk 06:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Procedural issue: who is segmenting this page, against the protocol above? Tony 03:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I did, due to the very lengthy responses received so far. By the way, where's the protocol you mentioned? I'm not seeing one in the parent page, confused by the word "above" in your comment. MrZaius^talk 07:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Something I immediately notice is inconsistency in referring to the United States as "U.S." and other times as "US". Please be consistent throughout the article. --Aude (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. MrZaius^talk 07:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It has the potential to be promoted this time, but there are some issues which need to be fixed first. I suggest taking a close look though the FA review for Indonesia (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Indonesia), an article which was promoted to FA within the past week, since many the objections raised there also apply to this article. (Caniago 12:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Which ones in particular? Most of the comments in that article seemed to be over very specific wording issues. MrZaius^talk 12:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The structural and formatting issues, you need to look closely. For example: use of citations in the lead, the length of the TOC, the issues relating to the administrative divisions map, the Further reading section, ensuring all units have both imperial and metric values, use of explicit image sizes, overuse of wikilinks, use of non-breaking spaces for units of measurement, etc. Also, why is the Geography section so early in the article, unlike other countries? (Caniago 12:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

On the topic of the Geography section, it is no more prominent than it is in France, Mexico, United Kingdom, or the FA'd Belgium. On excessive wikilinks, do you see a problem with the article at large, or just the LEAD? Struck Further Reading. Don't see any instances of units that aren't listed in both imperial and metric values. Removed forced image sizes. MrZaius^talk 13:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The TOC bloat issue is largely fixed. MrZaius^talk 06:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Belgium became FA in 2005, would be better to compare to Australia, Japan, Cameroon or Indonesia. Wikilink problem is throughout the article I think, but its a minor issue compared to other issues with the article. The TOC issue is better, but there is still plenty of room for improvement. The imperial only units are present in the Largest cities table, which BTW seems uncited. Lastly, I separated the Geography section from Environment, and its now apparent the Geography section needs to be trimmed down somewhat. (Caniago 14:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Fixed largest cities table MrZaius^talk 15:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cut 1/3 or so of geography, focusing on minor details better dealt with in main. MrZaius^talk 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My point was more that it is common for country articles in the general sense to have the geography section high up. Definitely ought to be trimmed & have the environment section moved to a more policy-related area, however. Per the TOC issues, I'd actually be reluctant to take the trimming any further, as stated elsewhere, given the length and depth of the article. MrZaius^talk 14:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but my point is that most FA countries, especially the more recently promoted ones, have the geography section further down. I believe Environment belongs right after Geography, and should focus more on the Fauna and Flora issues rather than policy issues, as per our Ecology section in Indonesia. BTW, its a shame there are no Fauna/Flora of USA sub-articles like we have for Indonesia. I previously would agree with your POV about breaking the article into subsections, and the Indonesia article was previously structured this way, but I now agree with the advise we received during our FA review - "the Table of Contents is large and imposing. There is no need for sub-subheads [...] that introduce one- or two-paragraph sections". It make the article much easier to read in a linear fashion without them. Bloat within the top level sections is probably a sign that things need to be condensed or rearranged. (Caniago 14:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Concerning Geography, the transition would suffer if it were moved further down, as the transition from the War on Terror history section to coverage of the modern government and the transition from the government to policy related econ & demographics sections would be interrupted by the move. The only place where we could move geography without breaking the transition is to just above or below the Culture section, but that would make it seem unduly unimportant. Also, it can be argued that an ecology section would be a great thing to put in, but the environment section is uniquely necessary in the case of the United States, given its historic importance in the movement and the conservation movement that preceded it and the dramatic effects of its environmental policies on the global environment.

Merged the only related history sections together to further reduce the TOC bloat, but, again, I feel that little more can be done without making the article unduly difficult to navigate. MrZaius^talk 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There are points for object, some were also raised in the previous nominations:
- still references quality problems (i.e. controversial statements, not peer reviewed, expressed by David R. Henderson are taken as facts). Every web source should be sided with a reliable paper sources with page numbers specified. (Ideally a FA should mostly if not solely rely on scholar peer reviewed papers.) There also seem to be inaccuracies in the books currently cited: in the "Cold War" section I spotted a fake ref (with a fake page number) that actually talked about other things.

Care to share which, on the Cold War reference, before we start with the review? MrZaius^talk 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I signaled it already :) here (hope that's the only one...) --BMF81 16:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

- comprehensiveness and unbalanced size. Comparing the "Foreign relations" and "geography" sections, you see there is a clear comprehensiveness and size balancing issue:
  - For the US the "Foreign relations" is a topic of major importance. Currently it is at the ridiculous short size of 2 paragraphs, excluding the controversial aspects. It's POV until at least one paragraph is added covering the "neocolonialism" issues.

This is partially inaccurate, given the depth & overlapping sections of the /* History */, especially when discussing proxy wars and every major military engagement since World War II. More is warranted, but there is considerably more than two paragraphs of content in the article that directly relates to foreign relations. Does need NPOV fix, however, as you say. MrZaius^talk 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

- - The geography section could be trimmed down instead, merging and summarizing all subsections. (the last sentence on global warming better belongs to the Foreign affairs sect.)

The environmental section could be broken out from Geography and the rest merged in - It and the sentence you mention seem to distinct and seperate from both Geography and Foreign affairs for a clean merge. MrZaius^talk 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

- - the "religion" sect. is missing the % of atheism (5-14%, see here)
  - in "economy" neither energy or debt are mentioned

Debt is, now. Why should energy be? It is mentioned, albeit in passing, in the main article, and also at least two linked environmental articles. Might want to avoid mention in United States lest other industries wriggle their way in, like agriculture. MrZaius^talk 17:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

- - In US culture there is the idea that it is the most free country, but the word freedom has just one superficial mention in the "politics" section. Also, why is the human rights section gone? It would be appropriate to have a section/paragraph on "freedom, civil and human rights" (including freedom rankings, death penalty and torture as said in previous FAC)
  - television is not mentioned in the culture section, but is definitely more important culturally and economically than cinema.

Television is mentioned in the culture section, but was only added recently. Suggest a reread of the merged Media section. MrZaius^talk 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

- - the American Dream must also be mentioned in the "Socio-economic class" section, in the part about social mobility

Yup - Actually, it ought to be moved there entirely and rewritten. Will momentarily. MrZaius^talk 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

- - Slave trade from Africa is not mentioned; need to compared it with the "quest for freedom" that moved the European colonizers (this is a contrast of top notoriety about US foundation)

Mention of slavery is made in at least two places, and the topic is covered in greater depth in the since-split main articles. Can add mention and link to the slave trade in one sentence, though, and will shortly. MrZaius^talk 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Now it is MrZaius^talk 06:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

- - Westward expansion: need to mention more clearly the will to impose of the Cristian civilization on the Natives and the appropriation of their land.

Dealt with slightly differently, focusing on Indian Wars in Independence section, but it appears to be resolved, given its thorough coverage in the linked articles. MrZaius^talk 06:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the size of the history section and the tone of the Native American section, which carefully implies that the oppression of native peoples did not end with the end of colonialism, I'm not sure that that really would be a positive change. Don't really need to cover it twice, especially when it's dealt with in the main article and, more extensively, in both Mains for the Native Americans section. MrZaius^talk 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean a deeper coverage, just a rewording.--BMF81 16:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

- - McCarthyism is not mentioned in "Cold War"

Fixed. MrZaius^talk 06:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

- other corrections:
  - in "military" it says spending is "only" 4% of GDP and doesn't compare it with other countries

Fixed. MrZaius^talk 06:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

- - in demographics classification, replace the term "race" with ethnicity, since it is considered a criterion with no scientific basis.

Someone beat me to it, but: Fixed. MrZaius^talk 06:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

--BMF81 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment- The article has a whole lot of deadwood phrases. This website should help. http://www.klariti.com/technical-writing/Deadwood%20Phrases.shtml use control f with every phrase on the list. The article also could be written in a more active voice. This website should help. http://www.lavc.edu/WCweb/activepassive.html Changing these will take a long time, but the article should be more concise. Oldag07 16:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every section has been rewritten compressed a great deal, and I can't find any of the first dozen or so phrases listed on that rather lengthy list. Please be more specific. MrZaius^talk 16:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I found 2. not as many deadwood phrases as i expected. ill change them. as for the active and the passive voice, this article needs a lot of reworking. the words, is, am, are was, been, being, and be, should have limited usage. for example:

. . . the present-day continental U.S. was inhabited exclusively by various indigenous peoples could be rewritten as . . .

various indigenous peoples inhabited the present-cay continental U.S. exclusively

Seems minor, but it does make a big difference. and considering how big the prose is in this article, this will help. Oldag07 16:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards Support, Yes, it has adequate refs, Yes, it is long enough(maybe too long;120kbs) Yes, it has 144 footnotes, Yes, it has been shaved a lot, No, some weasel words leaning still. c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc 1864 Cuba Libre! 06:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - from my first reading, it is too long. Particularly the history, culture, and demographics sections. Please find ways to summarise each idea and/or drop too high detail out. Look to reduce these sections by 1/3 as a minimum; by 1/2 would be more appropriate. The second paragraph of the health section IMO is completely unnecessary in a summary country article (fine for Health Care in the United States. The language section goes into too much detail on what appear to be minor languages and details around the official status of languages.

Per the history section, please keep in mind that the coverage of minority peoples and foreign affairs would double in size if it were cut further. As it is, it has already been cut by well over 1/3 in the few months, and, IMHO, is quite compressed and well executed. Concerning the official status of languages, I'd be shocked to see any article reach FA without listing their official languages, and, given the complexity of the issue in the United States, the two or three sentences here seem warranted. Definitely agree with you that the culture and demographics sections could be trimmed further. However, that said, we're still well within the WP:LENGTH guidelines when measuring purely the prose, per the above. MrZaius^talk 14:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

These sentences are unnecessary:

The largest cities of the United States figure prominently in the economy, culture, and heritage of the U.S.

The article may as well explain that most trees in the US have green leaves.

Fixed

The South Florida metropolitan area (Miami and Ft. Lauderdale) and the Washington Metropolitan Area, (Washington, Baltimore, & Arlington) are among several metropolitan areas that consist of multiple large cities that rank among the largest metropolitan areas while none of their member cities rank in the top ten.

Too much trivia. Just one example.

Not really - It's there to direct people to the two lists linked more clearly now. Did trim the fat, though. MrZaius^talk 14:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Related to length, it's rather waffly in parts. Take this paragraph for example...

The United States has a variety of freeway and highway systems, multiple large international airports, and an extensive freight train network. Automakers developed early and rapidly in the United States. The U.S. is home to more roadways than any other country in the world.[94] Although public transport systems are heavily used in some large cities, these systems tend to be less extensive than in other developed nations.[95] Air travel remains the preferred mode of transport for long distances.

The first sentence is pointless and uninformative - it could be written about any country, except maybe some Pacific Island countries. The second could possibly go somewhere if there was actually some meaty information - i can imagine it might be helpful point in the US's economic development, but here it is vague. Cutting it would help word count. The third sentence is an example of many comparative sentences - (eg, 'first', 'most expensive', 'third or fourth largest depending on some vague detail', etc) - that are kind of annoying and in many cases uninformative trivia (ie, trivial). The last two are informative, but you need a source for the last sentence.

Fixed MrZaius^talk 14:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

On a related note the sub-headings should be removed - which will be possible if these three sections are cut in half.

A question: is there any reason why the history section doesn't come immediately after 'Etymology'? --Merbabu 12:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There were several, plainly stated above, having to do with making clean transitions from section to section. Seems to have moved now, however. MrZaius^talk 14:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Over linked...

The article appears to be over linked. Wiki links should be limited to those that are directly to the topic. Take the last sentence of the lead:

It remains a dominant economic, political, military, and cultural force in the Western world and around the globe.[7]

All links in that sentence are simply definitional and distractions (with the possible marginal exception of 'western world'). What do they tell the reader about the US? On the other hand, the link to 'federal' is OK, as it directly helps the point (ie, federation as opposed to unitary state). Similarly, why link this way ' it's national economy', when you could do this 'its national economy. ie, a link to 'economy of the US' is far more useful and less of a distraction than simply a link to 'economy'. Merbabu 12:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Other useless links (nothing to do with the US and hence are merely distractions)... Diversity, border, flora (why not link to 'flora of the UNited States'?)

Good links... [[Immigration to the United States|immigration]], American Revolutionary War (well, obviously), [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]]

Wikilinks are largely fixed in lead, and much, much less of a problem below. Note that Flora of the United States does not exist - It is largely covered on a state by state level, when covered at all, but that is outside the scope of this FAC. MrZaius^talk 14:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement...

'a complex [[Social class in the United States|social structure]]' would be better as '[[Social class in the United States|a complex social structure]] so it is clear the link is talking specifically about the US, and not just a meaningless definition link to simply social structure.
'fifty [[U.S. state|states]] => [[U.S. state|fifty states]] Merbabu 12:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. MrZaius^talk 14: 14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

comment on length. To those arguing that the article is "too long", I'd say that is more accurate to say that it is "unbalanced". Just to make an example, it was candidate as FA while not having any mention of the huge issue of neocolonialism in the US foreign policy of 20th century, and containing instead the trivial sentences cited above. I think that the current superficiality of the article would have been avoided if Featured Articles on sub-sections had been created first.--BMF81 13:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Still, the topic is dealt with throughout the history section, if implicitly. Will introduce neocolonialism link and source shortly to the foreign affairs section.~~ Even neocolonialism doesn't describe the United States as a neocolonialist, but rather says its corporations benefit from neocolonial policies in other countries' former colonies. It defines neocolonialism as "international economic arrangements by which former colonial powers maintained control of their former colonies and new dependencies following World War II." Assuming that definition is correct, to describe United States policies as neocolonialism would be incorrect, unless you know something I don't about their trade policies with the Philippines. That said, criticism of 1970s+ American foreign policy is present both in the multiple subsections of history, the main article for FP, and several others. MrZaius^talk 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you now basing your knowledge on a start-class article with no reference?--BMF81 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I said "assuming that definition is correct". Also did a little digging on Google Scholar, and was surprised that I wasn't able to find anything in the first couple pages of results that was primarily focused on American neocolonialism w/regards to the foreign policy (barring coverage of neocolonialism in the Phillipines several decades ago, not discussing current policy). The point I was trying to make was that criticism of American foreign policy isn't missing, but rather just one particular aspect of it that may raise NPOV issues if unsourced.MrZaius^talk 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It was much simpler to deal with the topic you seem to be hitting at by discussing the more common claims of American imperialism, especially since those claims are targetted at direct actions of the United States government, rather than NGOs/corporations it hosts & IGOs it sponsors. Does this suffice? [5] MrZaius^talk 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Extremely good article, but some of the citations won't even fit in one line on a 1440 pixel wide display which is annoying. I think some of the citations could be shortened, as it really does look odd. Most are missing access dates too. Wackymacs 18:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. As an economist I find the Economy of the United States box difficult to understand. It needs to have a date range or period for the numbers you produce. You can say that the GDP growth rate is 3.4%, but do you mean last year, average annual increase over the last 10 years, two years ago? Please give the years for your numbers. Another issue would be that the numbers in dollars mean nothing to foreigners when they are not put into context. Perhaps you could add two lines giving the exchange rate of the dollar to the euro, GBP, Swiss franc, or the yen. The relative value of $1 is pretty important information, even if it does fluctuate constantly. Keeping a date next to the information and updating it every so often is reasonable, I'd say. I like the article on the whole. It's difficult to take this subject and turn it into something of FA quality, but I'm sure you can do it. JHMM13 09:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Went with Pounds Sterling and Euro. Still little to no mention of monetary policy in article, although it is covered in the Main, and, given the length of the article, could arguably be left out, given that we're dealing with a floating currency. MrZaius^talk 11:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Am I the only one who finds the tables in the article distracting and unnecessary? Specfically, 'Economy of the United States', 'Demographics of the United States' and 'Five most populous incorporated places in the United States' should go. Anybody interested would go into sub-pages and find them. And if they are not there, move them.--Svetovid 08:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

- The table for large cities may be uneeded, but the economy and demographic tables are needed. They convey information to our readers in an easy and concise manner. Adding CPI inflation, unemployment, poverty and currency convergency rates to the section text, rather than a seperate infobox, would require a lot more additional text, as I cannot simply list key figures in the text - it wouldn't read well. I have thought long about having these two tables in their sections before I created them. They are simply the most efficient way to present key figures w/o hurting the prose of the economy and demographics sections. As for sub-pages, consider that certain figures such as unemployment, poverty rates need to be mentioned in the main article. These infobox do not present minor trivia but are limited to the most important and meaningful pieces of data. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed the half-dozen entries that were wholly redundant with the infobox and/or article text, left the others be pending decision in talk. MrZaius^talk 05:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks OK now, good job.--Svetovid 12:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments I am reading through the article and will list my comments/questions/suggestions below as I proceed:

Article name Why is the article titled "United States" instead of "United States of America" ? I assume that this has been discussed earlier, so a link to the relevant debate will be sufficient for me (i.e. the arguments need not be necessarily rehashed here) Found the FAQ
Wikilinking: There seems to be somewhat excessive wikiling in the article. For instance:
1. Common English words used in their standard sense need not be wikilinked. Examples from the lead: Economy, Annexing, Diversity. Later on: Agriculture, Nationalism, secession (this word has already been used twice before it is wikilinked), moon, resign
2. Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, impeachment, United States Constitution and many other terms are linked multiple times.
3. Adjectival leads to a disambiguation page. Is the link even needed ?
4. Maybe instead of providing all the wikilinks in the lead itself, the terms can be wikilinked in the relevant section instead (eg. US Dollar in United States#Economy, List of countries and outlying territories by total area in United States#Geography etc). Is there a MOS or wikiproject guideline on this or are terms always wikilinked on first use ?
Language and clarity The article is pretty good in these aspects! Here are some minor issues that may be worth looking into:
1. "In the northeast, the coasts of the Great Lakes and Atlantic seaboard host much of the country's population." Should "country's" be changed to "region's"; also population distribution seems more relevant for the Demographics, rather than the Geography, section.
2. "Beyond the coastal plain, the rolling hills ..." Which coastal plain ?
3. "flora of the U.S. are very diverse". At least in American English, should be "flora ... is" or "floras ... are" depending upon intended meaning.
4. "5,000 just in California" -> "5,000 in California alone". This is a preference and not an error.
5. "Americans' eagerness to expand westward began a cycle of Indian Wars that stretched to the end of the next century." Given the context, it is not clear if the "next century" refers to 1800s or 1900s (I know the answer :-)).
6. "As the Communist Party in the Eastern Bloc suppressed dissent, American anti-communists like Joseph McCarthy attempted and failed to suppress their opposition at home." Not clear what/who "their opposition" refers to.
7. "The leadership role taken by the United States and its allies in the United Nations-sanctioned Gulf War and the Yugoslav wars helped to preserve its position as the world's last remaining superpower and to expand NATO." The "to expand NATO" is hard to parse on first reading. Rephrase ?
Citations:
1. Many of the web citations are missing publisher information.
2. The quality of some citations can perhaps be improved. For example in the Environment section, this arguably partisan document is used as a source; I think it would be simple to find a more "neutral" official report or academic study, which provides greater depth and detail to the interested reader.
Level of detail In some cases the content coverage prose can be tightened and the details covered in the main articles (I realize that this is a matter of editorial judgment, so the following are simply suggestions):
1. "Ten constitutional amendments composing the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791." Is the "technical" description of how the rights were promulgated important enough for the lead ? Instead may be better to mention what rights were guaranteed, say, something like "freedom of speech, religion etc were recognized as inalienable rights in 1791"; the constitutional mechanism can be discussed in the Histry section.
2. "The Congress, lacking authority to levy taxes, was handicapped in its ability to fund the Continental Army. It overprinted paper money, triggering hyperinflation." Is this important enough to be mentioned in a summary style article, especially considering that the whole of World War II and its consequences is dealt with in six sentences ?
Miscellaneous:
1. "The country's flora and fauna include thousands of nonnative exotic species that sometimes adversely affect indigenous plant and animal communities." Citation ? Would have been ok if there were separate articles on flora and fauna in US, but since there (surprisingly!) are not ...
2. "The Energy policy of the United States is a matter ...". E should not be capitalized.
3. "President Richard Nixon became the first President to resign, rather than be impeached over electoral fraud allegations during the Watergate scandal." The "electoral fraud" bit is factually incorrect. The three articles of impeachment related to "obstruction of justice", "abuse of power" and "contempt of Congress" (recall, "coverup is worse than the crime" :-) ) Of course this article need not go into the details, but the factual inaccuracy should be removed.
Government and politics section needs to be looked into carefully. Some issues:
1. This section needs copyediting (I did some of this, but much more effort is needed)
2. The section needs to be reorganized since the topics seemed to be dealt with in a random order. As suggested ordering of the paragraphs would be : (1) Constitution, (2) Federal Government structure, (3) State Government organization, (4) Political parties
3. The section suffers from WP:Recentism. For example it devotes one sentence to, "There are two independent members of the Senate, but both were former Democratic incumbents." The rest of the paragraph has similar issues. Wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to take a longer term view and state something like "US effectively has a two party system with all the President, and most of the Senators and Congressmen elected over the last century (or whatever) being members of the Republican or Democratic party" or "The Republican and Democratic party have dominated politics over the last century with all the presidents ... ".
4. The "Constitution" paragraph deals with some issues at a great level of detail, (eg. "House seats are apportioned among the states according to population every tenth year. As of the 2000 census, seven states have the minimum of one representative, while California, the most populous state, has fifty-three.") while not even mentioning aspects that will be of interest to an international readership, eg. Universal suffrage for >18 year olds (I know that there are exceptions); division of power between federal and state governments with respect to foreign policy, military, law and order, commerce, civil law etc (these suggestions need not be adopted in toto, but someone knowledgeable should take a look)
5. "The Constitution vaguely guarantees to every State a Republican Form of Government' ". The "vaguely" may be justifiable, but I don't think wikipedia should take a stand on this issue :-)

In spite of the length of my comments above, from what I have read so far, I believe that this article should be able to reach FA status with a bit of cooperative effort by editors/reviewers. I'll continue proofreading it from Section 6 onwards later and add my comments to the above list. Please, place any responses to my comments below, instead of interleaving them with my comments. I have numbered my remarks for easy reference. Regards and happy editing! I have added line seperators before and after my (lengthy) remarks, so that the page is easier to parse; feel free to remove the separators if it goes against the norms of the FAC page) Abecedare 01:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. There are so many issues that this should be withdrawn and reworked before resubmission. Here are just a few that I noticed at the start.
- I'd hoped not to have to query the opening sentence: "The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic made up of fifty states, one federal district, and several territories." Consider replacing "made up of" with "comprising". Don't you know how many territories?

- Done. And yup--done.—DCGeist 05:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

- "almost entirely" in the western hemisphere, isn't it?

- Sure is. Done.—DCGeist 05:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

- Why is "capital" linked. We do speak English. Uncomfortable use of a hedgehog word right at the top: "coextensive". Mention Washington, sure, but do we need to go into the District of Columbia just here?

- Nope. Edited.—DCGeist 05:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

- "liberal democracy"—Well, I wouldn't be too quick to claim that, given that Bush was allowed to steal the presidency in 2000 and nothing has been done to fix the systemic source of that problem. But I won't make an issue of it here.

- Yeah. We have hopes, we have hopes.—DCGeist 05:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

- "American society is the product of large-scale immigration, resulting in a complex social structure." Unsure why the complexity of American social structure needs to be highlighted here, as though it's unusual in this respect among all human social structures. There are many immigrant societies.

- Point taken. Trimmed, edited, and consolidated for proper emphasis.—DCGeist 05:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

- "Ten constitutional amendments composing the Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791." No, "comprising".

- Oh, Tony, Tony, Tone. Of all people, you should know: elements compose a whole, a whole comprises its elements. See, e.g., [6]. And after you proposed comprising correctly above. Oy.—DCGeist 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC) You're right.

- "It remains the dominant economic, political, military, and cultural force in the Western world and around the globe." Remove "in the Western world and". "Is" would be better than "remains", unless you're expecting a change in that soon.

- Done. And bettered.—DCGeist 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There are problems of angle, emphasis, neglect of essential information, and poor prose. Tony 03:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC) PS It's overlinked, too. Who wants blue for "English", and many other words.

Thanks. This is a major help to the article. Keep 'em comin'.—DCGeist 05:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you please spell out precisely what you're referring to when you refer to other problems of angle, embphasis and missing information? On the last point, please also keep in mind the large number of split/main articles and articles split off from them that are generally more appropriate places for straight-up expansion. Any specifics would help, MrZaius^talk 07:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dan, I'm busy this morning, so just one thing: "The nation was founded by thirteen colonies of Great Britain located along the Atlantic seaboard. Proclaiming themselves "states," they issued ...". Where's your boundary between spelled out and numeral (typically nine–10)? Later on I see numerals; I could cope with "thirteen colonies" as an exception (if there's a case for it), but why are initial caps used later? MOS says italicise words as words rather than using quote marks. MOS also says to put the comma outside the quote mark. Tony 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To give this article a proper perspective and comprehensiveness I suggest to improve first these sub-articles (and then take their summarized lead): European colonization of the Americas, History of the United States (1865–1918), African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968), War on Terrorism, Cold War, Foreign relations of the United States, Politics of the United States, Economy of the United States, Social class in the United States, Health care in the United States, Culture of the United States, Education in the United States.--BMF81 09:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that there are also at least a half dozen more articles that would also have to be reviewed, if not half of these. Also, to suggest that this article should be a copy and paste job of its various daughter articles seems like a call to duplicate Portal:United States. Personally, I still feel that when one judges this article solely on its merits, it warrants promotion. MrZaius^talk 09:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Obviously the editors of this article are determined to get FA status. Rather than dismissing this article, which really is very close to FA (or already there), Would the reviewers please say more about what needs to be fixed? Sending them to other articles isn't really what the goal is, in my view. We should focus on this article alone, just as any reader would have to. If nothing specific can be said, then it should pass. If something specific is said, it will be fixed and still pass, therefore I say pass. Wrad 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I noticed that in the culture section, there was not one word about American theatre, particularly American musicals, which are famous at least throughout the English-speaking world. I added a short paragraph and an image trying to give a flavor of the topic. I also added a footnote or two, but you might want to add a more prominent x-ref to the musical theatre article, from which some of the material comes. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 01:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There was actually a short sentence about musicals in the Music section, focusing (a tad overmuch) on Porter and Irving. Merged them into the new paragraph you introduced to Literature and the arts. MrZaius^talk 02:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comments. I was asked to discuss overlinking. I take a functionalist view to wikilinking: how does it help/hinder the reading experience? Some delinkings may come down to subjective judgement, but given the amount of blue spattering, particularly early on in the article, I'd be inclined to delink dictionary words and the names of countries, unless they're likely to be unfamiliar to many English speakers, or piped to a focused article (such as immigration, which is a good one). Canada, Mexico, France, Spain, Russia could all be smooth black rather than stick-out blue; some are linked more than once, as though we didn't get a chance earlier to digress. "Italian explorer and cartographer" ... well, who wants to interrupt their flow and read the Italy article in that sentence? "Cartographer" and "adjectival" I think people should know; why not remove "and demonymic" (it's not the place to teach us all a new term, unless it's important to understanding the meaning, which it's not—it's redundant). "English"—hello? Same for "Spanish" and "Portuguese"—they're either trivial or just too off-topic to risk diluting the high-value links, the ones you want readers to consider hitting. BTW, in an article that has had to be massively reduced, why does this remain: " This common use of "American" has aroused controversy, particularly in Latin America, where Spanish and Portuguese speakers refer to themselves as "americanos" and use the adjective "estadounidense" to describe a person from the United States.[8]" Remove it and you've solved the linking issue there. Formatting: "the Pacific and Arctic Oceans" should be "the Pacific and Arctic Oceans", yes?

Let's pick out some copy-editing issues at random from the small "Environment" section.

- Remove "very".
- "nonnative"—See MOS on this; I think it probably should be hyphenated to avoid the double n.
- "In ~~some~~ parts of the country, wilderness areas have been established to ensure the long-term protection of pristine habitats."
- "Protected park and forestland constitute most of this, but some is leased for oil and natural gas drilling, mining, and cattle ranching." "ParkLAND" would make the plural verb work; or "parkS". The "but" is a problem of logical connection, which demands a recasting.
- Still wondering where the spell-out boundary is: "fifty-seven", but later "435", "22", "fifty".

Omission issue in the same section:

- "The energy policy of the United States is widely debated; many citizens and foreign nations call on the U.S., as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels,[18] to take a leading role in fighting global warming.[19]" Jumps the gun, doesn't it? First, tell us that the US has resisted international attempts to regulate carbon emissions since [whenever], or there's a slight jerk in the reading. Couldn't the first link be piped to "American energy policy"? Delink "carbon dioxide" and "fossil fuels", and just keep global warming.

Other omission issues:

Literature: no mention of American English-language innovations, or Noah Webster, who played a part in defining the national cultural identity.
"Economy": hugely inadequate at two paragraphs, and not well-written. In a summary section, I'd expect it too be five or six paras, at least mentioning the historical emergence of the US economy, and a few technical details (beyond what is in the infobox).
"Government and politics": "Citizens are usually subject to three levels of government, federal, state, and local". Unsure that relationship was quite what the constitution intended.

Random query: "The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation,"—Switzerland is older, isn't it? (Maybe I'm wrong.)

Embarrassment alert. Ged rid of this: "Wine is often drunk before meals, substituting for cocktails.[173] Aside from coffee, orange juice and homogenized, often fat-reduced cow's milk are typical breakfast beverages." In fact, I'd remove or significantly reduce the whole "Food and clothing" section and add more useful stuff elsewhere. Just because a few other country articles have this doesn't mean trivial information (some of it cultural-centric in the within-nation context) is needed. The small amount that might be retained can be relocated into other sections.

I disagree completely. The description of this material as "trivial" is clearly POV--many social scientists find the dining (and drinking) habits of a culture highly revealing and central to an understanding of its people. I encourage you to pick up, for instance, Food in the Social Order: Studies of Food and Festivities in Three American Communities (2002) by Mary Douglas as well as the classic Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American Culture (1929) by Robert Staughton Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd to learn more about the importance of these topics. Just because a few people may find them uninteresting or potentially "embarrassing" because quotidian does not mean they do not belong in this article. I'm not familiar with the "few other country articles" you refer to, but this material should be covered in all country articles.—DCGeist 16:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: I do understand the implication that we should take "homogenized" and "cow's" for granted (if not milk as a breakfast beverage entirely). But that's just the point--we do take them for granted in the contemporary Western world, and that's rather arrogant. "The belief that dietary calcium must come from dairy food is largely a cultural phenomenon, unique to the United States and a few other industrialized countries. Throughout a large part of the world, dairy food is rarely consumed" (Recovery from Cancer [2003] by Elaine Nussbaum [p. 164]). Homogenization only became prevalent in the mid-twentieth century in the West. "It has been noted that different countries' death rates from heart disease are proportional to how much homogenized milk their citizens drink" (ibid.). Did you know the U.S. has a very high rate of heart disease? (We'll try to get that in the Health section.) "Various cultures in the world use different animals as a source of milk for food.... In poor or developing countries, dairy goats are a very important source of food.... Most of the world's goat milk is produced in Africa and Asia" (The Science of Animal Agriculture [1999] by Ray V. Herren [pp. 48-49]). Addressing the things we deal with on a daily basis and choose not to think about may bore some people to tears, but it's hardly "trivial." [P.S. Wine drinking in Western Europe is traditionally asssociated with eating. Wine itself is considered much more as a form of flavorful produce and much less as an inebriant than in the U.S. You're an Aussie--judging from my ex-girlfriend's behavior, y'all our definitely on our side of the Ledger. The distinction in cultural practice is significant and well worthy of summary mention.]—DCGeist 08:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Food rejoinder: What you say here in justification makes it interesting and worthwhile, but would be too much to include. Without it, the information is (i) trivial, compared with a lot of information that the article omits, (ii) fails to distinguish American eating habits from those of many/most advanced/European/anglophone societies, (iii) appears to claim something "typical" that may, in fact, not be, even among individuals of the received culture (despite the reference, entitled "The speculation is over"), and (iv) gives the impression of representing the American culture, where such a culture now includes a sizeable proportion of Latinos and others who probably eat differently (even though reference to tacos and burritos is made above—we're talkin breakfast here). Tony 13:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

These are just random points; they illustrate why much more work is required for this to be promoted. Tony 06:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The history paragraph in the lead has too much focus on the founding of the United States (half its length).

Britain, defeated in the American Revolutionary War, recognized their sovereignty in 1783.

Could be cut out, as long as the American Revolutionary War was mentioned elsewhere. Countries which have declared independence usually get recognised eventually. I'd also trim or eliminate the sentences pertaining to the creation of the US constitution, mentioning the constitution in the first paragraph of the lead instead.

The country greatly expanded throughout the nineteenth century, acquiring territory from France, Spain, Mexico, and Russia, while annexing the Republic of Texas and the former Kingdom of Hawaii.

Why is the Kingdom of Hawaii 'former' but the Republic of Texas not? Suggested rewrite: 'In the ninteenth century, the United States acquired land from France, Spain, Mexico and Russia, and annexed the Republic of Texas and the Kingdom of Hawaii'

Can't do it. If you read below in the History section of the article you'll see why. At the point when the U.S. annexed Hawaii, it was no longer the independent monarchy it had long been, but officially the Republic of Hawaii. However, that change had happened only very recently, as the result of a Western coup probably backed by and certainly agreeable to the U.S. Thus to describe it as "the Kingdom of Hawaii" is incorrect, but to describe it as "the Republic of Hawaii" is highly misleading. There is no perfect solution, but in the context of this summary lead, the inclusion of the word "former" is the best way to make the description both technically accurate and historically sensible.—DCGeist 16:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not simply 'Hawaii'?--Nydas^(Talk) 17:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

::::If the Kingdom didn't exist at the time of annexation, then it should just be Hawaii or replaced with "overthrew and annexed", although the former solution would be preferred, as it would not carry with it the implication that the United States government was directly responsible for the Kingdom's overthrow. MrZaius^talk 18:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What they annexed was the Republic of Hawaii - Problem solved, and along with it a duplicate link removed. Kingdom of Hawaii and its overthrow by Americans still mentioned in the history section, although it's arguable that we could live without the entire sentence if we're not going to cover the Texan revolution. Texas has given us at least two Presidents, been a state since the before the Civil War, etc. Might just be a hair more detail than we really need in this parent article, given links to Hawaii and Texas elsewhere. MrZaius^talk 18:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The American Civil War of the 1860s ended slavery and set the stage for the country to become a great power.

'Set the stage' is a rather dramatic colloquialism. That the civil war was American is implied. As long as it can be implied that it took place during the C19th, it's unnecessary to state the decade.

~~In 1945,~~ the U.S. emerged from World War II as one of two ~~nuclear~~ superpowers and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

No mention of World War I is a mistake. It's not that big a deal to Americans, but it established the US as the world's most powerful nation. I'd also mention the United States' membership of various international organisations like NATO and the G8.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you on a handful of points: The section on its founding summarize details found in no less than three different sessions. The year in which Britain granted US official recognition is important to mark the end of the revolution.

~~The first World War, while significant world wide, simply was not that important - A compelling argument can be made for the US as a Great Power prior to WWI, and,~~ while Wilsonianism had a marked impact on modern politics, it is not necessarily something that can be easily stated in the lead, or even something simple and clear enough to warrant mention in this article, lacking, as it does and likely should, discussion of neoconservatism and American liberalism. - Update: N/m - You're right, I'm wrong, you're attractive, I'm unattractive, you're wealthy, I eat dumpster mcnuggets. WWI and the Spanish American War provide a better place to drop in the great power link, and provide better integration with said article. MrZaius^talk 15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

On striking the year and "nuclear" from the WWII sentence, the year implies that we were a founding member of the UN, an early developer of nukes, etc. Only problem I see with it is that Russia didn't have nukes in 1945, so should replace "one of two nuclear superpowers" with "the first nuclear weapons state" - deals with the word superpower in the next sentence anyway, and an explanation the similar status of the Soviets is described in the COld War section.

Your other points are good, though, w/regard to the Kingdom of Hawaii, implicitly dating the Civil War, and overly dramatic language - Strange that the quoted phrase slipped through: I've been removing those strange middle school textbook-style phrases for the last two months, mostly from Geography. MrZaius^talk 14:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ixnay on Hawaii change. See my response to Nydas above.—DCGeist 16:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, in its current form. Prominently, this article is almost 4 times the recommended size and should be much more concise; even per WP:LENGTH, it's still twice the recommended length. For instance, the history and economy sections are morbidly obese: one paragraph (at most) for each subsection in the former, and is there a specific reason why a table of limited utility resides in the latter when it doesn't even reside (in that form) in the dedicated subarticle? And topical focus is also an issue: where does one find a map and or listing of political subdivisions or capitals? This, I would think, is a basic question of prospective readers; per the country wikiproject, there is no such section ... and if this information or link thereof is present, it isn't apparent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no other country featured articles even approaches this article's size, and it's the height of hubris to think that this article cannot be shorter. Per the lead of the cited size guideline, this bloated article may reflect an unwillingness or inability of editors to effectively pare it down and use subarticles. Corticopia 13:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSE: for the following reasons:
- First and foremost, this article is way too long. At 133 KB (of which perhaps some may be references and the shop of External Links), this article is over four times the recommended size. Wikipedia:Summary style recommends no more than a 50% extra to that, which brings the "maximum" up to 45 KB. Still, the article approximately three times the size of the maximum! Unbelievable! It takes a heck of a time for the article to load on my connection. Imagine the trouble caused to people with dial-up connections! According to Wikipedia:Summary style: ...it is very rare for an article 50% larger than this [30 KB] to still efficiently cover its topic. Also, the same page states that There are also technical issues with editing articles over 30KB that often lead to duplicated information and poor structure. (emphasis added) The IMMENSE size is the primary reason of why I have not read the entire article but instead skimmed over it. Until the size is lessened to approx. 50-60 KB, I am not taking back my oppose.
  - The size of the readable prose, which is what WP:SIZE is based on, is 55kb (according to the 'Page size' extension). That is within boundaries. CloudNine 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    - The recommended size is 30 KB. The "maximum" is 150% of that, which is 45 KB. Even 55 KB is above the maximum. What I meant by my statement (Until the size is lessened to approx. 50-60 KB, I am not taking back my oppose.) is for the entire article, not only the readable prose. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      - This is an unreasonable request, especially the "not only the readable prose part. The article is fine, size-wise. The guildline you're referring to refers users to the WP:SIZE article, which doesn't make the case you're making. 55 KB is not above the maximum on the main, size-guidline page, which, I think, in cases of MoS conflict such as this, should be ultimately referred to. At 60 KB (of readable prose), the article is said to need to at least consider dividing, but can in special cases stay together even then. Wrad 16:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        Indeed; I would consider this particular object nonactionable; the article complies with the manual of style with regards to size. CloudNine 17:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        No, it does not. This is an exception to the rule. Why should it be an exception when it can be more perfect while covering the topics (an overview of them, of course) while being shorter?
- This article has twenty-four external links, not a healthy amount considering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a collection of links.
  - As I look over the links, I see none that are problematic. They are all well organized. I don't think there is a problem here. Wrad 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    - No matter how well organized they may be, Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be a shop of links but instead an encyclopedia. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Approximately one third of the lead is of the US's history and is rather long (according to me, at least).
  - I'm inclined to agree here. Wrad 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- The "History" section is too long and hardly follows Summary Style. Look at the "History" section of the India article (FA), just to give an example. Its history is approximately ten times longer than that of the US, yet the section is summarized excellently in approximately a fifth of the length of the section in the US article.
  - That seems to me to be expected on a largely American, English Wikipedia. The Hindu Wikipedia probably has a longer history section for India than for America, merely because they have more information. Wrad 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    - That is not according to guidelines and is false. There is tons of information on the history of India (just visit the History of India article), but the main editors there actually possess brains (no offense to anyone here) and want to keep the article within reasonable size limits. Also, Wikipedia should provide a worldwide view of everything; it is owned by everyone, not just Americans. It is not supposed to be so that since this article is English, there should be more info on the history of America that on that of any other non-English speaking country. The other Wikipedias in other languages are just there for the people who don't know English. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- The same problem comes up with the "Culture" section. According to the Summary Style policy, only a brief overview of the topic should be provided, not a whole dumping of its main article into the section, which is apparently being done with the "History" and "Culture" (not literal "dumpings," of course)
  - Same as above. Wrad 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Same as above. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- At the "section" of Navigation boxes at the bottom of the article, there are two that give information about other countries' membership of two of the organizations that the US is part of. What I am trying to point out is that approximately 70 organizations are listed in the Navigation box that gives all (well, of course not all, but you get the idea) of the international organizations that the US is part of. So, why are there only two boxes that specifically point out other countries' membership. Why only two of the apprx. 70 organizations? So, either all 70 navigation boxes be given (which is quite impossible without making the article explode in size) or remove the two boxes of the "special" organizations (the more reasonable solution). Wrad 21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  - This objection doesn't make sense to me. That's just the nature of navboxes: Some are more general than the articles they're in, and other go into specifics. There are plenty of examples of these differences all over wikipedia. I'm impressed that the article has already trimmed out navboxes that may be considered unimportant, leaving only the UN, G8, and North American countries boxes, as well as the more specific intern. membership box. Only four boxes seems reasonable to me, expecially with a country so involved in world politics.
    - What I am trying to point out is that by giving navboxes of only two of the organizations that the US is part of, it is being signified that those two organizations are more important than others, which is, of course, false. I think that one my two suggestions above should be followed (the more reasonable one, of course). Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

- There are way too many images in this article, which may be the reason why people with dial-up connections can expect to turn old by the time the article loads. There are 26 images (plus 3 charts). With 9 main sections, this gives an average of approximately 2.9 (rounded to 3) images per section. Even if the amount is too much (which it is), it is worsened by the fact that images are not at all balanced in terms of images per section. For example, 14 of them are swallowed up by the the monster "History" and "Culture" sections, leaving the other equally important sections unbalanced in terms of images.
  - Is there a guideline for number of images in an article? I honestly don't know. Conceivably, though, on a 28.8K modem, this article would take only about 5 seconds to load. I'd honestly be interested in somebody timing it... Wrad 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    - No, there is no guideline for images in an article (at least none that I know of), but are not 26 images way more than enough. Even if they are not more than enough (which is false), look at the "balance." Over half of the 26 images are swallowed up by just two sections. Also, to user Wrad: I am not sure about what connection I have (it's not a dial up modem, though), but it takes 43.5 seconds for the article to load with my connection. It's still fast compared to what it would take on a dial-up connection. Man, I fell sorry for those guys that have a dial-up... Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just an example sentence randomly selected from the article: Of the fifty fastest-growing metro areas, twenty-three are in the West and twenty-five in the South. What happened to North and East?
  - "Of the fifty": 23 in west, 25 in north—that leaves two left. What do you want added? Wrad 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Information added about the other two. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also consider the following sentence: African Americans, who are largely the descendants of former slaves, constitute the nation's largest racial minority and third largest ancestry group. I read somewhere before in this review that "race" be replaced with "ethnicity". Hmmm.

This is easily fixed. Wrad 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been. "Race" should definitely not be replaced with "ethnicity." They just need to be used properly--that is, given the context, the specific way they are used by the U.S. Census Bureau. The two words have particular and distinct meanings. The necessary edits have been made so that they are used consistently, and U.S.-specific Wikilinks added to their first occurences in both the Demographics main text and the Demographics infobox.—DCGeist 06:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

- (added June 14) Grammar Mistakes: At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.6 million km²) and with more than 300 million people, the United States is the third or fourth largest country by total area, and third largest by land area and population. (Intro) No comma needed after "total area." Also, consistency should be maintained between km squared and mi squared. The country is situated almost entirely in the western hemisphere: its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the capital district, lie in central North America between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south; the state of Alaska is in the northwest of the continent with Canada to its east, and the state of Hawaii is in the mid-Pacific. (Intro) Why colon? Also, why comma before the thing about Hawaii if there is a semicolon before the thing about Alaska? This is just in the intro; I don't have the energy (and I think that neither would anyone else) to read and scrutinize the entire 133 KB article for grammar mistakes, but I think that the lead says it all. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 14:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the above objections are considered perfectly valid, than the only option is to split it and candidate as Featured Topic.--BMF81 17:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems to be a very strong objection over minor points; especially the size objection. CloudNine 17:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The basic just of it is that it takes too long to load on his computer, so he wants it cut down, not just readable prose. But if it meets MoS guidlelines, this really doesn't seem a valid point. (It loads fine on my computer, by the way, though I do have a fast connection.) Wrad 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Small things add up to big things: dismissing numerous objections about this article's size is not the way to deal with the issue. The size guideline is a part of the MoS and is very clear: even if you consider just prose, this article is twice as long as recommended; I see nothing in the MoS which justifies such excess. Still, at this point, the most prudent option is to prune -- there are already a number of subarticles, some of which do not hark of the content in this main article.

BTW, not everyone has a high-speed connection -- I may use a dial-up connection, and it takes eons for this article to load. Corticopia 18:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Many sections in the article have been pruned down to the bone. The US is a hugely complex subject matter for an article, restricting the article to "recommended" size would undoubtely result in a irresponsible and incomplete overview of the US. So many important aspects of the country would need to be omitted we would be outright mis-informing our readers. (See comment about feminism below-a very important topic has so far only a sentence in the article) Regards, Signature^brendel 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire: that is what subarticles are for, which are not used to maximum effect in the current instance. This article does not (or should not) exist in isolation of its subarticles, which the above response communicates. If done effectively, piped links can take the place of reams of text. Case in point, about feminism, it's a judgement call: how important is it to the topic of the United States overall? Perhaps it needs to be reframed within the larger realm of other human rights/social developments. That should guide decision-making and editing. Anyhow, there is an article about this topic which, given the above, may be linked to instead. Corticopia 21:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:SIZE "> 40 KB May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)." I'd argue that since this a huge (and important) topic, it doesn't make sense to split the article. CloudNine 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood the prior comment; no real argument. Simply put: this article should be made far more concise and the excess content moved to appropriate subarticles ... efforts to date have been lacking. Corticopia

Again, it meets the requirements of WP:SIZE, which is what FA articles should be measured against. I think it is more than concise and that there have been many efforts put forth to make it that way. Wrad 21:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This IS as concise as can be. Signature^brendel 21:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then we agree to disagree -- for instance, the history section is far too lengthy, while subtopics like political subdivisions (noted in my original comments above) are inadequately dealt with. If editors are either unwilling or (apparently) unable to prune it further, and I note efforts to date to that end, it exemplifies stipulations in the intro to the article size guideline. It's arrogant to think that further reductions/enhancements cannot be made and that such a complex topic cannot be dealt with more concisely -- after all, this is an encyclopedia, where all topics should be dealt with comprehensively. The above assumes the article is in some sort of ideal state currently -- we're not there yet. Corticopia 21:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles are supposed to be examples that other people can look up to when creating new articles or improving other articles. Surely this cannot be an FA; should every article become 133 KB (or ~60 KB prose)? If it can be efficiently covered in way less, why not? Yes, I realize that the MoS states that rare exceptions may be accepted, but this article is supposed to follow Summary Style. Currently, it is clear to everyone (ones with good eyes, at least) that this article does just the opposite. If links to main articles are provided, why is there a need to go into little details. This article is supposed to cover a simple overview of the subjects that it mentions. It's supposed to tell the reader a brief idea of the topic. That is what Main Articles are for. It is just supposed to say to the reader: "Here is a link to the History of the US. Oh yeah, we'll just give you a brief overview of it so that you don't get totally lost while reading the main article." Clearly, this is article does not follow Summary Style, thus not following the MoS, thus not being fit to become an FA. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Surely the [[Library of Congress] should be linked in the external links section. Neutrality^talk 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Signature^brendel 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 is mentioned, but the history of women's suffrage in the United States is ignored; likewise, the feminist movement is also ignored. Both women's suffrage and the feminist movement in general (the history of women in the United States) deserve at least a sentence or two. Neutrality^talk 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Feminism is mentioned, though shortly, in the second paragraph of the culture section. Signature^brendel 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think this article has taken great strides recently and is getting close to FA status. But shouldn't the page make better use of summary style? In particular, I think the "History", "Demographics", and "Culture" sections are too long. The readable prose size is 56 KB, 26 KB longer than it is supposed to be. If FAs like India can summarize thousands of years of history in five paragraphs, I'm not sure why the U.S. article needs three times that much verbiage for about 600 years. Pare things back a bit and move any extraneous information to the appropriate daughter articles, and I will be a lot happier to support. — Brian (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging the hard work these editors have done. I just want to point out again that the length requirement on the summary style page is different from the one on WP:SIZE, which this article meets. That said, I'm thinking maybe shrinking the history section by turning each subsection into a paragraph? that would be five paragraphs. Wrad 01:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In both spots, though, it seems a threshold of 32K is indicated -- no matter what the gauge, United States far exceeds that. This may be somewhat of a challenge to achieve but there's always room for improvement -- I don't expect miracles overnight, but the article remains excessive. I'm glad that you have reiterated my suggestion above regarding the history section (which can be significantly pruned), but the article is lacking in other ways too: per above, for example, where does one find a map and or listing of political subdivisions or capitals? This is a basic notion, yet no dedicated section or clear links exist in this article (that I can see). The economy table seems excessive, and the largest cities table seems little more than an affectation -- why include the five largest cities proper, when agglomerations may be more informative? Anyhow, delete it and do what the Canadians do regarding their largest cities: link and describe. Corticopia 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The "Culture" section is the next biggest culprit after "History", in my opinion. It should be able to more concisely summarize arts, literature, popular media, and sports by removing the long lists of names, for one. I know it's tough to cut such name-dropping of popularly known folks such as Frank Lloyd Wright or Andy Warhol, but perhaps more summarizing of movements is in order. It also leaves out some important milestones that I would be tempted to include, such as blackface minstrelsy and vaudeville. The former was the first uniquely American form of entertainment according to most minstrelsy historians. I must confess, though, that I'm happy to see a country article that illustrates the section on sports with something other than a picture of soccer. :) — Brian (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The 32K thing is unclear if you read the entire guidline and seems to be being phased out. I hardly think it is reasonable to expect this article to reach that. Many FA articles are much longer. However, since so many people want this and that to be shorter, might as well do it. I'm not an editor of the article myself. I've just noticed how much the editors have worked on it and don't appreciate people who call them lazy because they don't want to make it shorter when the guideline is honestly unclear, and other FA articles of similar size have passed. Wrad 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is calling anyone lazy (at least I'm not). Rather than comparing this article to other FAs in general, it would be more appropriate to compare it to Featured Articles on countries. Of these, Turkey, Japan, Cameroon, and Indonesia were recently featured. The U.S. article should strive to pare down its content to be roughly equivalent to these. I mean, Japan certainly has a great deal of cultural output, and it's "Culture" section is nowhere near the size of the U.S. one. Ditto its history. The consensus seems to be that readable prose is what should be 32 KB; this is the text without wiki formatting, references, images, and other extraneous stuff. There's a script that lets you check this, and that's the figure I quoted above (56 KB of readable prose). More summarizing can and should be done with this article. — Brian (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The guideline seems to allow up to 10000 words or 50k. We're a hair over 50k, but still at ~8000 words. That said, the culture section could definitely be cut a fair bit, and it wouldn't be impossible to shave a paragraph or more off of history, between the revolution and the modern era. Might also be possible to move the most modern history, everything post 1989, to the foreign affairs section - It's all current enough to warrant discussion in that context in an encyclopedia article. There's less of a problem with overly verbose language in the history section than the problem that topics like indigenous peoples, slavery, and civil rights lend themselves so much better to being dealt with there than anywhere else, in this case, that the article ends up with much less discussion of minority groups and similar topics under separate headers and much more in the history section. Might help a bit to just shuffle things around and, as I said, pare down the bits in from 1790-1940, and make some hard cuts from the newly expanded culture section. MrZaius^talk 03:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone still working on the article? It doesn't appear that anything is happening with regards to comments and objections on this page. — Brian (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that a fair number of recent edits have been aimed at dealing with Demographics issues raised here and further discussed on the talk page. That said, the editing has slowed somewhat, partially due to my own Wikibreak over the weekend. Will review for outstanding issues, but there seem to be a fair bit of overlap and contradiction here, so it might take a bit of effort to break out those issues that can be speedily remedied. MrZaius^talk 04:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Someone, please fix Refs #66 & #157. I am too lazy. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. MrZaius^talk 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - The map of climate zones is not very accurate. Can someone improve this graphic? Kaldari 23:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the map needs to be changed but isn't an "oppose" based on a map which I already removed from the article a bit harsh. Signature^brendel 00:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose There is no "Further Reading" here at all. You may refer to the topics of Canada or Japan. Secondly, there are too many unnecessary tables in the sections of economy, demographics (probably they are mostly out-of-date right now) that they can simply put in other topics rather than here as this topic is only the brief introduction of the US. I personally think that the section of environment should be merged into the topic of geography. Generally speaking, it is not a good topic to be promoted to the FA status. Coloane 00:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that an FA have a "Further reading" section. In fact, I actively dislike them. If something is important enough to be listed, it should have been consulted as a proper reference. — Brian (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Yes, you are right. However, good/FA topic should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" literature rather than websites. It also gives us a chance to go futher and know more if we feel interested in the topic of the US. Regards Coloane 00:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  
  Comment: There are some MOS problems with the article particularly with the formats of the references, e.g. No.1, 62, 63, 113-6, etc. Coloane 01:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: got to admit, an article about the United States of America is extremely difficult, good work to the editors of the page. Oldag07 00:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article on any country is just as hard as that of others. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 12:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine bringing Vatican City to featured status would be a little easier. CloudNine 12:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably. The problem with country articles is that there's so much to say, so it's difficult to cut stuff and put it in daughter articles. I still think the US article needs more pruning. — Brian (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Bulk carrier

(Self-nomination, more or less.) This article started as a translation of the French FA fr:Vraquier, has been stable for over a month, has been listed as a GA, has been peer-reviewed and I'm finally listing it as a FAC per Raul's suggestion. This n00b may be bitten with impunity. Haus^Talk 02:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ Support: Needs some minor edits before unconditional support:
Avoid using single sentence paras. I think the four lead paras can be summarized into 2 paras.
~~Please check the image "The Sabrina I" - the text needs fixing~~ COMMENT: Not fixed yet. Kalyan 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I originally tweaked the caption. On re-reading this concern, I tweaked the description at commons. If I'm missing the point, could you please elucidate? Haus^Talk 16:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
~~lead para: "... vary in size from small coastal trading vessels to mammoths of 365,000 tons. ..." I think that it needs to be dead-weight tons. also add the tonnage of "coastal trading vessels"~~
~~cross section photo can be moved to the left to ensure page alignment, unless someone disagrees.~~ ~~Also, the cross section photo doesn't potray the correct pic. maybe it also needs a vertical cross section for depth view~~
- I spent several minutes looking carefully at the cross-section picture, re-reading the labels, and scratching my head. I'm left with the feeling that the diagram is right, but confusing and an idea on how to make it less confusing... Haus^Talk 12:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I've aded a two-tone (sky and water) background to Image:Bulk carrier midship section-i18.svg that I think gives a needed visual clue of what the cross-section is supposed to show. Does that address your concern? Haus^Talk 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fixed now. I thought that the figure was the horizontal cross-section while it is actually a vertical cross-section. the addition of colors clarified it. consider the comment addressed.

~~"$30,000,000 for a new Handymax and $30,000,000 for a 5-year-old Handymax in 2004." - doesn't it cost more to buy a new ship?~~
- I've added 2 [sic.] notations, an explanatory footnote, and slightly expanded the citation for this assertion as per Korrigan's note below. Haus^Talk 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the term [sic.]? is there a reason why the second hand ones are more expensive. if so, please add it to the note because i am sure a lot of the people are going to be curious about it.

I added the [[[sic]]] to indicate that while the numbers look like typos, they are indeed not. I've looked around for responses to this question that I could cite, and can't find any. As it stands right now, this topic contains no WP:OR, and I'm wary of adding any... Haus^Talk 20:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kalyan 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

~~"$35,000,000 for a large new Panamax and $41,000,000 for a comparable five-year-old in 2004.[22]" - does the 5 year ship cost more than a new ship?~~
- ~~I've added 2 [sic.] notations, an explanatory footnote, and slightly expanded the citation for this assertion as per Korrigan's note below. Haus^Talk 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)~~
"This is partly due to new regulations coming into effect which put greater constraints on the building of larger vessels" - can you elaborate (a sentence or two) on these regulations
~~" ... count 6,225 bulkers ..." in the first line of "Today's fleet" section conflicts with "5,850 ships" in the infobar at the top of the page.~~
- Nice catch. That was a statistic from an earlier year. Haus^Talk 12:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
~~Panama has 1,703. How about HK, Greece, Malta and Cyprus? Please add. A suggestion - the sentence can end as ".... Hong Kong (#), Greece (#), Malta (#) and Cyprus (#).[32]"~~

I went thru the remaining sections in brief and have no major comments. Kalyan 10:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful comments! I've managed to pick off some low-hanging fruit while the coffee is working its way into my system, and expect to have most everything (double-sourcing the price statistics might take some serious leg-work) resolved in short order. Cheers. Haus^Talk 12:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I can give a few answers (I wrote the original French article) :

About the prices for a new bulk carrier, the prices are from the UNCTAD , quite a reliable organisation ! Bulk carriers are very cheap vessels (in $ per light displacement ton, I mean) compared to other types, given that they are easy to build, do not require much complicated machinery (if any) and can be assembled in blocks. (note : the documents are available here, I don't know how to insert them in footnotes with these weird en.wikipedia templates :D)
Yes, sometimes second-hand vessels can cost as much if not more than new ones, if they are not too old (5 years, say). The maritime trade is full of oddities like this one. Refer to the UNCTED document for more details...
I don't understand what is wrong with the cross-section picture ?
The full numbers of ships per flag country are available on the French page. Maybe they can be copied on the image description page ?
For the sentence "This is partly due to new regulations coming into effect which put greater constraints on the building of larger vessels", it comes from the Naval Architect article, which depicts the increasingly buggering constraints classification societies put on large vessels (which are more prone to the safety problems described further in the article) ; basically, these constraints are about increased scantlings, more frequent inspections, more QA during construction, etc. which has made the building of large units more expensive and hard. Hence the greater number of small units being built recently.

agreed. please add this explanation to the article (in a little more formal way). Kalyan 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, le Korrigan →bla 12:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the mods done, i don't see any major issues and though a couple of points remain to be addressed, i am going to change my vote on the article. i think that the article has been well presented even its original form. Kalyan 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Paragraphs are far too stubby. One or two sentences is not a paragraph. I'm afraid this needs to be improved before attaining FA. The content and depth is good. SeleneFN 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that "A typical bulker offload" diagrams are great. However, the picture sizes and dimensions should be the same throughout, and instead of typing ellipses to lead the reader from one step to the next, use numbers instead. It will look more professional that way. SeleneFN 22:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the very productive input! You've pointed out two problems that have bothered me, but I couldn't quite put my finger on. I think I've made some progress redeveloping paragraphs and hope to make more tomorrow. I also look forward to resizing the pictures as you mentioned and seeing how it looks! Cheers. Haus^Talk 02:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Your suggestions for reformatting the diagram sequence worked like a charm. I think it looks much better now! I've made about 50 edits since your comment, most of which geared towards making the paragraphs less stubby. In some cases I combined paragraphs, in others I added info, and I moved a few into footnotes. A few paragraphs remain that could be called stubby, including the last paragraph of the lead and statistically-oriented parts of the Today's fleet section. These are proving very resistant to my destubification efforts. Any suggestions would be quite welcome! Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Great work! I like your changes for the sequence a lot! A lot of paragraphs look longer and more like real paragraphs. I have some copyediting comments. I'll continue tomorrow but here's what I saw so far:

1) "Various methods have been used to define bulk carriers." - change to "There are various ways to define bulk carriers" Y Done
2) Grammar: VLBC and ULBC, are used for very large and ultra large bulk carrier, are adaptations of the VLCC and ULCC designations used for tankers.

I split this to 2 sentences. It feels smoother now.

3) "the double bottom, which was adopted in 1890, and ~~the triangular structure of the ballast or~~ hopper tanks, which was introduced in 1905."
4) No paragraph break between "... introduced in 1905" and "In the 1950..."
5) "This trade motivated the development of specialized ships~~, and, due to economies of scale,~~ and ~~an appreciable increase in size~~ increased carrying capacity" (or somethign similar)
- How's this: "Due to the economics of this trade, bulkers became larger and more specialized."
6)Why is the paragraph "Before the appearance of bulk carriers..." placed last in this section. Perhaps it should be first.
7) change to semicolon "...phosphate were transported in bulk; in addition, 703 million tons of steel,..." Y Done
8) "As of 2005, bulkers represented 40% of the world fleet in terms of tonnage[17] and 39.4% in terms of vessels." should be placed AFTER the paragraph "In early 2004,..." to improve flow.

I went a slightly different way with this. The first fact is more general and the second is more specific. Since the statistics are only a couple of years old, and are the most recent ones available, I've changed it from "As of 2005, bulkers represented" → "Bulkers represent." How's that?

9) "Ore carriers, numbering 157, were also a significant portion of the whole, with a capacity of 20.7 million tons. 101 bulk carriers with a capacity of 3.3 million tons operated on the Great Lakes." Sounds strange, possibly because it is too specific. "number 157" is an awkward way to speak of numbers, but "were also a significant portion of the whole" is even more awkward. Sentences should not start with numbers like "101 bulk carriers..."

How's this: "Ore carriers are the second largest sub-class, with 157 ships and a capacity of 20.7 million tons. The Great Lakes bulker fleet includes 101 ships with a capacity of 3.3 million tons."

10) The paragraph "A study in 2006..." should start off with a lead-in sentence to comment on the world's aging bulk carrier fleet before jumping into numbers. It prepares the reader for what they are about to read.
11) "They are designed to be flexible with respect to the cargoes they can carry and the routes they can travel." change to "There is flexibility in the cargo-type they can carry and they can be adapted to travel different routes" (or something similar)
12) "Combined carriers can carry ore and bulk ~~at the same time~~ simultaneously, and ~~sometimes~~ even oil in the wing tanks."

How's this: "and bulk simultaneously, and may carry oil"? (It's possible to have a C/C that doesn't carry oil in the wing tanks.)

13) "These ships are often so large that they can only call at the largest, most advanced ports" change to "Due to their large size, they can only dock at the largest and most advanced ports..." Y Done
14) "Often an economic choice, these ships avoid the initial, maintenance, and operation costs of cranes." change to "These ships are economical because they avoid the initial cost of cranes and their maintenance." SeleneFN 06:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I played with this sentence for a while. How's this: "The use of gearless bulkers avoids the costs of installing, operating, and maintaining cranes."?

Thanks again for the great comments, SeleneFN. I managed to tick off a few of the items, but must focus on real life for a few hours. I hope to finish ticking off this list tonight. Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

More copyediting comments (once the copyediting is done I think it is definitely FA worthy!): SeleneFN 05:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

15) There is redundancy in "A number of companies have large private fleets" because "company" already implies "private." Writing "There are a number of large private fleets" should suffice. Y Done
16) The "mini-bulker" fleet paragraph can be joined with the previous paragraph.Y Done
17) What is the meaning of "Asian concerns"? Use plain language please. Y Done (Changed to companies.)
18) Why is the "Crew" section in future tense? I believe present tense should be used.
19) "On the smallest ships, one can find a crew of eight" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. You can actually combine it with the previous sentence: "The crew on a typical bulker involves 20 to 30 people, though smaller ships can be handled by 8." This also eliminates the redundancy in "number from 20 to 30 people", since "20 to 30" is already a "number" Y Done
20) ~~"The very largest will have approximately 36."~~ A bit too specific don't you think? Y Done (Removed sentence.)
21) "Self-discharging ships also use conveyor belts~~, and have~~with load rates of around 1000 tons per hour."Y Done
22) The paragraph "Once the ship has discharged its cargo, the crew begins..." should be joined with the previous
23) "~~arduous task~~" POV. "crew begins to clean the holds..." should do. Y Done
24) "...extra precautions are taken, ~~like~~ such as adding..." Y Done
25) "tomming is used~~. Tomming~~ , which involves digging out an area directly below the hatch cover to a depth of about 6 feet, and re-filling this area with bagged cargo or weights.[53]" Y Done
26) "A bulk carrier's design depends greatly on ~~what~~ the cargo it will carry , and ~~in particular the density of that cargo~~ particularly its density"

Here's what I ended up with: "A bulk carrier's design depends greatly on the cargo it will carry. The cargo's density is particularly important. Densities for common..."

27) "For example, ore carriers are weight-limited due to the high density of ore, while coal carriers are volume-limited because its cargo will fill the holds before the ship reaches its maximum draught" Y Done Split to 2 sentences and reworded for clarity.
28) "For a given tonnage, the second factor which governs the ship's dimensions is the size of the ports and waterways it will travel to ~~will visit and waterways it will travel~~. For example, a vessel that will ~~engage in trade via~~pass the Panama Canal will be limited ..."Y Done

I hope you don't mind -- I added numbers to your bullet points to help me manage my progress. Haus^Talk 13:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Great work on making the changes so far! I really enjoyed reading this article even if all the actionable opposes I wrote haven't been entirely addressed yet. SeleneFN 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Conditional upon the above changes being made plus a few more below.

The caption starts to the right of the picture in my browser. I suggest adding a break to compensate. Y Done (I added a br to the Infobox template after photo and before the caption text. On the Bulk carrier page, the br is right before the text "The Sabrina I.")
Most of your pictures do a fabulous job of illustrating the different types of ships, but those that are not in the charts should comply with WP:MoS#Images: they need to stick to the default size, not be manually sized.Y Done Very good point.
I'd like to see no citations in the lead since everything in the lead should be expanded upon in the body of the article.
Several sentences with very specific claims appear to be unreferenced. Please be sure that everything is covered. Examples:

"Then the loose grain was loaded with a conveyor, pneumatic tube or grabs, while men with shovels kept the cargo trimmed. These methods were time consuming, labor intensive and inefficient. Like the container ship, the modern bulker has evolved to solve the problem of loading and unloading cargo efficiently."
""Pure bulkers" made up the clear majority, with 5,632 ships and a capacity of 279.2 million tons. Ore carriers are the second largest sub-class, with 157 ships and a capacity of 20.7 million tons. The Great Lakes bulker fleet includes 101 ships with a capacity of 3.3 million tons"

The "size categories" section doesn't make sense with the given percentages since they total to 100% without Small ships. I recommend deleting the column altogether since the percentages cannot be determined otherwise.
Overdone references on #47. The same reference over and over can be simply put at the end of the paragraph. Instead of blah blah blah.^[1] blah blah blah.^[1] blah blah blah.^[1] simply put blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah.^[1]

— BQZip01 — ^talk 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent catch on the template bug and very good point about WP:MoS#Images. I'm hesitant to remove references, but will try to overcome that hesitancy today. Regarding your point about Small ships and lack of data, I wonder if moving the Small category out of the table might be a better solution? Cheers. Haus^Talk 11:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall, nice improvements, but the pictures in the "Examples of bulker architectural plans" section appear to be cut off. In addition, removal of the small ships would suffice. You could simply note that there are many minor ships. Keep up the good work! — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Support; it's a fine article, and all my peer review comments have been addressed. Laïka 15:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Opppose
- "Today's fleet" discusses, for example, the fleet as of 2005, which isn't "today"; can a better name be found for that section?
- Under architecture, why two separate sections discussing the hull?
- Is Size : 10 - 364,000 DWT intended to mean 10 to 364,000? Then it would be an endash, per WP:DASH.
- Per WP:MOSBOLD, synonyms and acronyms should be bolded in the first paragraph only; there is some random bolding in the Definition section.
- (Up to this point, I was only at Comments, but swithced to Oppose when I saw ... ) There are numerous external jumps in the text. Wikipedia is not a blog or a collection of links; external jumps should either be converted to references, included in External links (although that doesn't seem the best solution in this case) or wikified via articles about the external jump when warranted (that is, when notable). Some of them could be stubs, if notable.
- Ce needs: Representative freight charges for transporting a Capesize load of coal from South America to Europe in 2005 was $15–25/ton in 2005.
- Undefined terms (IACS ??)
- Wikilinking needs (Lloyd's Register)
All of the above are samples only of issues that should be addressed throughout the text; a thorough run-through and ce is in order. (Nice referencing work!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment
- On June 5 I suffered a catastrophe that has left me largely internetless and unable to continue work at Wikipedia at my previous pace. I expect to be back in the game in July. (I would have removed this article from the FAC page, but have some concern that would be a breach of etiquette.) Thanks again for all the useful comments and I look forward to implementing them when things get back to normal. Cheers. Haus^Talk 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a and subprofessional formatting, breaching the opening requirement of the criteria, in the linking of trivial dictionary words, such as cereals, coal, ore, cement, capsize, seawater—it goes on and on. Needs a good copy-edit throughout. Here are just a few things from the start.
- "Bulkers", as a nickname, should be in quotes on its first appearance.
- Comma required after "shifting", or you've got a subset, against the intended meaning. The whole thing needs auditing for commas (mostly missing ones).
- "the Safety of Life at Sea convention"—shouldn't have to hit the link to find out the year.
- "Some consider tankers, like oil and chemical tankers as carriers of liquid bulk cargo." Some what? Missing comma. Tony 08:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Tompkins Square Park Police Riot

(self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 15:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
*Strong Oppose I dont think this article is anywhere near the featured article status, I think it could qualify for the good article status but certainly not FA, also; may I remind you that you do not own the article per the section header of this comment. Kindest Regards — The Sunshine Man 19:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

- It would be helpful since you feel so strongly to give some reasons for why you are strongly opposed. And I don't need to be reminded of WP:OWN - I think that's an unnecessary comment for a "self-nomination" article. --David Shankbone 19:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  - It doesn't matter if it's a self-nomination, that does not automatically make the article yours, or allow such claims. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    - This is really far too much consideration and attention paid to casual wording that was not meant to show WP:OWN - let's assume a little good faith, shall we? I don't treat the article as if I WP:OWN so let's assume I don't think, as a very accomplished editor well familiar with Wiki guidelines, that I own it. Look at actions, fellas, and not a one word indictment. Thanks. --David Shankbone 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

DONE' re See also section. --David Shankbone 14:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Question - I've added four new sources - Two Newsday articles, a Los Angeles Times synopsis on the report recommendations, and a Washington Post Koch quote. Is this sufficient? --David Shankbone 14:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments The see also section needs work. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, which recommends links not be repeated in the "see also" section when they are already included elsewhere in the article. Also, I think referencing can be improved. For example, "The Civilian Complaint Review Board recommended the officers be charged, and Commissioner Ward endorsed the recommendations." is not cited. The number of references (11 different newspaper articles) used in the article may also be insufficient. The article may benefit from additional references, from more diverse sources. [7] [8] I may be able to offer some help in this regard. Also, in the future, I don't recommend canvassing user talk pages with the FAC. --Aude (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would agree on the more diverse sources angle. The article is certainly better than a GA, but not quite at an FA yet I don't think. I'd agree on cutting down the 'see also' section slightly. I've made a few minor alterations, feel free to revert them. Maybe a map of the immediate area would be good? - Francis Tyers · 21:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Good suggestions, all. --David Shankbone 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Tompkins Square Park was also the location of another riot on January 13, 1874. [9] [10] [11] Thus, the year needs to be included somewhere in the article title, and disambiguation is needed. --Aude (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that necessary since this is a Police riot where the other was a labor riot (I believe)? There also isn't an article for the 1874 riot, and there were a few other riots as well in the park. Do we disambiguate when no other articles exist? --David Shankbone 20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, is disambiguation and separate article creation necessary for FA for this article?--David Shankbone 20:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is necessary, and not that difficult to do. The 1874 riot involved police suppressing a labor demonstration, which equally fits the definition of Police riot as the 1988 riot. Also, some users may just search "Tompkins Square Riot" or something similar without the year. Disambiguation would help users. And, yes we now do have an article about the 1874 riot - Tompkins Square Riot (1874) --Aude (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that you created it. Kudos to you. So should we call in Tompkins Square Park Police Riot (1988) - I think 1874 it was not yet a park, just a square. --David Shankbone 20:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Tompkins Square Riot" is the specific wording that came up most often in book and other searches for the 1874 riot, though it also brings up results for the 1988 riot. The title for the 1988 riot looks good. What do you think the disambiguation page be called, Tompkins Square Park Riot, Tompkins Square Park Police Riot, Tompkins Square Police Riot, or Tompkins Square Riot? I think Tompkins Square Riot would work, since searching that specific term brings up the most results on Google web and book searches. The other redlinks can be redirects. --Aude (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Tompkins Square Riot with REDIRECTS to that page for the other titles you mention. What do you think? --David Shankbone 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That will work. --Aude (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, maybe the main page should be plural, Tompkins Square Riots?--David Shankbone 21:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds right. --Aude (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

DONE - Disambiguation and page move --David Shankbone 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The references section is quite unorthodox. Either have the full citation in separate bullet points and use MLA citation in the notes, or go all the way with each note. There are a couple linked years (which shouldn't be), and the August 6 heading link is a violation of MoS. Also, it doesn't really matter, but without a navbox I get the feeling this is a rather dead-end/lonely article. ALTON .ıl 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- DONE --David Shankbone 14:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Originally when I wrote it, I used legal citation. Links aren't a problem to remove. Navbox - not sure what would be appropriate, but open to suggestion. --David Shankbone 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do we have a Riot box? or Infobox Riot? Should one be created? - Francis Tyers · 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose - The article reads very much like a newspaper/journal story, and I weakly suspect it might have just been copied from somewhere. Examples of journalistic style (emphasis mine, to illustrate the point):
- The police attempted to enforce a newly-passed 01:00 curfew for the park, which had been all but taken over by the homeless, drug dealers, addicts and youthful followers of punk rock music.
- The police were there to meet the protesters. "It's time to bring a little law and order back to the park and restore it to the legitimate members of the community," said Captain McNamara. He dismissed questions about the seemingly excessive police numbers. "We don't want to get into a situation where we under-police something like this and it turns into a fiasco."
- During a lull in the riot, a young officer on Patterson's video appealed for understanding from the protesters. He tried to calmly tell them how unhappy the police were with the assignment and its aftermath. "We've got cops back there in ambulances who've been hit." But the lull ended. Thirty to seventy protesters re-entered the park. A witness said the mob rammed a police barricade through the glass door of the Christodora House, a high-rise luxury building on Avenue B.
- etc, etc. -- infinity0 11:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Wait, you strongly oppose because you think I plagiarized?! How in the world is this good faith? Seems like bad faith to me. Pull the articles, if you must. That's why they are cited. And some of your emphasis is with direct quotes. Yes, I did not re-word quotes. It's bizarre to use a line of reasoning that boils down to, "he writes like a journalist, so he must be violating copyright." --David Shankbone 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    - You misunderstand me, I strongly oppose because the style of the article sounds like a news story, ie. unencylopedic. The copying thing is a side issue which like I said, has a small chance of being true. -- infinity0 14:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      - I don't understand how journalistic, "Just the facts" style is unencyclopedic. Can you please point to me some style guide that points out the differences? How else does an encyclopedia entry on an historical event read?--David Shankbone 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        Take a look at École Polytechnique massacre, a recently promoted FA. Again, I think the key thing that will help bring the article to where it needs to be is more (diverse) sources. Newspaper articles don't necessarily give a historic perspective, but are talking about the event as news (here and now) with the many quotes. Additional sources can help change the tone. --Aude (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunate but firm oppose. I wanted to write "support" to counter the quibbles over article naming, "WP:OWN", and "copyvio", but I cannot because:
- The lead does not summarise the article well (almost all of it covers only the action before and during the riot).
  - DONE --David Shankbone 16:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- "a newly-passed 01:00 curfew" - in the lead, I'd rather not be so specific as to mention the curfew's timing, and the time is mis-formatted per WP:MOSDATE.
  - Since the curfew's time was the sticking point, it seems appropriate for the lead. It was essentially the match that lit the fire. I don't think it's a big issue one way or another, but let me know if you think this is a major sticking point. --David Shankbone 16:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- "rally called for July 31st", "another rally for August 6th" - inconsistent date formatting. Per MOSDATE dates consisting of day and month should be wikilinked, with no prefix after the day.
  - DONE --David Shankbone 16:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    - I suggest not using the green check marks. Some people find them annoying. --Aude (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      - Strikeout, then? If not that, there should be some way to determine when things have been completed. --David Shankbone 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        Simply just saying "Done" or Done works. Don't strike out anything, but instead allow the reviewer to do that. Even that's not entirely necessary, because User:Raul654 will look to see if things are done. --Aude (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        I suppose a bolded Done works just as well. --David Shankbone 17:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- 'Captain McNamara countered, "We did everything in our power not to provoke an incident. They didn't charge the crowd until the bricks and bottles started flying."' - unsourced quotation.
- "New York Times photographer Angel Franco saw the police beat a couple who emerged from a grocery store. As he tried to take photographs, an officer clubbed Franco." - Franco was trying to take photographs of the assault on the couple, right? If so, these sentences should be linked with a semicolon.
- "the riot became a cause to reflect on the negative aspects of his record" - "became a cause" is rather awkward. I cannot think of a way to rework this without introducing weasels, and the rest of the paragraph wouldn't hurt if you just dropped this part of the sentence.
- "and they're standing in the street screaming Kill the pigs!" - misapplication of italics per WP:ITALICS. Please replace the italics with a pair of single quotes.

Overall a good look into a fascinating incident in NY's history, but these serious problems linger. Resurgent insurgent 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

- - Thanks for this. These are exactly the sort of concrete examples I had hoped to received to improve the article. Most editors are providing these; however, some just appear to have a problem with the topic and the reality (after all, the police commissioner himself admitted the police were responsible for the riot, the press agreed, and so did the public and the evidence from that night--I guess for some the very notion doesn't sit well). But giving these sorts of specific examples will not only help me in knowing how to improve this article, but future articles. I appreciate the time and consideration you paid. --David Shankbone 14:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Support, David is an excellent writer and I believe that he will clear up all of the minor niks mentioned above before this consensus ends. Tony the Marine 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: Sunday I plan to turn my attention (and Lexis account) on this article to make some of the suggested improvements (FYI). --David Shankbone 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wow! Good to see that user gone, at least for a while. Anyway, as promised, I'm willing to help some with the article (with some sources not available on Google), but also want to see what you can do with it. I think you should be fine in addressing much of the concerns. --Aude (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Support - I cannot comment on the compelling nature of the prose, as I am useless with that a kind of thing, but having now fixed the references and the lead, I think this article is good to pass as long as the sentence 'Captain McNamara countered, "We did everything in our power not to provoke an incident. They didn't charge the crowd until the bricks and bottles started flying."' is referenced. DevAlt 14:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: - Glad to see some of the earlier quibbles have died down, and that this nomination is being considered on its merits. I looked at the article when it was a GA candidate, and am happy to see it continue to improve. My only concern is this: I think the lead needs a complete rewrite. I think my opinion is somewhat in line with Resurgent's suggestion that the "1am" item be removed from the lead, and also with the "journalistic vs. encyclopedic" question. Essentially, the lead should be more of an overview of the historical significance of the event: why is it famous, why is it notable, what values clashed to instigate the riot, etc. There is plenty of room for a timeline elsewhere in the article; the lead should be written more along the lines of "Neighbors of the park, regarding the political activists and homeless people who increasingly congregated there as a nuisance, pressured the police to impose a curfew. When the police attempted to enforce the curfew, riots ensued, lasting for several days." (Note: I doubt my sentence is accurate, I include it only for a sample of the tone I think the lead should adopt.) Basically, including too many timeline details, before establishing a foundation of what was at stake, makes the article less readable. -Pete 21:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, problems with 2, 1a, 1c, possibly 1d.
- WP:MOSNUM on dates, month-day combos and full dates are wikilinked.
- WP:MSH, headings
- Protest as a See also ?
- No consistent style used in formatting references, no idea which style is supposedly employed. See WP:CITE/ES or you could consider using the cite templates if you don't have a preferred style or know how to format refs.
- Problems with wikilinking. See WP:MOS and WP:CONTEXT. Common terms are not linked, terms relevant to the article should be linked on the first occurrence only. Tompkins Square Park is re-linked in the last section, while common terms like beer and riot are also linked. These are samples only; the entire text should be fixed.
- Define acronyms the first time they are used: ... and the New York Police Department (NYPD) for their candor in a report that confirmed what ubiquitous media images made clear: the NYPD were responsible for inciting a riot. (fix throughout)
- Awkward prose: the first sentence in the article body dives into undefined History. Since the Tompkins Square Riot of 1874, the park has been a symbolic place for the New York labor movement. The section is labeled "Background" (not a particularly encyclopedic heading), but doesn't give background on that event.
- Redundant prose, sample: Contingents of the homeless and rowdy youth had nearly taken over the park, but the neighborhood was divided about what should be done, if anything.
- the park used throughout, should it be capitalized?
- Though the park had already become a de facto homeless shelter and the general public virtually barred from using the park by anarchists supporting the rights of these homeless, ... Is "anarchists" the word used in the source? Please provide quote.
- What is this date formatting in this source? ^ The Villager, Leftöver Crack fires up punks, August 9 August 15, 2006.
- "ripped open old wounds about brutality"? Doesn't seem like encyclopedic prose, and doesn't seem neutral. Are those the exact words used in the source? Please provide quote.
- 150 or 200 (police estimates were 700) (which is it according to the source? Please provide quote).
- The police were there to meet the protesters. (What does this sentence add?)
- Although bottles reportedly flew, it was the police who charged the crowd. (according to whom?) Attribution is needed on statements like this, and others.
The informal prose and unencyclopedic tone is a concern, as well as the MOS and formatting issues and the need for a copyedit. The article doesn't appear to have a neutral, encyclopedic tone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional neutrality concern about article title: should it be "Police Riot" or just "riots"? And why is Police Riot capitalized? Is there a well-sourced justification for referring to the police action as a "Riot", in the title no less? This article needs to be seriously reviewed for neutrality, considering some of the responses below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

- Switching to Strong Oppose after purchasing the NYT articles. The NYT does not use the word "anarchist", so that appears to be POV inserted by the author. A lot of this article is just a re-phrasing of the main NYT article used to source the article. The NYT article says, for example:
  - Moreover, the handful of groups that each claim to represent the community's true interests have bickered over how to handle the park. A group called Friends of Tompkins Square Park favored a laissez-faire approach, while the Avenue A Block Association demanded a curfew. Community Board 3 took the middle ground, while political organizers on the poorer east side of the park favored protest aimed at keeping it open.
- This article says:
  - A volunteer group, Friends of Tompkins Square Park, did not mind the park in this state. However, the Avenue A Block Association, comprised of local businesses, insisted on a curfew to evict the squatters in the park. Manhattan Community Board 3 tried to take the middle ground, but political organizers for the poor favored protest to keep it open all night.
- The NYT says:
  - At the board's meeting June 28, members approved a report which included a recommendation for a 1 A.M. curfew. Some now complain that it was passed with little discussion and without awareness by some members that the park would actually be closed. But Martha Danziger, the board manager, said the decision was unequivocal. Days after the vote, parks workers painted a warning on the ground: Tompkins Square would close at 1 A.M. On July 11, a contingent of Ninth Precinct police evicted all but the homeless, whom they confined to the southeast quadrant. The park was closed periodically over the next two weeks. The actions were directed by Capt. Gerald F. McNamara, who some residents say gave the noise problem a higher priority than his predecessors had.
- This article says:
  - In a binding vote, the board's members approved a report on the park that recommended a 1 a.m. curfew on June 28, 1988. Some residents complained that it was passed with little discussion and that some board members were not aware that the park would be closed. But board manager Martha Danziger said the decision was explicit for all. On July 11, police evicted all but the homeless, whom they confined to the southeast corner, and then closed the park down periodically over the next two weeks. This was accomplished under the direction of Captain Gerald McNamara, the commander of the 9th Precinct.[7]
- The article is used to source the 700 protestors number, but doesn't mention the 700 number.
Problem with simply re-telling the NYT story in unencyclopedic tone, with sourcing problems and possible POV insertions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, first I very much appreciate the time and effort you put into reading and researching the article. It was a big a help. A few issues, though:

WP:MOSNUM - "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present." Where is this not done in the article?
Headings - what do you suggest?

One issue I have with your suggestions is that they are pedantic, for instance, the wiki-linking and begin to read like my high school composition teacher correcting a paper. Instead of expending keystrokes telling me to de-wikify beer (which I didn't wikify), just de-wikify it and collaborate. Many of the minor things would have been better undertaken by you (I don't WP:OWN the article) than telling me to do them. Again, I appreciate the effort, but this article belongs to all of us and I have no vested interest or movie rights in seeing it promoted, except for a sense of satisfaction. Back to addressing your issues:

"Anarchists" - I didn't use this terms, some IP did.
Providing sources for some of the estimates is fine, but I also didn't want to over-cite. I can go back into Lexis and look for the police estimates and link to the number if you feel this important. I didn't originally cite it because I didn't think it was a particularly contentious issue.
What sentences add, etc. is more something that you should be bold in changing if you don't care for them, instead of hashing out minutia here.
Lastly, the similarities between the New York Times articles and TSP article: There are only so many ways to re-state facts. It is not "re-telling the NYT story" but re-stating the facts that they reported. If you have suggestions, or want to take a crack at creative prose that re-states a factual statement, such as "The park was closed periodically over the next two weeks. The actions were directed by Capt. Gerald F. McNamara, who some residents say gave the noise problem a higher priority than his predecessors had" then I welcome the lesson in how it is done.

Since you own the NYT Article, you are now one of the better people to make some of these changes that you suggest and recommend. I have no problem working on this piece with you, but as was pointed out at the beginning of the thread, I don't WP:OWN the article and thus I shouldn't be expected to be the only one working to improve it, and many of your suggestions revolve around minutia best handled by the person who spots it, rather than telling someone else to do it, in my opinion. I don't mean that to sound harsh, but I feel a little weighed down by so many pedantic suggestions. To be honest, if trying to bring an article to FA status entails my needing to be told to dot every i, and cross every t, then this will be my last. --David Shankbone 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think SandyGeorgia raises some important points, and I'm going to do some work on addressing them. I don't think SG intended to call DSB out as having repackaged content with any intent to deceive, but speaking for myself, it's quite clear to me that DSB's desire has been to create a comprehensive article from the beginning. It takes work to retell a story effectively, and clearly there is more work here to be done; but that's why FA is such a valuable process. I'll be back soon to work more on this…off to an appointment now. -Pete 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Followup comment: SandyGeorgia, since you have the complete NYT article and I don't, if you have time to do any double-checking of my rewrites, it would be much appreciated. I'm gonna work on it now. -Pete 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In editing the "Background" section, I tried to balance three concerns:

keeping the article too close to the NYT article would violate copyright.
changing the text too much compromises its accuracy.
an encyclopedia should give more of a "bird's eye view"; details that may have been politically relevant in 1988 may have no relevance to a historical overview.

Anybody who's following, please take a look and see if I've managed to balance these concerns adequately. If so, I will try to take on some other sections…I suppose I may need to buy the relevant articles myself, but it seems worth it for a few bucks. -Pete 03:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The entire article is one-sided. Even though the police actions were over the top, the protestors were not innocent. Yet the article doesn't mention anyone condemning the actions of the protestors. The article also contains too many unsourced POV sentences like "Contingents of the homeless and rowdy youth had nearly taken over the park" and "Though the park had already become a de facto homeless shelter and the general public virtually barred from using the park by anarchists supporting the rights of these homeless, some residents considered it an attempt to take the park away from the public" and "A neighborhood divided over their feelings about police were united against their aggression." Finally, what was the long-term effect of the riot? Did the neighborhood gentrify? Is the park now used by families or still controlled by the homeless and drug addicts? If the park and community has changed, how and why? Instead of putting the riot into perspective, the article merely closes with the short sections on music and the anniversary concerts. But I know there was a long-term reaction to the riots b/c the article Tompkins Square Park mentions the park was closed for a year after the riots and that "Increasing gentrification in the East Village during the 1990s and 2000s, as well as enforcement of a park curfew and the eviction of homeless people, have changed the character of Tompkins Square Park." Yet this article fails to mention this and fails to place the riots into any historic perspective. --Alabamaboy 13:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, though it's fixable (but not within the context of this nomination). I was going to write a long critique here, since I printed it out and went through it with a red pen and found myself using it a lot. Alabamaboy has said many of the same things I was going to, most notably that this just leaves you hanging as to what the long term legacy of the riots were other than a concert a couple of years ago, as well as the residual POV from the source material (there is an attempt to be fair to the police, but phrasing like "what ubiquitous media images made clear" still smacks of an agenda (as well as being inherently subjective ... ubiquitous? to whom? Made clear? To whom?). I would also cite an intro that starts out OK, suddenly gets too detailed and then realizes where it's going and tries to get back in line. Also missing until way too far down, as Alabamaboy is also pointing out, is a context ... we read all the time about Tompkins Square Park being important to the homeless and the down-and-out, but only near the end is it made clear that this was seen by the protesters in the context of the increasing gentrification of Manhattan at the time (It's also not a clear connection to jump from the 1874 riots to the 1980s so swiftly).
Sticking out as well are sentences like "those on the verge of imminent collapse". From what? Was the park some sort of treatment center for heat exhaustion? It could be argued based on that sentence that the New York City Marathon finished there. I also want to see the litany of Benjamin Ward's troubles prior to the riot gone before I vote in favor ... it belongs in the article about him, not here, and this one can just generally allude to them without going into specifics.

David, I do have a list of specific examples besides these, but I will put it on the talk page (not right now; when I have the time) since I believe that's a better place for them. Daniel Case 03:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—2 (Manual of style issues), 1a (prose).
- MOS says space the en dash between full dates.
- Reference 1: alphabet soup of inconsistent upper- and lower-case initials in the title. Check through all references for this.
- "Over 100 complaints of police brutality [the community was upset]"—well, it might have ended this way, so use "More than 100 ...".
- "ubiquitous media images"—It's not an overstatement, is it?
- "the park was a gathering place for scores of drunken rock fans and their boisterous street parties"—street parties gather?
- "The Avenue A Block Association (comprised of local businesses) demanded a curfew"—As DCGeist recently taught me, "composed of".
- "preferred that curfew be imposed; and Manhattan Community Board 3 tried to take the middle ground"—a curfew? And they didn't take the middle ground, they just tried to do so?

These are random examples from the top that indicate the need for a full copy-edit. I like the article, but it's not ready for promotion until the writing glistens. Tony 08:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Ronald Reagan

previous FAC

Ronald Reagan has come a long way since its last FAC. The prose is much more compelling and brilliant, it fits all of the FA criteria, has proper images placed throughout, and is neutral. I urge you to support Reagan's FA candidacy, for this article is ready. Happyme22 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments
- The first two paragraphs of the "Second term, 1985–1989" section could use some cites. January 21, 1985 was sure a cold day, but I don't believe it was the coldest on record in Washington, D.C. I'm quite sure the coldest temperature was recorded on February 11, 1899.
- Cites needed for "Reagan's foreign policies were criticized variously as aggressive, imperialistic, and were derided as "warmongering".[citation needed] Critics denounced his opposition to Fidel Castro's government in Cuba and claimed that he was ignoring human rights around the World.[105][verification needed]" in "The Cold War" section.
- Section on Reagan's death could use more cites. (e.g. "In the thirty-four hours that it lay there, 105,000 people filed past the coffin, paying their respects.") These cites may be in the subarticle, but wouldn't hurt to include cites in the main article for details like this. Also, for the attendees.
- The section on "Alzheimer's disease" seems to focus too much on his 90th birthday, and not give enough discussion of Alzheimer's. For example, how Nancy Reagan became an advocate for stem-cell research, which she feels has some promise for Alzheimer's treatments/cures. Also, his impact on increasing awareness of the disease, etc.
- Overall, the article looks good (well-written, well-referenced, etc), but with a few things that ought to be addressed. --Aude (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Thanks so much for your comments. Happyme22 14:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't see why we need the unfree image Image:AP04061107162.jpg, especially when there's this free one. ShadowHalo 12:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Four unfree images in an article about a U.S. president is bad. This is completely decorative. What does this tell us about his religious beliefs and philosophy? That he thinks cake and kissing are important? I'm also skeptical about using Image:REAGANLIBRARY94.jpg this; surely Ronald Reagan Presidential Library has added some public domain picture of him since 1994. ShadowHalo 12:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the one pic about the Reagans at the Reagan Library cannot be found at the Reagan library website, nor anywhere in the LOC or NARA. I will continue looking for free use pictures, but ones of Reagan in his later years are rare. I also disagree that the one of President Reagan in 1996 is completley decorative. It shows Ronald Reagan in his later years, and pictures like that are pretty hard to come by. I think it should stay, as well as the ones of the Reagan's on their wedding anniverary (which is one of, if not the, last known pictures of Ronald Reagan, because his Alzheimer's progressed). The stamp ceremony one might actually be free use now that I think about it, because it came from the USPS, a government agency. Again, thank you for your comments, and I will work to address some of the issues. Happyme22 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  - The USPS is not quite a government agency, but is an "independent establishment of the executive branch". Look on their website. There is a copyright notice at the bottom, and the website is .com not .gov The stamp ceremony image is definitely not free use, and I don't think it's necessary in the article. The photo from his funeral is replaceable. --Aude (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Well I checked the source of the stamp pic, and it said that it was taken by a member of the USPS, and you say that's not free use, huh? Dang... I think that some sort of photo should go where the blank space is next to the chart/data table in the "Legacy" section, however -- one that deals with his legacy, and I think this is a good photo. I replaced the Image:REAGANLIBRARY94.jpg with a pic of Reagan presenting the first ever Ronald Reagan Freedom Award to Mikhail Gorbachev at the Reagan Library in 1992 which is a free use PD pic. I also swapped a fair use with a free use in the "Death" section, leaving 3 fair use pics in the article. Happyme22 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      - I think the article could do without the stamp pic. Just make the right align the table, which would also eliminate the white space. As for the funeral picture in the article now, the licensing is not correct. The source is a high school, which in turn credits the photo to AP Photo/Bryan Chan, Pool. Fair use photos are especially not allowed on Commons, so it will be deleted. In the article, there is a link to commons:Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan which has plenty of acceptable images to select from. --Aude (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        There are now two fair use photos in the article. Happyme22 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The article still reads as a Reagan hagiography. And the reaganomics section lacks references to authoritative peer-reviewed journals.--BMF81 10:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Hagiography" without examples is not an actionable objection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  - But it could potentially mean its POV, right? — Wackymacs 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Not without an example. Happyme22 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
- Prose should be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." - Far from that standard in my opinion. e.g. "Reagan was originally a Democrat, a supporter of the New Deal, and an admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and in the late 1940s, Reagan was a visible speaker defending President Harry S Truman, but his political loyalties soon shifted to the Republican Party"
- Spelling mistakes - that should be the first thing an editor checks before nominating.
- "Thanks in large part to the enthusiastic Republican campaign and Reagan's coattails, twelve Democrats were defeated in Senate races" - Coat tails is a hard concept to prove, so it suprises me that we are invoking it - especially so since we are doing it without any references.
- '"Reaganomics" and the economy' has some extremely clumbsy sentences. Further, there does not seem to be a logical structure - for example the overall record of Reagan is described in several places. It should describe the state of the economy when he was sworn in, the major policy changes he enacted, negative effects, positive effects and finally a sample of judgements of his overall economic performance from suitable sources.
- "Both his Supreme Court nominations and his lower court appointments were in line with Reagan's philosophy that judges should interpret law as enacted and not "legislate from the bench". By the end of the 1980s, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court had put an end to the perceived "activist" trend begun under the leadership of Earl Warren. Critics pointed out that the conservative justices were equally activist, but showed sympathy to corporate America" is an incredibly simplistic summary of judicial activism and there is no citation that Reagan appointments "put an end" to it.
- "Reagan's administration was also criticized for their slow response to the HIV-AIDS epidemic, until the illness of movie star and national icon Rock Hudson became public news in July 1985, by which time over 10,000 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS, and over 6,000 had died" - Another clumbsy sentence. Also, what point is being made here? So Reagan is responsible for every AIDS diagnosis including those made before he was even president? What effect did Rock Hudson have on policy?
- I have corrected/removed several statements in the Cold War section that made no sense.
- I'm just scratching the surface here. These problems are from a very quick glance. Mark83 19:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for your comments. I have addressed a few of them, but could you please provide an example of a "clumsy sentence" in the Reaganomics section? It would only help us to fix the problem. Happyme22 22:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You've made some changes, I think it looks better. The first sentence still bugs me (I don't know if I am right) "When Ronald Reagan entered office, the American economy faced the highest rate of inflation since 1947 and double-digit unemployment, as well as high interest rates, were considered the nation's principal economic problems." It just doesn't read right to me. What about "When Ronald Reagan entered office, the American economy faced the highest rate of inflation since 1947 and double-digit unemployment. Those, along with high interest rates, were considered the nation's principal economic problems." Mark83 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

About the removal of the Supreme Court paragraph - I think it should be included, but should be cited and should be more analytical. Though better out of the article until corrected. Mark83 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I kind of like how your sentence reads also. I'm going to replace the sentence. I also agree with you on the Supreme Court paragraph. Anything else you can think of that could use some work? Happyme22 00:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

:Comment - In 1920, when "Dutch" was nine years old.. this introduces the nickname which I suppose is Reagans but is not mentioned previously. I'm Australian and have never heard this name. I think an explanation just before this would make the prose run better. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Midwestern "small universe" made a lasting impression on Reagan "where I learned standards and values that would guide me the rest of my life," he said. "I learned that hard work is an essential part of life – that by and large, you don't get something for nothing – and that America was a place that offered unlimited opportunity to those who did work hard." - this sentence has alot of quoted material with minimal comments around it. I think it'd be better rephrased as text in the third person without quotes. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

:His final work as a professional actor was as host and performer from 1964 to 1965 on the television series Death Valley Days. - this sentence has no verb in it. also maybe 'final' can be worded better (?)

(divorce)..following arguments about Reagan's political ambitions - this needs embellishing. As it is it tells us very little.

In Early political career it is not clearly explained why he switched sides.

~~:Reagan swept to a landslide,.. - odd phrasing try "was swept into office in a landslide" or something like it.~~

~~:Missing Reagan’s heart by less than one inch, the bullet instead pierced his left lung, which probably spared his life. - use 'an' inch and 'saved' not 'spared'~~

Comment. Remove "The Reagan Cabinet" table for it doesn't add to the article.--Svetovid 08:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Really? All the other President pages have them--I'll do it if you say so... Happyme22 16:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I don't have access to reference 2 (Walsh, Kenneth (1997) p. 95) and I'm confused about the sentence it references. "derived from supply-side economics, "Reaganomics" consisted of large tax cuts, moderate deregulation, and increases in defense spending,[2]" The sentence suggest defense spending was part of the economic policy. Am I wrong to thing that's nonsense? I would argue that Reagan was going to increase defense spending to combat the Soviet threat no matter what, i.e. regardless of his economic policies. It seems to me to sort of a post hoc analysis - massive defense spending increases after he stated and began to enact his economic goals, therefore defense spending was a tool in reaching these economic goals. Mark83 12:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- First off, all the book references are listed at the bottom in the "References" section. According to Mr. Walsh, defense spending was a policy of Reaganomics. I don't know if he was correct, and I don't really care if the phrase stays or not, but that's whatthe book says on page 95. Happyme22 16:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  - I know all about the references - perfectly acceptable. When I said I don't have access I meant just that - not that it was incorrectly referenced. I still believe that to be incorrect, but I am not arrogant enough to argue with a published author!! Mark83 18:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Initial Comments I'm going through the article doing a bit of editing hopefully to improve the article, albeit only slightly. Anyhow, don't have enough time to go through the whole thing now, but here are some comments before I forget. Will go through the rest of the article at some point later on.
- "Shortly after the beginning of his term, Reagan tested the Presidential waters in 1968 as part of a "Stop Nixon" movement which included those from the party's left, led by then-New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller." Shouldn't that say "from the party's right"? I think Nixon wasn't much liked by the right wing of the party as he was a more liberal Republican.
  - I guess it should be right. Happyme22 06:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- "The 1980 presidential campaign, led by William J. Casey, was conducted in the shadow of the Iran hostage crisis." I don't understand the mention of Casey.
- In the section on the election of 1980, the article just jumps into Reagan's campaign and attacks on Carter. Maybe it could say something about how he gained momentum in the party since his last bid and then his decision to run, and then move on to his campaign for the nomination and presidency.
- I'm going to sound like a Wikipedia-idiot here (which I am), but the section on his governship is underlined and seems to encompass the '76 and '80 campaigns (which are not underlined, so I assume this means they are subsections of the governor of California section). I think they should be moved into their own section. Sorry if this is confusing: I have no idea what the terminology for these things is.
- Regarding Nancy and Ronald's relationship section: it jumps too quickly from when they met to when they engaged. To paraphrase the article: "They met in this place. They engaged here and married here." It just seems too sudden for my tastes. Perhaps add something like, "it was love at first sight," or something, to at least give the impression there existed chemistry between them.
  - Oh hey, I agree with you there, but there wsa some stuff like that, and somebody wanted it gone for being too "weasley" and "POV"....Happyme22 06:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the info in Early Political Career is already mentioned in previous sections, while the section on Marriages mentions some things (like the assassination attempt), which have yet to be mentioned. I wonder if that section could be moved to the end or near the end of the article? Nathanalex 04:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Thanks so much for your comments. Happyme22 06:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Further comments
- "The top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years" What does this mean? Is that the tax rate for the highest bracket?
- In the Reagonomics section, there is a mention of GDP growing after the recession, and then a few sentences later, it mentions the rate of growth of the GDP. Perhaps these could be merged into a single sentence?
- In Lebanon and Grenada section, there is mention of the Lebanon attack and then the Grenada invasion, and then concludes with further mention of Lebanon. I think the last bit about Lebanon should be moved up.
- "Reagan appointed a non-partisan, three-man Tower Commission to review the Scandal." Should it be 'the' instead of 'a'?
- "but the unlikelihood that the technology could ever work led opponents to dub SDI "Star Wars,"" Didn't everyone call it that, and not just opponents?
- "and dropped several agreements being negotiated with the Soviets, hurting them financially." This is kind of vague.
- Should there be a mention of the Able Archer exercises in the Cold War section?
- There are times when President is capitalized and sometimes not. I edited so that when it refers to president like 'he was president', it's a lower case, but when it is like 'President Bush', I left it capital. I have no idea what the actual protocol on this is.
- Anyway though, it's an interesting and enjoyable read. Hope the FA passes. Nathanalex 00:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments. You have really helped this article. Happyme22 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Too many picutures? I have a widescreen display and to me the page looks cluttered. I would imagine in a standard size screen the balance has swung too far toward image inclusion at the expense of readability.

Suggestions for removal:

Image:REAGANHAY.jpg - in the reference section. Not supporting a point or section. Doesn't convey anything that is not included in other Ronald/Nancy pics.
Image:AP04061107162.jpg - I'm reluctant to include this. I'll just give my POV: Is a picture of a man's wife heartbroken at his funeral an important part of his biography? Of course. However I think that bond is pretty apparent already at this point of the article. Also, for my taste, the picture is a bit intrusive.
Image:USSRONALDREAGANgoodshot.jpg - The fact that a US Navy ship has been named after the man is yet another worthy honour. However is a picture necessary? If so, a better quality would be good - even higher res version contains "choppy" edges.
Image:REAGANSMO.jpg - Purely decorative. Look at the surrounding pics - really important and/or historical. In contrast this is a pretty standard pic of a pretty run of the mill occurence.
Image:RRNRREAGAN.jpg - Decorative? Just to see him in a tux?? Mark83 23:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments. I agree, and will remove some of them. Happyme22 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Four of the five images you listed have been removed, and I agree that the page looks better already. Happyme22 22:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please update the obsolete image tags. DrKiernan 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The tags have been updated. Thanks for letting us know about them. Happyme22 17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose sorry but even before I dig into deep details of this page I have a couple of issues:
- The intro is not neutral. It basically has nothing but support for Reagan (though the rest of the article does contain opposing views), and even lets his own words describe him.
- While not adopting the best approach to it, a user on the article talk page did point out a major issue that has not been addressed in this article. While you may disagree with it, these are major points and there are indeed plenty of sources quoting this view (just google it, second hit I got was this which you may agree to be a more credible source rather than the activist website quoted on the talk page). Excluding this violates the 1 (b) comprehensiveness requirement if not neutrality.

--Konstable 11:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph in the "Iran-Contra affair" section describing some of the harsh feelings that the Central Americans had. I have also removed the first sentence of the second paragraph in lead which I agree was POV, and I should have removed it a long while ago. I replaced the phrase with a sentence from the United States page: "The election of Ronald Reagan marked a significant rightward shift in American politics." Is there anything else you notice that I can address? Happyme22 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Like him or not, Reagan was one of the most important presidents in US history. The article does a good job of covering his life in a neutral light, and is an enjoyable read on top of it. Nathanalex 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't be offended if I say you don't seem to be fully interpreting Wikipedia:Featured article criteria - especially since I have little experience of FACs. However in terms of article quality liking him or not is totally irrelevant and his importance is totally irrelevant. An FAC can meet all the FA criteria without the subject being important or liked!! Your later comment about neutraility is more criteria based and one I agree with. As for "an enjoyable read" - that's subjective. My first was an infuriating experience (for an article described as 'brilliant') given the amount of problems, however Happyme22 has improved it a lot recently, perhaps I should read it fully again! Mark83 23:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  - I think you misinterpreted my comment. I'm not saying support because I think he is important, it was more of a general comment about the subject matter. As for liking him, personally I have no feeling one way or the other. But yes, please do take another look, as the article has improved since I first looked at it (not to say it was bad before then). Also, all your comments from above appear to be addressed. Nathanalex 01:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you both very much. If there's anything more, please let me know. Happyme22 17:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Federal Bureau of Investigation

Previous FAC

Self-nomination - I am again renominating this article for FA status. A lot of changes have been made. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I recognize the significant number of changes since the last FA nom, but more needs to be done. Some paragraphs don't have a single citation. Some cites still have the "citation needed" tag. "Legal authority" section is very stubby - needs editing. "History section" should not be presented with a horizontal table. SeleneFN 21:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Only one citation needed tag... not many. I removed the timeline. The "Legal authority" section just had to be made into a single paragraph in the middle. The history section cites are there. I'll just link them all up to the same page if you really want me to. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 07:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The article has a lot of promise, but there are some problems—ranging from large to small—that keep it from achieving its potential. These are the ones that I have noticed.

Most importantly, the article seems to be based almost exclusively on web sources. While it has a good further reading section, that only highlights the fact that none of these books have been consulted in the writing of the article. In order to create a truly comprehensive article I think you need a wider variety of sources.
I'm a bit wary of the fact that so many of the citations take us to the FBI website itself.
The lead needs editing so that it flows better. You have a one-sentence paragraph about the FBI's foundation that doesn't really seem to fit where it's been placed.
Would it make sense to deal with "Legal Authority" in chronological order? You also have a one-sentence paragraph here too.
This needs a citation: "most historians now believe that if there was a crime wave at all, it was grossly exaggerated during the Great Depression."
Much of the history section has a bit of a listy feel to it, going from one paragraph and one subject to the next without tying them together. The mention of the assassination of Kennedy, in particular, seems a bit out of the blue.
Why are the services of the FBI lab and the units at Quantico listed in italics? You seem to have quite a lot of italics scattered around, in fact.
"Before the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act was passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the FBI director would brief the President of the United States on any issues that arise from within the FBI." The tenses are a bit confused here and the sentence is vague. What sort of issues?
"Professional support staff works out of one of the many support buildings the FBI maintains." This doesn't really tell the reader very much.
"Some authors, television programs, or motion picture producers offer reasonably accurate presentations of the FBI's responsibilities, investigations, and procedures in their story lines, while others present their own interpretations or introduce fictional events, persons, or places for dramatic effect." I know that this is summarizing a sub-article, but it really doesn't have any content to it.
I'm not sure about your choice of notable persons in the "See also" section. How did you decide who to include?
Do you really need maps and aerial photos in the external links?

So yeah, there's some work to be done. I do hope that you're able to improve the article though, because it's an important topic and definitely worthy of FA status. MLilburne 10:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... I would have not have nominated this if I thought this was still missing. The recent peer review resulted in no responses to these items. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviews do tend to be a lot less thorough than FAC reviews. Are you saying that you believe my points aren't valid because they didn't come up at peer review? MLilburne 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No. They are valid. I will have to go back and complete this list once more again. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 21:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I think the most important priority is to get to your local library and order the books that are listed in the further reading section. Taking a look at them should improve the article in all sorts of ways. MLilburne 07:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - a minor comment: is "Mission & Priorities" (section title) a proper noun? If not, it should be "Mission and priorities" per WP:MOS. CloudNine 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor object. All of my objections from the last year have been addressed save one: there are still chunks of info missing inline citations. Non-objectionable comments: I'd like to see organizational diagram and 'FBI in fiction' section; 'Media portrayal' section is stub lenght and has no ilinks.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Kraków

Previous FAC (January 2004)

Self-nomination. The article has been greatly improved in recent time. Several new sections have been added with hierarchical headings, inspired by similar articles already featured. The improvements include an extensive list of over 37 new references and footnotes, and a number of supplementary articles written and linked to it recently. --Poeticbent talk 02:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. ~~(Link to previous FAC is broken, so I wasn't able to read that.)~~ Comments:

On the plus side the pictures are very nice (although personally I'd suggest having fewer pictures with more informative captions). ~~The prose is generally good, with a number of minor issues that could be fixed with a light copyedit; if this was the only problem I'd do it myself and support, but...~~ Hmm, after making a go at copyediting the lead myself, I think the article has deeper prose issues than I originally thought (grammar/flow/word choice). After correcting the below objections, which will take some time, I'd suggest asking for a deeper copyedit (and I'd be willing to do so since I already offered to above).
Unfortunately there's a lack of quality references. The existing refs appear to be almost exclusively from web sites, and most of those from online travel guides, personal webpages, and other non-scholarly sources. (Plus your footnotes do not list information like publisher, author, and so on, per WP:CITE.) Personal webpages should be avoided completely. Stuff like travel guides and capsule summaries on university/conference homepages are acceptable for some purposes, but there are many scholarly print sources on the topic of Polish history that you should be taking advantage of. At a minimum the history section should be cited primarily from published books and articles.
The next biggest issue is layout. The lead is too short (see WP:LEAD). The TOC is too long, due to the presence of many too-small and even empty sections. Sports, for example, is just a short list, it has no prose. The same with "Administrative districts" — obviously this section should contain a list, but you should also explain exactly what an "administrative district" is in regards to this city.
Somehow the pictures have bunched up many of the section "edit" links in one place. Not sure how to fix that.
For an example of a very good featured article about a city, please see Jerusalem. Look at how and to what it's referenced and how it's laid out.

- Merzbow 03:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please look again at the link to Previous FAC. The article was originally submitted in January 2004, long before the current system of nominations was established. The article Krakow was listed lower down in section History. The link is not broken. Meanwhile, thanks for all the constructive comments. I will look again at the list of refs with your suggestions in mind including the Table of Contents, the subsections, the examples, etc. --Poeticbent talk 04:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... I see it now... wow how process has changed since then... - Merzbow 04:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments (there'll be a few) I'm just starting to trawl through this now.. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of name section is stubby - I'd enlarge it with some of the information from the Krakus page.

paragraphs in History section are stubby and should be combined somehow.

um..ghettoised? - possibly could be rephrased. I've never heardthe word and comes across sounding funny.

Districts section is listy, could the districts be expanded a bit and maybe put in paragraphs?

The Old Town district of Kraków (Stare Miasto) has rich historic architecture.. -sounds odd. try embellishing - alot of rich historic, is notable for its rich historic.. or something.

On top of that, there are a number of privately-owned minibus companies... - "Also" is better and less informal. This makes the sentence a bit short. Any more info?

Kraków by night subsection - I'd remove this as it adds nothing to the article.

I'm not a fan of See also sections, these should all be worked into the text somewhere.

Overall the prose is better than many I've seen but there are a few things to be done. Doable but needs a bit of work. I agree about the reference needing some authoritative print book. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Much appreciated. All your comments will be addressed with utmost care. Section References is on my next “to do” list. I just finished trimming some fat from TOC and I also looked at other GA articles on metropolitan cities and got inspiration there. Section “See also” (even if not your preference) is featured in Jerusalem as mentioned by Merzbow and most other GA atricles, however, “Krakow by night” has to go, as per your comment. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would never oppose because an article had a "See Also" section (unless it was grievously misused), but in general I find them to be somewhat pointless. - Merzbow 03:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Will take care of that too. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 15:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Object. I plan to work on this article myself and I want to comment Poetic of bringing this from a poor B to what is close to GA/A class now - but this still needs more work before it is FA. First: lack of references for some statements. Second: government section needs expansion and ~~economics is missing completly~~. Minor nitpicks: all administrative districts need to be stubbed at the very least, some sections could use pictures, 'Kraków by night' and 'Main sights' sounds too close like from a travel guide - I'd consider moving them to culture section under 'tourism' heading or something similar. All things considered, it's a good work in progress, greatly improved by Poetic in the past weeks, but still not FA-ready (to be clear: not up to current FA-standards, it's already better then some of our older city FAs that missed FARC...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It’s all very important to me. I wonder how I could have missed the Economy section, but I guess, with all those new sections added in recent time it was easy do. Will take care of that shortly. Cas Liber suggested that the “Kraków by night” section be removed altogether. Wouldn’t you agree? There’s no separate “Tourism” subsection in Jerusalem nor in San Francisco, California, I just looked at. Too much like a travel guide I suppose. --Poeticbent talk 15:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that it is a common weakness in city FACs (the whole travel-guide look that is). I'd also go through all the 'sights/tourism' stuff very carefully. Good luck. I'll drop by in a few days.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Being an inclusionist, I prefer to save info rather then to remove it. I am sure we can figure out a section to merge it to or a subarticle to move it too. Good job adding economics, as long as its fresh make sure to add a ref for each para.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Gross disparity in size among sections. After a huge history, a rather short "Geography and climate". Consider summarizing History.
Please remove subsections (Public transit, rail etc) from "transport",; at present the subsections are short in size. Information such as "Airport facilities include bar, currency exchange and car rentals (Avis, Budget, Europcar, Sixt and Hertz). Duty-free shops are in the departure hall" are rather touristy.
One sentence subsections like "Local" under "Government". Remove such subsections.
the section "Government" effectively does not have any information. Please tell how the city is governed, such as municipality board, wards, other public service utilities (sewage, electricity etc).
Demographics—anything on religion, literacy, sex ratio etc?
Education—Just a list of universities in education is not comprehensive.
Culture—description of individual parks in a city article is over-emphasis.
the section "Symbols" is not at all needed.

I have not read the article thoroughly. Overall, it seems not comprehensive, and without balance among sections. There are several choppy one or two sentence paragraphs. So, in gist, the article does not meed FA criteria 1(a) and 1(b). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for a thorough critique. Some of the issues you brought up have already been dealt with, others will be dealt with progressively. The section History was already summarized once and it will be looked at again. New paragraphs in Government are on my next to do list. I intend to address all your comments eventually. Interestingly enough I put the sex ratio into Demographics already once, before it was removed. I will make sure to bring it back. I’m in the process of dealing with the red links in Universities by writing articles to be used for a new and more comprehensive section in the near future. Regards. --Poeticbent talk 03:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be gathering more and more statistical minutiae (details of local taxes, men/women ratio, this sort of things). Anybody who really wants to know these facts will reach for original sources, not for W's digest. Prune severely before applying for the FA status.
Jotel 06:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Whether the use of Kraków should be used on English Wikipedia instead of Cracow, is a matter that is unresolved (see talk WP:NCGN). Dr. Dan 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) states: "The following methods may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name.

1. Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta...)"

Advanced Search Results:

Encyclopedia Britannica: Kraków [12] city and capital of Malopolskie województwo (province), southern Poland, lying on both sides of the upper Vistula River.

Encyclopedia Britannica: Cracow, Republic of... [13] tiny state that, for the 31 years of its existence (1815–46), was the only remaining independent portion of Poland. Established by the Congress of Vienna ...

Columbia Encyclopedia: Kraków [14] (kră`kou, Pol. krä`kf), Ger. Krakau, city (1994 est. pop. 751,500), capital of Małopolskie prov., S Poland, on the Vistula. A river port and industrial center ...

Columbia Encyclopedia: Cracow [15] redirects to Kraków.

Encarta: Kraków [16] (German Krakau), city in southern Poland, capital of Małopolskie Province, on the Wisła (Vistula) River.

Encarta: Cracow [17] redirects to Kraków.

2. "Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them)"

Advanced Search Results:

Google Scholar: Kraków (all in title) [18] Results about 17,100 for allintitle: Kraków.

Google Scholar: Cracow (all in title) [19] Results about 1,720 for allintitle: Cracow.

Google Books: books with the title Kraków [20] Books 821 on intitle:Kraków.

Google Books: books with the title Cracow [21] Books 94 on intitle:Cracow.

3. "Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). "

Search Results:

All Library of Congress Pages: Kraków - automatic spelling suggestion: Krakow [22] retrieved 95 results.

All Library of Congress Pages: Cracow [23] retrieved 44 results.

4. "Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted."

Search LexisNexis:

Entire Site: Kraków - automatically respelled to Krakow [24] Search Results (7)

Entire Site: Cracow [25] Search Results (2)

--Poeticbent talk 18:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the trouble you went through to tell us all why and how Cracow was changed into Polish (with a diacritic) in the English language at English Wikipedia. Would you be so kind as to inform us on an approximate date that this metamorphosis occured. When did the change take place. This would help to alleviate my objection. Would 1975 be about right, or was it later? Thanks again. Dr. Dan 21:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your estimation has a very good ring to it, but please don't ask me why I think so. To answer your question would take an effort far greater than an online search, because only the editors of the above encyclopedias and perhaps some of the publishers of the new books would know exactly when the changeover took place. Would you go as far as to write and ask a few of them directly? I'd love to see the results of your inquiry, even though personally I'm not prepared to jump into it at this time. --Poeticbent talk 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

The article is turning into a collection of lists, and contains too much material copied from other related articles. It's a pity that the self-nominator thinks that everything related to Kraków, however trivial, and/or available in other parts of WP, must be included.
--Jotel 15:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I’m afraid we’re dealing with the difference of opinion here that will not be resolved easily. I’ve created a number of articles on Kraków’s universities recently (three as DYK's) with the specific purpose of using them as springboards for a more comprehensive Education section of the article on Kraków, as per Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, which reads:

In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.

(a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.

The need for a more descriptive approach to universities was brought to my attention by User:Dwaipayanc (see above). All featured articles on cities include similar write-ups. It is not my intention to question the guidelines established by Wikipedia, but rather, to follow them to the letter in order to bring this article to the same standard. I acknowledge the fact that Wikipedia:Featured article criteria also states in point 4:

It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

What constitutes "unnecessary detail" could be seen as a subject of interpretation, which brings us back to the issue at hand. However, Wikipedia:Summary style clearly states, that:

The summary in a section at the survey article will necessarily be at least twice as long as the lead section in the daughter article. The daughter article in turn can also serve as a survey article for its specific part of the topic. And so on until a topic is very thoroughly covered. Thus by navigational choices several different types of readers get the amount of detail they want.

My universities' summaries in Education section of Kraków are roughly twice as long as the lead sections of those articles, as required. --Poeticbent talk 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Grand Forks, North Dakota

The old nom had a lot of opposes, but I honestly could not see anything wrong with the article when I went to it - presumably they were all resolved. I'm restarting this nom. Raul654 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Question and comment Why do we need the lat long both in the upper right and in the body of the article? Too many lists. Rlevse 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose 'Culture' section is full of HTML links which need converting to Wikipedia footnotes using appropriate cite templates. 'Sites of interest' section ruins the article by being a list. — Wackymacs 17:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, the article has a very good start, but it's very listy, and has mixed reference styles (using cite.php mixed with unformatted inline references). If progress is made on prosifying the lists, I can help clean up the footnotes and sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, per SandyGeorgia and Wackymacs. It is just to list full. It needs to be compromised in such a way that it looks and reads like an encyclopedic article, and not one giant list with half the words in them. Dreamy 18:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Several fixes requested in th last nom have not been fixed even yet. These outstanding issues still exist:
- Today, the University Avenue area is a middle-class neighborhood with many older homes built on tree-lined streets. Economic analysis that has no reference.
- Modern neighborhoods in Grand Forks are less defined and more spread out than their older counterparts. According to whom? Without ref is original research.
- The economy of Grand Forks has historically been dependent on the surrounding agricultural lands. However, since the middle part of the 20th century, Grand Forks' economy has become more diversified. Now, government (federal, state, and civic), the health care industry, and a growing manufacturing sector dominate the employment scene in the city. Makes several claims that need references. Who did the analysis to determine these economic factors?
- The city also contributes to the Grand Forks Region Economic Development Corporation (EDC), a public-private organization that also receives funding from banks and other major businesses. The EDC plays a consulting role for businesses, such as identifying suitable sites for expansion or assembling public funding packages. Its other key role is to vet businesses to see if they're suitable for funding by the Growth Fund. Unreferenced; where is the source for this organization? Why is it notable?
- The Notable local companies section is just a list. This could be easily prosified. If worth mentioning, it is worth writing a real sentance about.
- The Culture section mixes reference styles. As the rest of the article uses references with full bibliographic information in footnote style, the fact that this section sprinkles in random external links is less than ideal.
- Sites of interest section could be prosified as well.
- Notable residents ditto with above.
Would change to support if all of the above fixes are made.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've fixed most of what you mentioned. I've removed several sentences that sounded like original research, I've fixed the refs in the "Culture" section, and I've reworked the "Economy" section. I plan on turning the "Sites of interest" material into some type of prose, but I'm not sure how that could really be done with "Notable residents".--MatthewUND^(talk) 08:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Isn't it a bit worrying that Raul654 couldn't find any problems with this article when there are obviously so many when he's the Featured Article Director? — Wackymacs 08:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Commment. I would assume that Raul was looking at the current version of the article and not the version that was first nominated. --MatthewUND^(talk) 08:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  - But it's the current version that sucks. — Wackymacs 08:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Support. The version of the article that was first nominated wasn't yet worthy of FA status, but after the hard work that Milk the cows (talk · contribs) put into referencing the article and given the many other changes and improvements that have taken place, I think granting the article FA status is very reasonable. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:01, 19 June 2007.

[edit] Elk (Cervus canadensis)

Self nom. Article has been through peer review and suggestions there have been met. Suggestions have been made about adding more information on Eurasian subspecies, but this information is not well documented in published sources. Further advice as to what else is needed is appreciated.--MONGO 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mongo. I'll try and give this a good go-over, but likely in stops and starts. On the lead:

You've capitalized Elk at first mention, but not elsewhere. On Cougar we've decided to use uppercase at all mentions and do away with the debate. (There is a great amount of inconsistency on Wiki in this regard.)
Not sure about starting with genetic comparisons. I'd tend to start with the definition and move immediately to range. (This was only a suggestion--it's fine as is.)
~~Over-specificity: "Elk antlers and velvet is [are] used by Asians in holistic medicines." Is this vital? At least, it should be shuffled to the bottom of the lead.~~
~~"Elk are one of the largest mammals to inhabit their ecosystems." Clarify: "their" can refer to "Elk" or "mammals".~~
~~Wordiness:~~
- ~~"...where they are oftentimes raised on farms and their products ~~are~~ sold ~~to various markets."~~~~
- ~~"...indictates that they are in fact different" to "indicates otherwise" maybe.~~
~~The dabbing drops off. Could you dab "migration" and perhaps "harem" to something useful?~~
I would try to make the first sentence of the third paragraph two, giving "bugling" a distinct mention.
The last paragraph is haphazard, joining three distinct points. (A common difficulty at the end of leads and sections).

Great work. I'll check back in. I'm worried about leaving Cougar and Elk on FAC at once, however—it could get bloody. Marskell 10:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Made adjustments to the capitalization issue throughout. Dabbed mating and Migration (disambiguation)...the latter doesn't have a better link to use. Couldn't find anything suitable to handle Harem though. The remainder of your comments I will address shortly (in a day or two) after I consider a minor article reorganization. Really appreciate the rapid input on this.--MONGO 12:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made further adjustments to the lead, incorporating your suggestions...it probably still needs some more tweaking. I'm not conviced it has the best subtitling format yet. I am looking over the Cougar article and others to see if I can make further improvements.--MONGO 06:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted the sections some, incorporating a few under a new heading as in the Cougar article. Also made adjustments to try and fix the last paragraph of the intro.--MONGO 07:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks terrible with "Elk" capitalized throughout. Should we now change the "Dog" article? Over time, the Dog has developed into hundreds of breeds with a great degree of variation, many of these Dog breeds are familiar only in certain parts of the world, while other Dog breeds are internationally known. Uhhggg. What is the precedent in the sciences for doing this? It looks terrible. KP Botany 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Very tricky where we draw the line here. Elk made more sense to me capitalized but I agree about dog...can we think of an in betwewen one..cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought capitalization is quite clear: in German, elk is with a capital E; in English, elk is only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or in a name like Rudolf the Rednosed Elk. In running text, elk is therefore not capitalized. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

There's the other interesting aspect of capitalizing it in English, "Elk" with a capital "e" means something different in English from elk with a lower case "e." KP Botany 22:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We've gone round the capitalization merry-go-round many times. In fact, the example of familiaris is the one I always used when debating the other side. Elk as used here is a proper noun, and the prescriptivist argument is for capitalization. There are elk (the Irish Elk, the Moose) etc. and then there is the Elk, Cervus canadensis. But mammals are a mess in this regard, and you can argue against it on descriptive grounds (i.e., not many sources do it, so we shouldn't).

The precedent in the sciences is with birds. Upper case is firmly in use because of potential confusion in not using it. If Red-bellied Woodpecker and Brown Warbler make sense, moose and cougar cease to, IMO. Marskell 10:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside of the birds, I'd suggest that the use of capitals is rare. Even in birds, in my experience, the capitals are only used when citing a specific species in full. For example, one might see: "The Yellow Warbler is a small bird typical of..." but also "Twelve warblers were banded by the Minnesota DNR at their..." So the cognate, here, would be: "Eastern Elk have been extinct for a century." but "Some cultures revere elk." I can tell you, though, that this is in no way standard usage, even in the bird literature, and one can readily find a host of counter-examples. But why talk about birds, let's look at the precedents for cervids.

Among the cervids, resources/animals/mammals/deer/cwd/cwdplan2002.pdf here (pdf) is just one example of dozens I was able to pull down in just five minutes of trying. A particuarly good example, from the Wildlife Management Bulletin (i.e. the primary literature) can be found here (html). I even checked the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica and they use the no-capital style. Here is the online entry for "deer" in the 11th edition; no capitals...

In any case, to me, the answer is simple. This is the English version of Wikipedia. Any native English speaker, writing any one of those sentences for any purpose other than this article, I'd submit, would not capitalise as a matter of course. Why would we wish to torture ourselves by doing it? Precisely what information is added by capitalising those words? What is lost by not capitalising?

I'd simply suggest you surf around and find an article that does not use capitals. Why not check out, perhaps, Brown trout for a non-mammal and, maybe, Moose for a cervid? If not those, select any others you might like; there are a plethora of them out there (contrary to those who have suggested that Wikipedia is standardised on capitals). Read them without focusing on the absence of capitalisation and then tell me if an article is any less rigorous than it would be if it had capitals peppered throughout. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm. Your first two sentences make the argument. The first is a proper noun, the second common. "Look a Yellow Thornbill!" and "Look a yellow thornbill!" denote different things, and only the capitals lead you to the difference. It's obviously standard in ornithology because almost all the species names are compounds. I realize mammal papers very rarely capitalize, but even with mammals it can be a distinction with a difference. To paraphrase another editor, the largest of the Canadian lynxes is the Canadian Lynx. Compare chimpanzees and the Common Chimpanzee. (Note that "deer" by itself refers to multiple species, and is thus a common nown.)

Also, I made no argument about rigour. In fact, I don't really care if you don't capitalize (until about ten days ago, I never did)—just be consistent if you don't. I realize a majority of our articles don't do it, and descriptivist "corrections" will likely ensure that indefinitely. Indeed, maybe I'll change my mind again. Marskell 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Support: looks really good. I agree about the capitalization raised above. The text and everything is much polished from when I helped out a bit. Two points in terms of layout:

.the Naming section is a bit stubby, and lacks something which seems to have become standard in the past few months of many biological FACs coming through - namely a taxonomic history - who described it, what was it known as. This can then include the molecular stuff as a postscript (also a stubby subsection) - so solves two problems at once.

.lack of subheadings in the latter half of the article - Cultural refs and human uses (rename Commercial uses) can go under an Elks and humans heading. Otherwise the contents table looks a bit funny.

.As is true for many species of deer, and especially those in mountainous regions - lose the "and".

.During the winter, elk tend to favor wooded areas and sheltered valleys more often than in the summer for protection from the wind and availability of tree bark to eat... "tend to" is redundant; also "more often than in the " comes across sounding odd, maybe a semicolon and two clauses is better.

~~In Health Issues, link Mule Deer?~~

Ultimately I don't think either of the Style issues are strictly opposable, I'll keep processing now...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 10:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Working on these issues...addressed issue of "tend to", wikilinks. Probably won't use "Elk" in subheadings in keeping with MOS. Retitled Naming section to Naming and etymology and will work to see how we can combine the DNA material into that leading section. Got rid of "and" as suggested. Did a number of otgher copyedits to reduce too often repeated use of the oword "Elk" as it is overkill since I think readers will know what we are discussing. Thanks for the advice....it is very much appreciated.--MONGO 12:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have combined the DNA info and the subspecies under a Taxonomy heading, combining those sections--MONGO 07:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Very informative article, well-referenced, well-written, and meets other FA criteria. --Aude (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No support yet. The article is not up to featured article specs. I left on the article's talkpage compliance issue for improvement, as found by the peer reviewer script. Notably, the lead (see WP:LEAD) ought to be limiting itself to be a definition of the subject and a summary of the article. Now it reads (on and on) with even it's own footnotes for clarification. Attention for details is recommended here, using the simple script for testing when necessary. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

Trimmed lead, not much more trimming is possible unless we then run into single sentence dead ends. The lead does detail the major sections of the article. I do believe the article uses only American English spelling, but will double check. Footnotes all are immediately after punctuation and all numbers that are part of measurements have non-breaking page stops between the number and the measurement. The image in the infobox is free use, I uploaded at as such...so are all the other images.--MONGO 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Someone did do some good editing, but it was reverted. MONGO, I know you're not an owner of articles, so please look over the edits done by the other editor, and consider their value, rather than allowing the wholesale reversion to stand, as they did improve the readability and accessibility of the article to encyclopedia users. The article has good content overall, but it needs a lot more work right now. KP Botany 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. can you show me the diffs? cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it over again, but I generally concur with the revert overall. I didn't do the revert, but I think spelling out measurements is unnecessary. However, I am not glued to having Elk always capitalized or only when used at the beginning of a sentence. I was going by Marskells comments as to how they handled it for the Cougar article.--MONGO 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, gladly.%28Cervus canadensis%29&diff=136150582&oldid=135968347 Here's an example, original prose:

Although native to North America and eastern Asia, they have adapted well to other countries were they have been introduced, including New Zealand and Argentina. In some parts of the world where Elk have been transplanted, their high level of adaptability is posing a threat to endemic species and ecosystems, and they are considered to be an invasive species.

Changed prose, now deleted:

Although native to North America and eastern Asia, elk have adapted well to countries where they have been introduced, including New Zealand and Argentina. In some places where elk have been intoduced, they pose a threat to endemic species and ecosystems, and they are considered to be an pests.

This latter is just one example of taking something that is well-written and making it into clear and beautiful prose. I urge you to reconsider wholesale deletionn to this editor's edits--in fact, please just revert to his/her second version and change details as necessary. I'm also going to try to con him/her into editing/deturgidifying some of my articles, so be nice.

This editor did not just spell out measurements, this editor really improved the prose of what was already a well-written article. The two need configured, though, as invasive species is better than pests, and the prose needed edited also.

A dog is a dog, and an elk is an elk--dogs have been artifically bred for centuries to bring about the variation you see, that's all. KP Botany 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There were a few incorrections in Fluris edits. I have readded some of the changes back in, such as the intro and a few passages in the early sections. I am still on the fence about the capitalization issue...I tend to think it looks better uppercase, as does Marskell, while you and Fluri disagree. I'm heading out but will look this over again in 4 or 5 hours.--MONGO 22:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest moving this to whichever name is suggested by MSW3. Possibly move Elk to Elk (disambiguation) and move this article to Elk. Also, when referring it to as a species, use the singluar. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I favored doing that move long ago, but during the effort to split this article off from Red Deer, there was strong opposition. I'm not clear on what you mean by using the singular when it is referred to as a species.--MONGO 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: I got rid of the red link for the Huemul Deer (you can re-dab it to South Andean Deer, if you like). I notice the link,[26] however, actually refers to the Red Deer and not the Elk as the invasive species. Marskell 06:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think since there is still some confusion in the general public about the diffs between Red Deer and Elk, it could go either way...the animal they are mentioning in the link might be either. I'll look it over again.--MONGO 07:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It did say Cervus elaphus. Marskell 08:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but until 2004 they were both Cervus elaphus. Marskell 08:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am looking over the links...I don't see any yet that specify that North American elk were ever introdcued to S. America...only that Red Deer were, from Europe. In New Zealand, the link I have here states that 15% of the large cervids there are Elk imported from Canada and the rest are all Red Deer from Europe...I need ot look this over some more to see what else I can figure out. If there is no evidence that North American elk were transplanted to S. America, then a lot of that will need to be removed perhaps.--MONGO 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that may have to be cut and reworked. The IUCN doesn't specify that it's not the Elk, but I assume it's the European Red Deer they are speaking of. Marskell 08:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Marskell, I do appreciate the help with this. It might be a couple of days before I can resolve this issue, but it needs a resolution for I definitely want to stick to the facts here.--MONGO 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I found one minor ref that states that Elk were introduced to Argentina. I know I have read somewhere they have also been introduced other places, but we can't go on what I read. I'll continue top look for more refs and I have contacted someone I know at the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming to see if they have any more leads. It might be a few days before I have abetter answer, but essentially, as to the IUCN, I think their definition of Elk being a nuisance applies to both the Red Deer and Elk since both are non-native and in some areas, free ranging.--MONGO 05:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Object Why should elk be capitalized in the middle of a sentence? That'd be like saying Dog, Cat, and Deer should be. They should uppercase only if at the very start of a sentence or referring to a specific named elk. Rlevse 17:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We're still working on this issue. But, in answer to your question, an Elk is a specific species of animal that has far less differences in it's "races" or types than a dog and even less than the various cats even more so...cat is oftentimes a very broadly applied word that emcompasses the cat family...lions/tigers/etc. Deer is the family of animals that Elk are but a part of, along with White-tailed deer, mule deer, Sika Deer, etc. Specific common names of a species like Elk, Wapiti and Sika Deer, seem to need to be capitalized in my opinion, but as I said, we still need to clarify this yet.--MONGO 18:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice you used "lion" nad "tiger" in lower case in your arguments.... I would also need you to provide a sources on the dog "races" thing. The article is looking good, remind me to change my vote when you get it done.KP Botany 20:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, caps/no caps are not in any way an oppose rationale. There's no right answer. That the article is consistent in its usage would be the only question. Marskell 20:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lions/Tigers, just typing my comments, it's not in article text so I didn't pay a lot of attention to whether I capitalized my comments or not. This matter could really go either way, but again, I'm not sworn to it either way. I'll look over MOS and see what I can come up with. Dog is just a generic and not specific, Elk is specific as is Wapiti and is part of the offical name of particular subspecies. Cougar is capitalized throughout and was just promoted to FA.--MONGO 20:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out that lion and tiger are specific. What, by the way, is the outside source/reference/citation for capitalizing elk? KP Botany 21:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes,it is an oppose rationale as it relates to grammar. you shot yourself in the foot by lc'ing lion and tiger, which are types of cats, as you say elk are a type of deer. Rlevse 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not an oppose rationale insofar as the grammar is not incorrect. Marskell 09:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

These opposes are, well simply silly. I shot myself in the foot...what? How many times have I stated that I am not married to elk being always capitalized or not? But, frankly, if Cougar is always capitalized, just became featured and is now, as we speak, on the mainpage, I hardly see any reason this article should alter its capaitalization of Elk just to appease a few who "think" it needs to not be uniformly capitalized. This entire argument is ridiculous, so uinless you have a better reason for opposing, then I think I'll see what else I can do to make the article better without making capitalization changes just 'cause you guys say so. But if anyone wants to change it, feel free...I really don't care and I'm not anyones secretary.--MONGO 05:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The National Elk Refuge website [27] doesn't capitalize it unless it is used as a proper noun or at the beginning of the sentence. I'll just change it back to the their standardization, which is where I had it to begin with. Are there any other comments which I can use to help make the article better?--MONGO 05:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Anyhow, what happened with the invasive species info? We ought to be sure about whether it ranges in Argentina. Do you speak Spanish? Someone could ask for a ref at .es Marskell 09:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe they are there in Argentina, and I added a ref which states they were imported, but not sure they are free ranging. There is a lot of confusion on this point since the Elk and Red Deer (or elk and red deer) were, until very recently, considered to be the same critter. Give me another day or two.--MONGO 09:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I went and changed the capitalized wordings of elk to small case except where it is used as a subspecies naming...maybe someone would care to quickly scan and see if I have missed anything. I found a couple more references regarding where elk have been introduced and added them to the section on Introductions.--MONGO 06:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Check your captions for upper case. Also, it shouldn't be done in the first sentence if not done elsewhere, so I just changed it. Sorry I brought this up MONGO—you've been bullied here over a triviality.

Also, support. This is a fine, information-rich article. I'll continue to scan it for any other fixes. Marskell 06:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Took care of the captions...I seemed to have missed those...thanks. It's no big deal, as I usually allow others to comment and I follow their suggestions most of the time. I do agree that this is a technicality and it could go either way actually. I see on Cougar everything was also changed to lowercase...oh well...not sure it really matters that much. I do appreciate your assistance and the comments left by everyone who have taken the time to look over the article.--MONGO 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—needs a serious copy-edit; the requirement for professional formatting is not met because of the linkitis.
- While it's not hugely linked, there are many useless patches of blue. Why "Europe", "mammals", "North America" and "Asia", "New Zealand", "Argentina", "infectious diseases" (about human diseases, not those of the elk—same with "vaccination"), "beef", and heck, what does "chicken" mean? These are such unusual, arcane terms that we need to spray blue everywhere by linking them. Delink them and the text is easier to read, looks much better on the screen, and the high-value links are more prominent. The whole text needs auditing for useless links.
- "Elk are susceptible to a number of health issues"—susceptible to issues is not quite idiomatic.
- "poses a threat to endemic species and ecosystems and they are considered an invasive species"—Two "ands", and you need a comma. Surely you need to say where they're invasive—not in their native locations ...
- "a loud series of screams designed to help attract females"—Do the elk really sit around and "design" their mating call? Remove "help". Tony 07:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blue-linking all locations has become common practice at first mention. Has any guideline been updated in this regard? I agree they don't require it but editors will "correct" in that direction. I would tend to link mammal on a mammal article, as well as all other species names. Marskell 08:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reworked a couple points brought up by Tony, Thanks, but not interestd in removing blue links just on an opinion since they are not overly done and don't repeat later in the text that I can see...it seems to be correct formatting to have major articles linked in their first appearance in other articles. "Susceptible" is idiomatic, it is the correct usage of the word for the situation...ie: see susceptible as well as this.--MONGO 15:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Note - Per Uther's suggestion above, I've moved this page. To avoid confusing gimmebot, I've restarted this nom at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elk Raul654 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 21:39, 15 June 2007.

[edit] National Safe Place

self nominated. This article is about a non profit organization that strives to provide at-risk youth with the resources they need to become functional adults. It is a national network that really needs more attention, thus the article should be posted to help educate the general population about this vital service. Nmejias 19:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose and urge withdrawal. Articles that are nomination for FAC need to meet the featured article guidelines. Please see WP:FACR for more. The article is poorly written, and as the tag on the top of the article indicates, it appears to be quite confusing and needs a thorough copyediting and possibly a rewrite. Also, the article does not seem to conform to the Manual of Style. The page layout is awkward, and there appears to be some irrelevant topics in the article (the whole Teen Topics section). The endorsements section should probably be removed and replaced with a section called "Criticism", which should then cover both the positives and negatives of the National Safe Place. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete. First revision and later revisions are copyvios of [28].... oh wait, this isn't afd :P --- RockMFR 21:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G12 - copyright infringement. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 13 June 2007.

[edit] Economy of Mexico

Support Self-nominated. --the Dúnadan 16:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment After reading the second sentence of the lead, I've spotted the use of "recently" - a little time-dependent and vague. When was that? CloudNine 16:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question, and I thought I had the answer: 2004. Yet, as I was looking for a table to reference it, I realized that neither the CIA Factbook -the source being cited- nor the World Bank keep historical data in their databases, at least not for PPP GDP. (The World Bank does keep historical data for GDP and GNI at current dollars). Surfing the web I found PPP GDP data for 2004, and PPP GDP data for 2003. These data confirm that it was indeed 2004 the year that Mexico "crossed the trillion dollar threshold". I'll change the "recently" for, "in 2004. --the Dúnadan 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments - I'm no expert in these matters, so take the following with a pinch of salt, but I'll make them nevertheless!

Which version of trillion & billion are we using throughout?

Trillion, I'll add a link. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahah, but trillion and billion are links to disambiguation pages... which one of each are you using?! The Rambling Man 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1,000,000,000,000 (one million million; $1012$ ). --the Dúnadan 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS on headings like "Banking System", should be "Banking system".

Fixed. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Two "after"s in the first sentence of History section makes for weird reading. In fact, that first sentence is about fifty words long, too long for my small brain!

Fixed. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is on par in italics? It's English after all.

I though phrases like "on par" or "vis-à-vis", being "imported" from other languages, could be written in Italics, but I am not sure. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

These words are foreign loanwords but they've become so common in English vernacular that marking them with italics doesn't serve any purpose (per MoS). Resurgent insurgent 07:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you had written French "en par", it would belong in italics, but the French-derived English "on par" does not. —Cuiviénen 16:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, on par is not marked with italics anymore. Circa is, should it be considered vernacular English too? --the Dúnadan 16:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"From 1940 to 1970 GDP increased sixfold, whereas population doubled.[7]" - perhaps "..while.." instead of "..whereas..", minor point.

Good point. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DASH for year ranges such as 1981&ndash82.

Fixed. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"(protected constitutionally)" could be un-parenthesised and just written "...both of which were protected constitutionally..."

True. Fixed. They still are protected, though. =) --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"comprised by..." - that'd be better off as "consisting of..." or "comprising..."

Fixed. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Most of this reduction was done in rural..." might read better as "Most of this reduction was achieved in rural..."

Fixed. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Regional economies section starts with "Nonetheless..." - feels a bit strange.

True, I had noticed that too. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"As it can be seen from the map.." - don't like it - just refer to facts rather than a graphic.

Done. The data in the map is referenced in the text. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(2006 est.) vs (est. 2003) - consistency check needed for how to represent the estimates.

Fixed, using (YEAR est.)--the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"(see Food and Agriculture table on the right)" - I'd prefer to just use the same citation as you use in the table itself.

Done. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)--the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Expand first use of Tm to "metric tonne".

Done. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"(a significant source of revenue for the government, of almost 62 per cent of the company's sales)" - no need to parenthesise this.

Fixed.--the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Financial sector section has two citations in total, which may be enough, but the text is a bit dry with few wikilinks, perhaps look to improve this section a bit? Could consider IPO, American Depositary Receipt etc.

Will work on that. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"...March 31st 2006...." - WP:MOS for dates etc.

Fixed. --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope some of these comments are useful. Let me know if there's anything more I can offer. The Rambling Man 17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Very helpful! Thanks! --the Dúnadan 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. I've copy-edited the lead to demonstrate that the whole article requires considerable, careful work by fresh eyes to satisfy the requirement for a "professional" standard of writing (and of formatting in the case of the overlinking). Why are simple years linked? Why dictionary terms such as industry? Can't see the point of linking all of those countries—what relevance will the reader get out of Canada? Nothing. Audit links throughout, and minimise to focus our readers on the important ones. Quite a lot of redundancy. Tony 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to be that "fresh eye" to work on the article to meet 1a? As for the relevance of Canada, being part of NAFTA, and this being an article about Economics, I think it is relevant. --the Dúnadan 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Canada itself is relevant, but just tell me what in the Canada article you want to interrupt your readers to show them? At the very least, pipe it to the section on the Canadian economy, or to a separate article on that topic if one exists. Ration your links and they'll be more powerful, and not blue distractions. I don't edit FACs, but why don't you research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the good copy-editors. Familiarise yourself with their work, and when you ask them for a favour, show them that you've done so (it’s a form of flattery). This is a valuable investment in a collaborative framework that will serve you well in your future development of FA nominations. Tony 06:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the avise. I'll compare the edit summaries of FA Economy of India. --the Dúnadan 14:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Object — in addition to Tony's comments, ~~Image:MEXICAN PESOS 1 by verzerk.jpg appears to be non-free, and Image:NAFTA.gif has no source or copyright information.~~ References need to be formatted; I suggest using {{Cite web}} and other citation templates. In addition to the "standard" parameters, make sure you specify the language parameter for non-English references and the format parameter for PDFs. Pagra shtak 14:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've eliminated those two pictures. I am working in formatting references using the {{cite}} templates. Maybe presenting the article as an FA candidate was a hasty decision. I should have asked for a review. In any case, I will try to fix what you suggested today. --the Dúnadan 15:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

All references have been reformatted using citations templates. Please note that when citing a book, which happens to be available online in PDF, the template does not specify format, so only the sources that refer exclusively to web pages do specify format (PPT or PDF). --the Dúnadan 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Please use {{es_icon}} on Spanish-language sources. WP:DASH attention needed. Please see WP:CITE/ES; most sources are not fully formatted. Sources need a publihser and last access date, and author and date when available. There are some completely unformatted refs, like ^ [2]. See also need not repeat terms linked in the text; for example, Mexico shouldn't be a See also in an article about Mexico. The article is not thoroughly cited (Mexico has shown interest in becoming an associate member of Mercosur and ... ?????) Full dates (month day, year) should be wikilinked (see WP:MOSNUM). Spanish terms should be in italics (see WP:MOS). That's just a start; I haven't reviewed thoroughly.

Like I told the previous reviewer, I am in the process of changing the format of all references using templates. I'm half way through. From all your comments, it seems most of your concerns relate to style and format (if references are properly formatted, if dates are properly formatted, if non-English terms are properly formatted...). That can easily be fixed. At least there aren't any complaints about content (i.e. completeness, NPOV, etc.). --the Dúnadan 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't examined the content yet (sorry :-), because there are structural items still to be addressed. I hope you're aware I have an inhouse expert who will be examining the content once all else is addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'd love to read the opinion and advise from an expert in economics. --the Dúnadan 16:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not take my reference comments to mean that these are the only problems with the article. They are the only parts I reviewed. You say you're halfway through, but it doesn't appear so. I don't see "language=Spanish" parameters, most PDFs are not marked as such with "format=PDF", and you need to remove "format=html". Format is only used for non-HTML links. Many references are a simple titled link, and one reference even reads "[2]". Pagra shtak 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take your comment to mean that those were the only problems, especially after you said you'll bring an expert to review it. That is why I said, I'd love the review of an expert. I don't know how else to say that I am halfway through when I am halfway through. When I started, no single reference used templates. Now half of them do, even if now some need to be corrected by adding the {{es_icon}} among other things. --the Dúnadan 19:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me with Sandy. Pagra shtak 22:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

True, I apologize. --the Dúnadan 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hola, Dúnadan — Back with more comments, after my "inhouse expert" reviewed your article. First, congratulations on a very very fine start; nothing but praise, although still work to be done. From my point of view, first the article is seriously undercited, to the extent that I'm not sure you'll make FA this time, but confident you'll eventually make it based on the quality of your start. Second, I saw lots of copy edit needs. Below, I will summarize the comments that are not mine, so if they don't make sense, I take no credit, and if you have questions, I'll have to get back to you :-)

Regional economies, shares of GDP per sector, very surprised to see no mention of Monterrey, which is the industrial heart of the country. Where does it fit in?
Industry, agree on the quality standards in automobile industry, but that kind of statement demands a citation.
Industry, FEMSA no longer exists, was divested, check the text there. (Check Grupo Alfa for possible mention of another company).
Energy; 3.8 million BPD doesn't look accurate/current on oil production, double check more recent sources just to be sure. It has decreased from ... needs to be stated, because additional investment, exploratio, production, drilling is needed (problem discussed more below)
Services: Bancomer "associated to the Spanish BBVA", copy edit problem, believes the correct statement would say majority owned by BBVA.
Banking system; Important description/context needed. Until recently, Mexico had no significant mortgage banking (secularization of mortgages), and this has just started. The ability of different economic groups to own homes via the new mortgage banking provisions should be discussed, and its likely impact. Home ownership eventually creates wealth; this can be an escape from poverty.
Currency policy; noted that reserves weren't cited (but I note that most of the article isn't cited).
Monetary system: says you need to give more context, explaining the significance of their unorthodox and unique way of managing interest rates, because they do it for FX reasons, relate to importance of FX policy in all Latin American countries.
Trade: here, there are actually some problems. You can't say Mexico is one of the most open countries (economies?) in the world, and cite that kind of info to a biased source (the Mexican Embassy), so take care that you are using the best and most objective sources. Yes, Mexico is becoming a very open economy, but for example, energy and metals are government controlled, in desperate need of additional investment that could very well be supplied by the private sector, but it's not allowed. Venezuela and Argentina — which are both currently more controlled economies — allow foreign investment in the energy area, as does Colombia. But, yes, the economy has made tremendous progress towards opening.
NAFTA — serious citation needs, assure that high quality, independent, objective sources are used.
Missing info: the remittances to Mexico by unregistered immigrants in the US could be impacted by US legislative changes, which could change the whole picture. Needs to be discussed. This will could reduce remittances, which is the second most important FX earner for the Mexican economy. The article can't be complete without a discussion of this potential remittances issue; the numbers are too big to ignore.

That's all for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, thank you, and your reviewer for your comments. I will look into fixing some of the stuff, but I also wanted to give an answer to some of the comments, for both the reviewer and any other user who might be reading:

GDP figures refer exclusively to states. Monterrey, as the capital of Nuevo León, does have quite a fame of being an industrial hub, and indeed it is, but despite the claims of its residents to be the industrial heart, it is not. Mexico City still is, or more properly, Greater Mexico City is. The industrial GDP of Greater Mexico City still surpasses that of Greater Monterrey; even the industrial GDP of Mexico City proper (Federal District only, less than half the population of the entire metro area) is greater than that of the entire state of Nuevo León (see figures in article). I believe the article is giving due weight to Monterrey's position as an important (arguably the second) most important industrial hub in the country, in which many headquarters of Mexican transnational companies are located. [Un]fortunately, the Mexican economy is, to a large degree (22% of the GDP) centralized in Greater Mexico City.
I will need to do some research on FEMSA. That text was written by another user who is from Monterrey. From what I found at their webpage ([29]) they seem to be alive and kicking, but I know very little of the company. Alfa, definitely deserves to be included in that list.

I probably mistyped the comment when I said it "no longer exists". I think the gist is that most of it was divested, it's now a much smaller company, no longer the conglomerate as mentioned and the other Grupo company would now be a better example for your purposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NAFTA; well I have received not so nice comments about that section since I first wrote it, but most of the sources that speak about how "terrible" NAFTA is come from secondary or tertiary sources, mainly newspapers and editorials. The three books I'm citing, one of the World Bank, another by the International Institute of Economics, and the third one written by many analysts from the three countries, were all critical, but agreed in that the positive economical effects have been greater than the negative effects. Being either primary sources, or reputable secondary sources citing primary sources, I give them much more credibility than newspaper articles and editorials.

As for the rest of your comments, I understand and agree. I will look into that. Thanks for the advise. Even if the article doesn't make it as an FA (at least not now), the quality of the article has and will continue to improve with your comments. Thanks!

--the Dúnadan 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Some issues:
- The MXN vs MXP discussion is hard to follow, and seems in outright error sometimes. What is the difference between MXN and MXP? I assume MXN are "new pesos" and MXP are "old pesos" per the 1993 exchange; however the article then gives an exchange rate for MXP to USD??? Why would there be a US exchange rate for a defunct currency? The section could use more explanation and cleanup for clarity.
- Some sections seem underreferenced. Much of the Agriculture and food production section makes claims about agricultural production (see the first paragraph) that have no references. Where does this information come from. Several other places suffer from the same problem.
- Print sources do not cite page numbers. If someone is to check your references, it seems reasonable to include what pages from the print sources they come from.
- The article seems to lack comprehensiveness. No treatment is given to certain key issues in the Mexican economy which are prevalent in the press; the loss of Mexican manufacturing jobs to China has been in the news, even in the U.S. Emmigration to the U.S. has had a PROFOUND effect on the economy in Mexico; several well researched books have been published on the subject in just the past year; yet this article gives no treatment to it. The article ignores some well-publicized and widely published facets of the Mexican economy, and it seems for want in those areas.

The article seems to be not quite FA ready. It is huge, and I can respect that, but it is a huge topic and lacks the comprehensiveness I would expect from an FA.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The MXN and MXP was a mistake, it has been corrected. The exchange rate refers to MXN.
Page numbers to printed sources can also be added, that is a minor issue.
As for the emigration of Mexicans to the US and its "profound" effect of the economy, I don't quite see your point. I am not defending the FA status of this article, but maybe you can point the editors to some of these "well researched" books. The impact, however, is mentioned in the Remittances section, and given its due weight. It speaks about the states which receive the greatest amount of remittances and talks about the economics of the phenomenon. The political and social issues of the phenomenon are discussed in Demography_of_Mexico#Emigration_from_Mexico. Perhaps a link to that article would be appropriate, but I wouldn't elaborate on non-economical issues here.

Emigration has a much more widespread effect on economy than remitances. The economic effect on the loss of male labor has been well covered. This has been a big part of the scholarship on the economy of Mexico in recent years and its ommission in this article is glaring. See this page from NPR to see the issue's treatment in mainstream press. This site has a long bibliography of migration issues; several of these works deal with the economic impact of labor movement into the U.S. To claim that the only impact of emigration from Mexico to the U.S. is the return of cash in the form of remittances seems a less than comprehensive treatment of the issue.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the links you provided. The first shows the social aspect of emigration (e.g. "ghost towns", "communities torn apart", "migrants leave kids") and political aspects (e.g. Immigration laws). All of that is quite relevant, but arguably, does not belong to an article about Economics, but Demographics, or even a specific article on Emigration from Mexico to the United States. The second link you provided has a list of books mostly related to social and cultural issues, but not to the Economic effects of emigration.

I do think there is more to emigration vis-à-vis economics than merely remittances, but none of the above relates to it. I believe I once read an article that suggested that emigration to the United States reduced labor supply in Mexico, thus having a positive impact on wages. (Or to put in other words: real wages would have been lower without the emigration given that labor supply is larger than demand, or the employment opportunities being generated). This would be an economic effect of emigration. But ghost towns, families torn apart and the like, should be mentioned, if at all, in Demography of Mexico. --the Dúnadan 21:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it still seems incomplete. You yourself said that you have an article describing wage effects (a REAL economic factor) of emigration. I also remember a broadcast I saw/heard (it was either NPR or CSPAN BookTV) that talked about the collapse of native agriculture (a REAL economic effect) due to the loss of male labor to work corn fields that was a direct result of emigration. My point wasn't really about any one issue; it was that the article seems to give the economic impact of emigration the short end; it only briefly mentions remittances (which some people claim doesn't really amount to much economic impact at all) and does not mention other effects, such as labor shortage, agricultural effects, microeconomic factors effecting women left behind, all of these are real economic effects. There may be more; I am neither an economist nor am I well versed in any aspect of Mexican society; however this article seems less than comprehensive since it gives so LITTLE treatment to emigration. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern for completeness, but I still disagree with both your appreciation and your approach. I recommend that you review the 4 external sources used for that section. For starters, remittances are by far the most important economic aspect of emigration in the short and in the long run, given its sheer economic value: they are the second largest largest source of foreign income, larger than foreign direct investment. I haven't read a singe economist who would dare to say that remittances does not amount to much economic impact! If you consider how important is FDI for economic growth, you'd see that it is astonishing to consider that income received through remittances is similar or even larger. In percentage points, remittances represent 2.5% of the country's GDP, which is larger than the share of some of the constituent states production to national GDP, and 20% of the total value of exports as calculated in the current account, which even though they are not enough to make it a surplus, they do reduce the deficit by a large amount. The World Bank has even suggested that remittances have been one of the driving forces behind rural poverty reduction (i.e. agricultural) from more than 40% to 27% in 2004. But these facts are already mentioned in the article.

Now, please keep in mind that the [economic] effects of emigration are very hard to quantify, especially if you wish to imply causality. For example, it would be very hard to prove that the purported collapse of agriculture (a very disputable and qualitative claim in itself given that even corn production, the most sensitive produce, has not fallen over the last 14 years, and horticulture has quadrupled) was caused directly by emigration and not by say [all true, btw]: (1) the real decline of world prices in agricultural products, arguably caused by subsidies in developed nations, (2) the abrupt openness of the agricultural market within NAFTA concurrent with the economic debacle of 1994, (3) lack of substantial support to peasants to modernize agriculture, (4) the fragmentation of land under the communal ejido concept. I might even dare to say that the agricultural inefficiencies are the cause of most of the emigration to the US and not viceversa.

Now, as for the rest of the effects you mention there is no labor shortage. Like I pointed out before, it is has been argued that the excess of labor in relation to available jobs (or lack thereof) is driving emigration. And again, I don't think this is the place to talk about the qualitative aspects of emigration, important as they might be to the Mexican society. However, considering that remittances are given a whole section, I don't think that "very little" is said about the economic effects of emigration. After all the article should not speak of emigration per se, this is not Demography of Mexico.

I can add more information about the economic effect of emigration, but I'd prefer to do it from an economic analysis point of view, and not a social, cultural or demographic point of view.

--the Dúnadan 06:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally, your last comment is a little vague. You said that the article ignores well-publicized and widely facets. Could you be more specific as to which facets you are referring to so the editors can include them?

--the Dúnadan 15:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Support I gave the article a fresh readthrough. I am mostly talking out of my ass up there. Not sure what got me off on that tangent, but all of my serious fixes were made. Looking at Dunadan's comments, he's right. The article really does address the info adequately. I see no reason to further withhold my support. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor object. Why the history section starts with 20th century, when the Economic history of Mexico mentions (if too briefly) 19th? Since History of Mexico shows that the country traditions are much older, those periods should be discussed as well. Economy of Mexico did not start in the 20th century.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What relation do historical traditions have with the economy? History of Mexico goes back for millennia, yet very little of what has occurred, even during colonial times, historically speaking could explain the intricacies of today's Mexican economy. (An economy doesn't start; the economy is always present in a society; today's economy however might bear little to no relation to the barter practiced a thousand years ago either in Mexico or in Europe, even if the events eventually led to the formation of capitalism in the latter). Elaborating on how the economy worked during Pre-Columbian times, while interesting, would best fit in an article about the Economic history of Mexico. Moreover, Mexican economy today, for good and for bad, is to a much greater degree the product of the radical transformation of the country during and after the Mexican Revolution, hence it seems appropriate to start the section on that particular event in time and the economic reasons that caused such a movement. If the reader wishes to deepen his/her knowledge about the Economic History of Mexico, they can be redirected to the appropriate article. In a similar way, the History section in many articles about countries and economies elaborate on recent events and simply summarize or even omit events that occurred thousand of years ago unless they help explain to a large degree some characteristics of today's society/economy. --the Dúnadan 22:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 13 June 2007.

[edit] Charizard

First failed FAC, Second failed FAC, Third failed FAC, Fourth failed FAC, Fifth failed FAC, Sixth failed FAC

There has been some work on this article, and I feel that it is time to try and make it a featured article for the seventh time! - ~VNinja ~ 04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

¿Qué? Erm. This just failed FAC two weeks ago. WP:WIAFA criteria 1c is still failed, badly. Yeah... -Amarkov moo! 04:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Very little has changed since the end of the last FAC. Still needs more about the concept of the character from an out-of-world perspective. Gimmetrow 05:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Not nearly enough out-of-universe perspective. MLilburne 10:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Give it at least two months. It needs more than just 11 days. TheBlazikenMaster 13:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose 'Biological characteristics' paragraph is short, looks like an afterthought. The prose sucks in the "In the Pokémon video games" sub-section, so that needs fixing too. This isn't quite ready yet. — Wackymacs 13:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment What happened to reference #8?--Rmky87 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, as its considered poor taste to renominate so soon after the last nomination. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 19:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's hardly actionable. If you think it hasn't changed enough to meet the objections at the last FAC, that's fine. But waiting long enough since the last FAC is hardly a criterion for featured articles. ShadowHalo 10:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Take it how how you will, but that's surely what I meant. To pass an FAC so soon after the last there should be significant improvements, which really have not taken place here. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 15:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Still has the same lack of secondary sources it had two weeks ago. Next time please look through the failed FACs. This has been brought up on every one of them. Quadzilla99 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Would pokemon guidebooks published by Nintendo and Prima count as reliable sources? The Placebo Effect 01:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, but the problem is that they don't talk nearly enough about Charizard. -Amarkov moo! 01:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose For reasons stated above. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 13 June 2007.

[edit] Flood (Halo)

I've been working on this article for a long time. Come to think of it, it was my first GA. Anyhow, presenting it here for your consideration. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: the article is entirely in-universe and thus fails criteria 1b. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Citation 17 and 18 point to the same page of the same book. Either there is a typo in the page number, or they need to be merged. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations fixed. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article, although well-referenced, is too short. — Wackymacs 13:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment See Here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flood_%28Halo%29#References but amazingly nothing else wrong except maybe juggernauts should be mentioned Agentheartlesspain 20:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Juggernauts are not canon; as for the refs, I made a minor change in phrase; we don't know exactly what the bodies were for, only inferences made from the Halo Graphic Novel. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 21:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment* mentioning sragent johnsons and hunters immunities

or reasons of why a flood couldnt infect something Jenkins also or at least linked Agentheartlesspain 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose While some of the article is written from a decent enough out of universe perspective, it contains no real out of universe information. How were they developed? How were they received by the world? Have they had any notable impact upon culture? It really should never have passed its GA nomination. You also should cut down on the in-universe information. I don't really see the point in going so in-depth on just the variants. TTN 21:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Support Good work and if anything just keep expanding it and developing it further! :) --164.107.222.23 22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose due to the lack of any out-of-universe information. What was the inspiration for the Flood, whether it be from the real world or another kind of media? What is the reaction from professional game reviewers to the Flood in the game, in terms of both design and gameplay? There is not enough real-world context for this article to warrant serious recognition. I would recommend looking at FAs of fictional characters (and races, if any exist) for some guideline. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I think everyone has established the major problem with this page. For help, might I suggest taking a look at Jabba the Hutt, Palpatine, Padme Amidala, Jack Sparrow, or one that would be closer to this medium... Link (The Legend of Zelda). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Something to specifically point to. Look at Link's "characteristics" section. Look at how it is written. It isn't written like the character is real (i.e. It appears that the Flood can infect recently dead lifeforms, as the Prophet of Regret is assimilated by Gravemind shortly after being assassinated by the Master Chief in Halo 2). Though you are attributing things to a game, instead of simply the fictional world, the tone in which you are writing suggests that the character is real, that it actually did the things you are saying. When you write about fictional characters, you need to show us the why. Why did the creator make him this way, and why did the creator make him do that; as opposed to just saying "The character appears like this in Halo 2, and does this in Halo 1". Did I explain that well enough? I ask because fictional characters can be one of the hardest things to write about (trust me, I've been working on one particular one for months now), and I want to try and make it as clear as possible since you have a good start. It seems you have a lot of good sources, but what's lacking is the identification that this character was created by someone else, and we need to know why they chose what they chose, and how they accomplished that. Also look at the "Conception and creation" section for Link. Read over that, it is a good example of how you attribute an idea to a living person. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, not enough real-world information. However, I thin the information could very well be out there, so making this featured in the future might not be out of the question. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 13 June 2007.

[edit] Seung-Hui Cho

Well illustrated, well-referenced, comprehensive, and informative exposition on the subject of this American youth leader and performance artist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NewHampshireVolunteer (talk • contribs)

Oppose Lead paragraph is too short. Subsequent sub-sections in 'Childhood and adolescence' are each very short. Still needs work in relation to the organization of the entire article, and the prose. It might also be considered a rather unstable article as well, since this isn't too long after the VTech incident occurred. — Wackymacs 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a joke nom, I don't think this mass murder is a "American youth leader and performance artist"-Ravedave 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, lead is too short; still has some stabilizing to do. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 19:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Close, as this is clearly not a good faith nomination. HokieRNB 18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Don't have an opinion yet either way, but could you be more clear why this is "clearly not" good faith? That's a strong accusation, and I don't see any evidence pointing that way. Wrad 21:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Ok, I looked a little further, and I'll present the evidence for you. The nom's talk page shows a history of problems, the wording of the nom is a joke. However, I still think the article merits a fair response. Wrad 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose—stability. I just read in the news about the ongoing (possibly for a while) investigation into Cho's motives. --zenohockey 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's one aspect of stability that won't be completed for years yet; having said that, I don't think any thing about his motive will change drastically over the next little while. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 04:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. As it stands, the lead section is too short, and doesn't do a good article justice. Try adding one or two paragraphs. CloudNine 15:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - based on the fact that this was not a serious nomination. Can we please close this and move on? HokieRNB 20:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose This was not only a joke nomination, but it also has the potential to offend asian americans. There was severe backlash on the Korean american communities, and to call him an American Youth Leader and performance artist risks offending a great number of people affected by the attacks and undermines the values of the Asian community. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 13 June 2007.

[edit] Xbox 360

The Xbox 360 page has good info and is very popular. --Danny Phantom ^Phantom... 02:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Page failed GA, unsourced statements, poor copywriting in places. A page with "good info" and "very popular" is not valid reasoning behind promoting a page to FA. Anthony Hit me up... 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It could really, really do with an image or two of key games. That afterall if what its all about really. How many pictures of microchips do you need and not one game screenshot? Very good though.Whataboutbob 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The lead surely could do a better job of collectively summarizing the mass of text here. Sigh; yet another drive by nomination, top contributors listed below. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
1. Anetode (talk · contribs) 293 edits
2. Oscarthecat (talk · contribs) 257 edits
3. 70.101.201.248 (talk · contribs) 135 edits
4. K1Bond007 (talk · contribs) 124 edits

"yet another drive by nomination" What's wrong with that? Also where did you get those stats? Buc 18:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not significant enough an issue that's worth immediate opposition, so I didn't. Some articles that are nominated under such circumstances are ready. Simply put, it's a lot easier for the nominator to act upon objections if he has actively contributed to the article. Said tool can be found here [30]. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:39, 13 June 2007.

[edit] David Rockefeller

Very impressive article of high quality. Tomer T 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I really have a problem with fly-by noms. Right off the LEAD is way too short. I note there is no discussion on the article talk page about nominating nor at the talk page of the biggest contributor. I agree that the article looks very promising but who is going to address the issues which come up here?cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note with the main contributer. Please take it up on Tomers talk page, not here. -Ravedave 22:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, lead too short, references are sporadic and are improperly formatted, a couple sections are too listy, and it lacks an image. The nominator has not made an edit to the article as mentioned above...the top three editors are as follows. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 23:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
1. QuantumOne (talk · contribs) -- 501 edits
2. Crosbiesmith (talk · contribs) -- 10 edits
3. Jerryseinfeld (talk · contribs) -- 9 edits

Oppose. The article is not a GA yet, so try to reach that first. Some of the problems - move quotations to Wikiquote and only link to them; trim down the "See also" and "External links" sections; Rename, reformat and trim down sections like "Some Awards", "Some positions held/institutions founded during his lifetime" and "Bibliography"; find free images.--Svetovid 07:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Lead too short, 'The family estate: Pocantico' section too short. Obviously not ready for FA yet. Premature nomination. — Wackymacs 13:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Opose. It really needs an image. But my main thing would be, there is a "Bibliography" then "significant mentions for the bibliography" the "notes" then "references". Where does one thing start and the other end. It therefore can't be verifiable. Its just an overwhelming article I couldnt even be arsed to read a tiny bit.Whataboutbob 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Would even an image of Rockefeller Center be helpful here? -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 04:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 22:41, 10 June 2007.

[edit] 2008 UEFA European Football Championship

I think it should be a Featured Article because every one has worked so hard on it and it is looking very good, and i feel that it meets all of the Requirements CHAZA93 Talk Contribs 07:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This article is about a future sports team, and its content can dramatically shift as time goes own, thus failing the stability requirement. Also a complete lack of references. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Suggest removal. The competetion hasn't happened yet, and won't for a year. There is no way this could even have a single grain of chance of becomming an FA. If the article is good enough, when they tournament has actually happened, then maybe it could, but not until then. Gran² 14:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"There is no way this could even have a single grain of chance of becomming an FA." Try to be a little more civil in your oppose. CloudNine 15:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why that's uncivil, but I apologise for it anyway. Gran² 17:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW Oppose, content will change significantly as the event approaches and takes place. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE REQUEST ¢нαzα93 Talk Contribs 20:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] Providence, Rhode Island

I feel this is a thorough, succinct, well-sourced article, giving a good feeling of the subject matter at hand.Loodog 03:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ Comments

State Capitol - This would help make it immediately obvious that Providence is the State Capital.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

Providence, Rhode Island

- Geography section needs work. The following text was added quite some time ago by a bot - "Providence is located at 41°49'25" North, 71°25'20" West (41.823550, -71.422132).GR1 According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 53.2 km² (20.5 mi²). 47.8 km² (18.5 mi²) of it is land and 5.3 km² (2.1 mi²) of it is water. The total area is 10.03% water.
- There's also text added by the bot in the Demographics section - "As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were 173,618 people, 62,389 households, and 35,873 families residing in the city. ..." This text provides the framework for stub articles on towns and cities across the U.S., based on standard census data, and is only meant to be a starting point. --Aude (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment I've added a little bit of material I found from a source. Other than that, I'm afraid I don't understand what's to be added.--Loodog 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    - New material is good. Though, one of the featured article criteria is for the prose to be well-written, "brilliant", engaging, etc. What the bot wrote (e.g "As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were 173,618 people, 62,389 households, and 35,873 families residing in the city.") isn't really written in an interesting, engaging manner. The geographic coordinates don't need to be in the text anymore, since they are in the infobox and elsewhere. Please give the sections a good copyediting, take a look at User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a for ideas, and possibly get someone else to also help with copyediting to catch things you might overlook. --Aude (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      - Follow up Done.--Loodog 14:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        The article is much improved, but still needs more cites. (e.g. record low temperature).
        
        Also, I still think the demographics section can be written in a more "engaging" way. It's very heavy in statistics, written in a way that I don't think is yet "brilliant" prose. Look at New York City, which has eliminated many of the statistics from the prose (though some are now in a table). There's should be more context to the statistics. For example, where you say "city had one of the highest rates of poverty in the nation," maybe there's more you can say about this. Is poverty concentrated in particular neighborhoods?
        
        Are there ethnic enclaves in certain neighborhoods?
        
        I don't know how far Providence is from Boston (I don't see that mentioned, how far in miles, or how long in minutes does Google Maps say for driving distance? or how long by train?), but perhaps is there an influence, with migration of some sorts? I think places like Worcester, Massachusetts are seeing an influx of new residents from the Boston area, for whatever reasons.
        
        Or maybe the population of Providence is declining, losing residents to some other places?
        
        Apparently, Providence's "rate of growth of the Latino population in Rhode Island far outstrips that of the New England region." [31]
        
        In the intro, the article mentions the MSA population "exceeding that of Rhode Island by about 60%." For people not familiar with New England, this is confusing. Why is this so? Because parts of the MSA fall within Connecticut? within Massachusetts?
        
        I'll take a further look at other sections of the article later, but addressing such questions in the article would make it more informative and engaging beyond just citing statistics. --Aude (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        Most of your points, I understand what's to be done. The issue of ethnic enclaves in certain neighborhoods is actually on the page, but some of them I can't find sources to confirm. The distance between Providence and Boston is 51 miles on googlemaps. The city does exert a considerable influence as I know many people who make the commute, and this is the reason Providence was added to Boston's CSA in 2006. I just don't know how to talk about influence in the article without it being original research, since I can't find sources on this either.--Loodog 23:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        Update Oooh, your linked source is exactly what I needed. Thanks :) Question: there are still dry statistics on the page (e.g. As of the 2000 census[28], there were 62,389 households out of which 32.3% have children under the age of 18 living with them, 31.9% were married couples living together, 20.5% had a female...). Can I just remove this or is it an expected part of a city article? NYC doesn't have it, but they have an entire article dedicated to demographics.--Loodog 18:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        I think those details are not needed. Bringing in a more diverse range of sources (as I notice you are doing) for the demographics section helps. --Aude (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        Done.--Loodog 23:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Many more citations are needed throughout the article. Demographics, Geography, History, Economy, and Transportation all need help in that regard. Indoles 19:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As many citations as I could think to add are now included. Let me know if there's any place else that needs more source support.--Loodog 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment There has been improvement, as I can see, but many more citations are still needed. In the Culture, Demographics, History sections more are needed. The other sections that I noted above are looking much better. Indoles 12:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Done.--Loodog 23:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Support - Lets fix things per above and then get this baby on the front page :) --Tom 15:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. My reason for oppose similar to Aude. This article is rich in information, but the writing is not brilliant yet. Just commenting on the lead-in paragraph as an example, the word "city" or "cities" was used 8 times. A lot of work is needed to eliminate redundant words, and the prose needs to be more succinct. SeleneFN 19:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Agree. Article essentially needs a thorough copy editing. I'll start on this over the next coupla days. I invite others who have worked on the article to do the same.--Loodog 20:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Man. "this city is the second-largest city in New England". I didn't even notice stupid redundancies like this.--Loodog 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment something else that would help the article would be to try and find/get some different photos to use, to show the place better than some of the photos presently in the article. The picture in the infobox is particularly gloomy. Also, make sure to link to Wikimedia Commons, with {{commonscat|Providence, Rhode Island}}. --Aude (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Followup Done. Though wikicommons was already linked via the sisterlinks at the bottom in the EL section.--Loodog 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Followup part 2 In addition to copy edits of the article, more significant changes to the article include an expansion in education about its impact on the city and an opening phrase in the intro that Providence is one of the first cities established in the United States (with source). I apologize for the heavy editing after requesting FA status.--Loodog 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Great work on the copy editing. Just a few more comments:

Strange "indentation" of the "Geography" section title due to the placement of the picture "New construction in Providence...". This should be fixed by using appropriate line-breaks
Reference 6 is overcited. Cite it once or twice in a paragraph is OK - just place it at the ends if there are no other references added in between.
Some ref numbers are placed with a space bar away from the period - please remove those
Ref numbers should be placed after the punctuation, such as correcting "through the center of the city [11]," to "...city,[11]"
Summarize the following to one sentence because it is currently overly detailed: "Cianci was indicted in April 2001 on various federal criminal charges including racketeering, conspiracy, extortion, witness tampering, and mail fraud. He was ultimately convicted of conspiracy and was released from federal prison as of June 6, 2007 (a book written about his life in crime, The Prince of Providence, is in the process of being adapted to the big screen.[44])". Also, remove trivia about this book and film.
Grammar: "Between these schools attend approximately 44,000 post-secondary students or 25% of the population of Providence"
Rephrase: "higher education exerts in a considerable presence." A considerable presence for what? Meaning of this phrase not quite clear

SeleneFN 16:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Update Done, except for your comment about the indentation of the Geography section. I don't quite understand what you mean.--Loodog 23:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've run AWB over the article and it's made changes to the Climate section regarding temperatures. I wasn't sure that it made it better, so make sure that the temperatures are formatted correctly according to the Manual of Style, especially this section. Harryboyles 04:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] University of Oklahoma

Previous FAC

The old nom was gigantic and I could not make heads nor tails of it. I'm resetting it. Raul654 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose As stated in the previous review, this article does not meet WP:MoS, WP:GTL, and FA requirements. I think the article is good, but is missing key ingredients. Please realize that this is a cut & paste from the previous page. I spent a good four hours poring over it and I have no intention of repeating that. If an issue has already been addressed, please note it and I will cross it off. Comments and discussion from the previous review have been included

"Located on campus are two prominent museums including an art museum and a natural history museum which specializes in the history of Oklahoma." needs commas, redundant use of "museums."
"Landscaping is still a vital focal point of the university." reference?

Reworded. still no references. Oldag07 03:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Presbyterians and Baptists got along but the Southern Methodists conflicted with the administration. Two notable Methodists, Rev. Nathaniel Lee Linebaugh and Professor Ernest Taylor Bynum, were critics of Boyd and activists in Haskell's election campaign. When Haskell was elected, he fired many of the remaining Republicans at the university, including President Boyd." reference
"The campus continued to grow over the next several decades. By 1926, the university encompassed 167 acres (0.7 km²). The South Oval was developed, allowing the campus to spread further south. A new library was built in 1929 at the north end of the new oval." reference?
"...most were severely deteriorated by the late 1980s and were demolished in the 1990s to make room for redevelopment." source?
"The Jimmie Austin University of Oklahoma Golf Course was built as a Navy recreational facility.[19]" U.S. Navy is capitalized, navy by itself isn't.
"The installation was given to the university in the post-World War II demobilization. This airfield's Naval past is commemorated by Naval aviator's wings displayed at the entrance to the terminal." source?
"These apartments are now Kraettli Apartments." Unsourced. And why is this of any importance? named after someone?
"George Lynn Cross took over as President of the University in 1943, two years after the U.S. entered World War II. He remained at the helm until 1968, 25 years later. He is the longest serving president in history of the university. The next 25 years after Cross stepped down saw five more presidents. In 1994, the university finally hired a man that would remain president for many years."

source
"25 years later." 25 years is redundant since both years are in consecutive sentences and serves no useful point until the next sentence, where it is far more appropriate.
"He is the longest serving president in history of the university." Take out the adjectives at the beginning and you get "He is the president...", it should be "He was..."; "in history of" should be :#"in the history of..." Recommend rephrasing to, "This span of 25 years made him the longest serving president in the history of the university." or something similar

"A short list of some of the new developments include..." is like saying "This sentence is short..." and is not needed.
"purchase of the new 60 acres (0.2 km²) location of OU-Tulsa" how are acres new and how is it a development?

This is explained further down in the Oklahoma City and Tulsa secion.↔NMajdan•talk 19:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My problem is not with the new OU-Tulsa campus, it is with the placement of the adjective "new." The acres are not new, the campus is; therefore, "new" is misplaced. Perhaps "purchase of 60 acres (0.2 km²) for the new OU-Tulsa campus"?

"A short list...and the National Weather Center.[24]" too long to be one sentence. break it up into under construction, developments, completed projects. Maybe add their impact and/or significance?
"The Oklahoma Mesonet, a state-of-the-art network of environmental monitoring stations that is an OU-OSU partnership, won a special award from the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the nation's leading professional society for those in the atmospheric and related sciences."

Source?
"that is an OU-OSU partnership" very awkward
"won a special award" how and what kind of special was it? was it special to you? was it special to the university? etc. (sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm just trying to make a point that it is vague and be a little funny at the same time)
"the nation's leading professional society for those in the atmospheric and related sciences." Simply not needed. AMS stands alone, especially with a link to their page.

"The university is composed of fifteen colleges, including many majors such as..." how many majors do you really have? "many" is a weasel word.
No source for the entire intro paragraph for "Academic profile"
"Following the Sooner's 2000 football national championship season, the university experienced a surge in college applicants and admissions. In 2001, 5,279 new freshman were enrolled. In 2006, 3,342 freshmen were enrolled." How exactly is this a surge? How exactly does this demonstrate a surge?
"...over 700 National Merit Scholars, making it number one per capita among public universities" number one is odd terminology. Maybe ~~"F1RST, per capita"~~ "first, per capita" (Sorry couldn't resist needling a bit :-) )
"These colleges include (with student percentages in parenthesis)..." Simply phrase it the same way you did with the first set of colleges. This way is awkward.
"The museum opened with over 3,000 items on display and was originally located on campus in Jacobson Hall." Source says 2,500.
"...then, the museum has acquired many renowned works of Native American art..." remove dead/broken/nonexistent wikilink
"The Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History that specializes in the history of the people..." as opposed to the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History that specializes in something else? rephrase.
Several references (just look down the list) do not use the provided citation templates, dates accessed, etc. (please note that templates are not required at all, but proper citations are. In addition, I feel that you should stick to one form or another throughout the article)

Reference 7 is unnecessary if "As of fall 2006..." is incorporated into the text.

Reference 24 no link to the PDF or page number for the magazine
Reference 25 should be a listed properly as a reference or be placed elsewhere
References 77 & 80 are dead links
References (such as 58 and 98) do not fill the proper fields of the given template and, therefore the works are not italicized properly: e.g. Time Magazine; this should be in the "journal" field. The "publisher" is not the name of the magazine. For Time, I believe it is "Time, Inc.", but it might be "AOL Time Warner." You'll have to check.
And this is just a pet peeve of mine and I'm not sure if it's formally covered in the WP:MoS, but I hate it when references are out of order, e.g. blah blah blah.^[21][7]

Shouldn't the title of the section "Norman" be something else like "Norman campus"? You are clearly talking about the school and not the city.
Refs for:

"The Norman campus is centered around two large "ovals." The Parrington Oval (or North Oval as it is more commonly called) is anchored on the south by Evans Hall, the main administrative building."

Can a map be a reference?↔NMajdan•talk 23:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The media (map, audio recording, video, etc.) isn't terribly important. The questions to be asked are related to its reliability - Who published it? Are they trustworthy? Is it verifiable? etc. If you're confident in answering "yes" to those questions, then I don't see any reason not use a map as a reference. --ElKevbo 23:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A map would be an ideal reference for this section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"On the east side of the central part...honoring the Native Americans who defined so much of Oklahoma's history..."
"The portion of campus south of Lindsey Street...and features indoor and outdoor pools."
"Directly north of the main campus on Boyd Street...and the Norman population at large."
"South of student housing is Timberdell Road, the approximate southern boundary of the university. South of this road are University-owned apartments and athletic complexes."
"This area also includes many athletic complexes...completed on the south end of campus."
"The southern boundary of the south campus is State Highway 9."
"On the far north side of Norman is the OU Research Park...frequented by students with the exception of those studying meteorology or aviation."
"The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center...presence in Oklahoma City."
"The nineteen buildings that make up the OUHSC campus...and new scientific ventures."
"Established in 1972 as a branch of the main medical school campus....has grown but scattered."
"Construction on the new building is nearing completion."
"The Academic Arts Community, more commonly referred to as Cate 5 or Honors...with the Couch Cafeteria completing the residence community."
"Located in between Adams and Walker Centers is the Adams/Walker Mall...as well as its own computer lab and laundry facilities"
"Due to the lower cost of living in Oklahoma, many students find it financially viable to live off campus in either apartments or houses."
"The offices of many of these organizations are in the Oklahoma Memorial Union (student union)."

Also watch the weasel word "many". How about "a majority" or "a minority"

"The student union provides...bands, dances, give-aways, and other activities."
"A large intramural field...Members of the band are also present for many student events."
"The campus radio station...affiliated with NPR."
"Oklahoma has a strong social fraternity...Panhellenic Association was 3.30." dead link
"The main governing arm of the student body...located in the student union."
"The General Counsel is the chief legal counsel...all of the campus-wide events that happen on campus."
"The school's sports teams are called the Sooners...before the land run officially started."
"They participate in the NCAA's Division I-Bowl...nine sports for both men and women."
"...and seven national championships in football (football championships are not awarded by the NCAA)." Definitely need to prove this one. You may want to leave split championships out or they may cause problems.
"Many Pro Football Hall of Famers, including Lee Roy Selmon and Troy Aikman, also attended the University of Oklahoma." Also fix weasel word "many" or prove it and define "many"
"The men's gymnastics team has won seven national championships including championships in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006."

Change "The Parrington Oval (or North Oval as it is more commonly called)..." to "The Parrington Oval, colloquially called the North Oval,... and get rid of all of these items in parenthesis.
"On the east side of the central part of campus lies Gaylord Family - Oklahoma Memorial Stadium" Fix subject-verb agreement.
Wordiness: "There are also four buildings on the main campus..." should be "Four buildings on the main campus..." you could also throw in "Additionally" to keep the flow going.
"University-owned apartments" should be "university-owned apartments" IAW WP:MoS.
"Lloyd Noble Center (the basketball arena)" Again, remove parenthesis and subreference; wikilink should be sufficient.
remove "(ICAO airport code KOUN)" Of trivial importance; should be in the wikilink for anyone interested.
"Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, established in the early 20th century, is OU's presence in Oklahoma City." When exactly was it established? Is this their sole presence in the City? How about the fans? How about other student organizations. Not saying that it isn't the sole entity of the campus that is there, but it should be better phrased.
"Between 1972 and 1999, OU's presence in Tulsa has grown but scattered" How about "growth was significant, but scattered"? Show how significant the growth was or choose another adverb.
"In 1999, a 60 acres (0.2 km²) site formerly owned by BP Amoco was sold to the University for $24 million (even though the property was appraised at $48 million)."

"60 acres site" fix adjective/noun agreement
remove parenthesis and replace with commas. There is a lot of this throughout the article that needs to be incorporated or replaced.

"370,000 square feet (34,370 m²)" fix approximation to the nearest thousand, not ten.
"Oklahoma requires, with few exceptions..." what are the exceptions? Link states that this is a Regent requirement, not a state requirement.
"Three of these building are towers (12 stories each): Adams Center, Walker Center, and Couch Center; the other two are quads with Cate Center being the primary quad and Cross Center being a spillover location." Very awkward phrasing. Split into two sentences as well.
"Some of these apartments were old and dilapidated, and the university has taken the strides to resolve this issue." Just delete this uncited reference and state that the ones that were demolished were destroyed for whatever reason.
"Two brand new complexes owned by the university opened in recent years; OU Traditions Square East in 2005 and OU Traditions Square West in 2006.[69]" Improper use of a semicolon.
"One older complex, Kraettli apartments, still has residents (mainly families and law students[70]), while another, Parkview Apartments, were recently demolished.[71]" Wrong placement of citation. S-V agreement: "another" is singular, "were" is plural.
"Since 2002, four new apartment or condominium complexes (not including the OU-owned properties) have been built[72] in addition to a booming housing market that is resulting in Norman spreading further east." run-on sentence
"Many' students commute from nearby Moore and Oklahoma City." Weasel word; no citation.
"Focuses of these organizations range from ethnic to political, religious to special interests." I think "range" is the wrong word here. It implies that there is a range between extremes. If you think there is a range between "ethnic and political" and "religious and special interests," what is in between? I think that religious and special interests doesn't really cover much ground. Where do professional organizations fall in? I'd rather see "include focuses in..." and then a list.
"These programs can include...give-aways..." scratch "can"; spell giveaway properly
The Pride of Oklahoma...The Pride celebrated..." is this the nickname for the band? Make it obvious "The Pride of Oklahoma, also known as The Pride..."
"...and consists of 311 student musicians and dancers from 19 states." Keep the same tense in verb usage
"The full band makes trips to...and the bowl game." should be "Big 12 Championships, and bowl games."
"In some circumstances, the full band may travel if a game is of importance." Ambiguous. Is it under "some circumstances" (and what are those circumstances) or "if a game is of importance?"
"...present for many student events." weasel word again...
The campus radio station is The Wire, which is broadcast on TV4OU SAP and over the Internet. The campus TV station, TV4OU, features student produced programming five nights a week and is available on local cable (COX Ch. 4). "OU Nightly" is the live, student newscast which airs weeknights at 4:30 and 9:30. "The Sports Package" is a live sports program, which airs live Monday nights at 5:00 and throughout the week. The Wire and TV4OU are programmed through Oklahoma's Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication. Oklahoma's Department of Continuing Education operates KROU and KGOU, a public radio station broadcasting on 106.3 FM. KGOU is affiliated with NPR." Italicize consistently and IAW WP:MoS. What does "which airs live Monday nights at 5:00 and throughout the week" mean? "KROU and KGOU, a public radio station broadcasting on 106.3 FM." do they both broadcast on the same band? at the same time? (some local stations do this when two local teams are competing in different venues at the same time. Since they are in stereo, they put one on the left channel and one on the right).
"The campus newspaper is The Oklahoma Daily produced daily during the fall and spring semesters and weekly during the summer semester" run-on sentence
"Many fraternities and sororities..." How many? Gotta watch those weasel words.
"These events include Homecoming, Parent's Weekend, Big Red Rally (a pep rally before the start of the football season), Howdy Week (a welcoming of new students to campus in the fall), Winter Welcome Week (same as Howdy Week, except before the spring semester), Speakers' Bureau (committee responsible for bringing speakers to campus), as well as many others." Too many things in parenthesis. Eliminate "many."
"...former students go on to local and national prominence. This includes..." should be "These include"
"...many athletes..." Weasel word
Missing citations for Lee Roy Selmon, Roy Williams, Tommie Harris, Billy Sims, Wayman Tisdale, Joe Washington, Darrell Royal, and Steve Owens. I know these guys are heroes for you. Just include a link with them in it and where they went to school. ESPN.com does a pretty good job for that.
"George Lynn Cross, OU's president from 1943 to 1968, once told the Oklahoma" delete extra word "once"
"...five Nissen Emery Award winners..." delete dead wikilink or make new topic.
"The University of Oklahoma has had a long and bitter rivalry with the University of Texas..." delete had unless the rivalry has ended.
This rivalry is often thought of..." how often?
"Oklahoma <ADD also> has a longstanding rivalry with Oklahoma State University.
"...it encompasses all ~~the~~ athletic contests" remove extra word or add "of"
This is really getting into the weeds, but the references do not need blank fields in the citations. If you'll notice on the citation template page, they don't have a single example reference with a blank field, but almost all omit some fields. If you are going to do these templates, then I think they should all be done IAW the template guide. This is not a requirement (as is stated on the page), but I think a featured article should show the best, not just "good enough."
Make sure you use & nbsp; appropriately throughout in using figures.
The pictures of the Sower Statue, May We Have Peace, Pastoral Dreamer, the Edward Gaylord statue are pictures of copyrighted 3D works of art and need to be labeled as such. I recommend using the {{Template:Non-free 3D art}} template. In addition, the picture Image:Brooks Inauguration 1912 was indeed taken in 1912, but the image page states that it was pulled from the Sooner magazine in 1965 (a published work after 1923), and thereby violates copyright rules. I also can't find the picture in the source listed. I recommend finding a different source for the same image, a different image, make the source clearer (seems to be missing here if I am wrong), or just delete it (it isn't necessary for the article to become FA). — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the source of the image. I have also placed an InterLibrary Loan for the 1912 Sooner Yearbook. Surely, if it were published prior to 1923, it would be in either the 1912 or 1913 yearbook. I tried the 1912 first. This will take some time to resolve as history has taught me it usually takes 3-5 weeks to get an ILL.↔NMajdan•talk 14:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In short, I feel that this does not represent the best Wikipedia has to offer and, therefore, should not be a featured article at this time. It can certainly be improved to meet this standard and time should be granted to make these changes. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So this is amounting to basically a reference for every sentence in the article. I'll work on what I can find.↔NMajdan•talk 23:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia states "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." There are claims made and there is no reference given. IMHO, unless it is a widely known fact, e.g. "Birds can fly," then it should be cited.
Further: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others include Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three."

Some of the statements that the previous reviewer wants to be cited are difficult to find sources for, and some are almost borderline common knowledge, like Billy Simms going to OU and the fact that many students commute from Oklahoma City, for example. I would not hold it against this article if some of the "borderline common knowledge" statements could not be cited. It just might be hard to find sources for some of them, and I understand that. Okiefromokla•talk 01:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. Featured articles should be the example as to how to do an article. Took me all of 2 minutes to find and type the first reference:

Billy Simms went to OU.^[2]

As for this second one, "many students commute from Oklahoma City," it uses the word "many," a weasel word which is trying to assert an obscure fact. "Many of the students..." How many is many? Is it a percentage? Is it more than 100? more than 500? 1,000? Stick with verifiable facts. "Students can commute from OKC..." and cite one instances of someone doing so. It is that easy. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean Billy Simms was hard to cite. I just meant that Billy Simms going to OU is borderline common knowledge. (I'm not objecting to it be cited, though). However, other things that may be of similar common knowledge may be difficult to find a reference for. For example, "Construction on the new building is nearing completion," may be hard to find a source for that as well, so it should probably be changed to the building's expected completion date. I, however, do not think it is controversial or widely unknown that students commute from Oklahoma City to OU. If there's not a source for this, I am not going to object to this article being a featured article. Saying that students commute from all over the Oklahoma City metorpolitan area (in different wording) is an even more reasonable claim, as OU is in the OKC metropolitan area. I would not object to that, either. My point is, after all the statements have been cited except those that are unable to be found and common knowledge anyway, we could look at some wording changes and I will be satisfied with that. The only agreement that could probably be reached (if there is no source to be found) is that some of the statements making a claim like "many students do this.. etc." could just be deleted all together. Okiefromokla•talk 17:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Until I looked him up, I didn't know who exactly who Billy Simms was. I didn't grow up in the South. I had heard the name, but didn't know his significance, especially in relation to OU.
"Common knowledge" is a hard thing to nail down. I am trying to point out that things need to be sourced or rephrased. For example:
Commuting: Just state how far it is from OKC to the campus and state that it allows for people to commute: "Students can commute from the nearby OKC metro area..." Cite a source that shows the distance and add a comment that the distance can be inferred as a commutable distance. I've done this for a few dozen things that I couldn't find.

Claiming OU is in the OKC metropolitan area: Sure! Sounds like a solution, but again, just provide a simple source (if it is within 45 minutes of the city limits, then there is no issue). Maybe, "The Norman campus is within 45 miles of OKC, making it possible for students to commute from the metro area..."
As for "The only agreement that could probably be reached (if there is no source to be found) is that some of the statements making a claim like "many students do this.. etc." could just be deleted all together." is ridiculous. If you can't back up a claim, then it is not verifiable and as it states in the box below where you edit your posts: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" (emphasis added).

Speaking as somebody from Scotland, I have neither heard of Billy Simms nor the University of Oklahoma. TimVickers 03:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose As I had said in the previous version, the article is right now not feature-ready but it could be with some work, as has been outlined above. I will gladly support the article if the issues are taken care of, but with the length of time this article has been a candidate and the fact the the editors have all but given up entirely (see previous version) it doesn't look like any big changes will be made any time soon. Okiefromokla•talk 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] Maria Callas

It's a full, well-written article, with sufficient images and proper subheads and references. Plus, she was La Divina!!--WoodElf 05:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per these problems:

Image issues:
- The infobox image indicates that the image is being used alongside critical commentary. In the place it is being used in this article, it is instead being used for mere identification purposes (that is what it is in the infobox for, n'est pas?) and thus is uncovered by Fair Use.
- The family portrait image is using a deprecated liscence tag; also it may be uncovered by fair use as the author of a picture taken in 1925 may have lived past 1937 and thus the image would NOT be public domain; we don't have enough information about the image to make any judgement on its proper use in the article.
- The image of the book cover, Image:Unkown Callas.jpg, isn't being used to illustrate the book in question and thus cannot be used here. It isn't covered by fair use.
- The image Image:IMG 2559.JPG claims that its copyright holder has relinquished rights to it; but I see no source and no evidence that such relinquishing of rights has taken place...

I am going to stop there. There may be other issues, but it is clear that an article that misuses copyright images to the level that this one does should not be upheld as a featured article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I moved the image out of infobox and into main section. I removed the book cover image and changed the info tag on IMG 2559 image to copyright, fair-use. I dont know about the family photo, but hopefully it's not a major issue.--WoodElf 12:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is a major issues. For the family portrait, we have NO SOURCE for it? Where did it originally come from? Who took the picture? In what work was it published before it came to Wikipedia? We should not feature an article that makes questionable use of copyrighted images. Plus, the tag on the image page is STILL the wrong tag. WRT the Olympia Airlines picture (IMG 2559...), the tag on the article clearly states "The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion." We have NO information on where this image came from. Also, if this is a promotional picture for Olympia Airlines, it may not be appropriate to use it in an article that doesn't even mention them? The picture is NOT being used to illustrate the copyright holder, and probably does not meet Fair Use requirements. Also, now that you have moved the infobox picture, I would recommend moving the image "Image:Callas knowing look.jpg" to the infobox; it is the one image of Callas in the whole article that appears to be covered under Wikipedia's image policy.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Idle comment: it could be worse. I recently deleted 8 images that were being used in this article that had no fair use rationales at all, let alone valid ones. Apart from these problems - fair use images, if we have to use them (do we?) simply have to relate to the article more closely than this. They can't be used purely for decoration. Moreschi ^Talk 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, did you alert the original uploaders as to the issues before you deleted the images? If not, can we put these up for deletion review? It seems unfair not to give a chance to the uploaders to provide appropriate sourcing. Robert K S 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but I imagine (just checked, he did) MER-C did when he initially tagged them. He thinks of everything, be most out of character to slip up here. Moreschi ^Talk 09:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are any free-use images of Callas. Does anyone have any free-use pics we could use? --WoodElf 06:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked Flickr or other places? You may very well find public domain or CC or GFDL images there. This article is properly using at least 2 images now under Fair Use; I am not sure it needs more. Images, when they can be freely used or fairly used, are a nice thing, but no images are better than misused ones, IMHO. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's recommended that when you cite a statement to a book, you cite the specific page number. LuciferMorgan 15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- True, but this is impossible when a book is referenced numerous times in an article, without extensively lengthening the references section with redundant citations to the same book, repeatedly, simply to reference multiple pages. I say this as someone who contributed none of the citations but who pressured for such citations to be included when the article was undergoing significant changes several months ago. Robert K S 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  - No, it isn't. Look at Alcibiades.--68.90.163.170 12:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    - On that page I see about three pages of duplicate citations. In particular I see Kagan, The Peloponnesian War on numerous lines. So, what point were you trying to prove? That it is possible and cumbersome, which is what I said? Two of the books in the Callas article have over 26 citations to them each. I will oppose efforts to clutter up the article with 50+ extra duplicate lines. The references section is already extensive enough. Robert K S 12:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Furthermore, since books are revised all the time, page numbers will not neccessarily be the same in all editions. WoodElf 04:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: in which case specify which edition you are using? Moreschi ^Talk 14:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

- - - Comment.I agree with LuciferMorgan. Without the citation of specific page numbers, it makes it much more difficult for someone to verify a fact or quickly locate the fact in the book if they choose to read more detail. Having a long reference section is not a bad thing--it means you are properly and completely citing your work. Karanacs 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment Let me be another voice noting that articles should reference page numbers when citing a book. If the ISBN number is cited, then the page numbers will be to a specific edition and will be unambiguous. Even if the book predates ISBN, giving full publication information (publisher, location, date, edition) will ensure that the correct edition is used to check facts. If you want to see an FA that does this well, see Cricket World Cup. It should also be noted that Wikipedia is a scholarly endeavour. Academic rigour should not take a back seat to convenience or asthetics, especially not in an article we put forward as a Featured Article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, and I feel bad doing this for only one reason since the rest of what I read looked very good... but, I think we have come to the point where all featured articles should have links to page numbers from print sources. Raul, if you find this unreasonable feel free to discount my opinion. gren グレン 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] Texas hold 'em

Intended nomination by MJPerry, who failed to create this page. --Phoenix (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"other games may be more popular than Texas hold 'em in some places." Weasel words in the lead.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.201.245 (talk • contribs)
- The beginning of that sentence refers specifically to stud and omaha and makes it clear the subject is most countries "outside the united states". Need it be more specific, and if so, how might I express the same idea? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the sentence. As you can see, I have simply removed the problematic part. The problem with this sentence is that "may" and "some" are vague and not verifiable; the other games are either more popular or not, which is it? Which places? Without something more specific to say you shouldn't say anything at all. If you want to say something about this point, it would be best to find a source that documents how popular these games are and where. Failing that, just don't say anything (a pretty good policy for problematic prose). --66.234.201.245 03:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

- - I have rephrased the sentence, and added it back in. It has removed the use of weasel words, but allows for some statement to be made. I think something like this needs to be there in order to avoid biasing the article toward a US perspective. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    - Statements that fierce must be cited, especially one's containing the phrase "most popular". The first and last sentences in the extant lead need to be cited. ALTON .ıl 05:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Although hold 'em is commonly played outside of the United States, in many countries Omaha or seven card stud are more popular." This sentence really bugs me. "many countries" is weasel words, plain and simple. If you can't quantify this better (How many is many? Which countries?) cut it. As a writer you must be willing to cut dubious prose, instead of trying to cram in everything that you think is important. --Ideogram 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence. I will think of ways to express the underlying idea differently. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a substantial contributor to the page, so I will not cast a vote. As a bit of history, I had been intending to nominate this page once I had some spare time on my hands, but spare time does not come around often. It has been subject to two peer reviews. Let me say a few things in support of the nomination. The article is well referenced were needed. Although short, we have not been able to come up with many neutral and notable additions (we are certainly open to suggestions). The strategy section is appropriately NPOV, but also presents a nice picture of the generally accepted facts regarding strategy (a difficult task I think). The hold'em explosion section is well done, and probably the best account of this recent history available. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ for the following reasons:
- Rules section is unreferenced. I assume these rules were summarized from another source? Which source?
  - I added a reference to Super/System which is as good as any I think. -kz
- History section seems to lack comprehensiveness. How did the game develop and evolve. We are left with "Someone invented the game. Then Doyle Brunson and his buddies came along..." This seems inadequate.
  - Discussed below. -kz
- Starting hand terminology section reads like strategy. Why is it not part of that section?
  - Moved and reframed that section. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Joseph Hachem image may be questionable in its use. His performance is not discussed, neither is any mention of the 2005 event discussed or analyzed in the section. At best, an image from the 2003 event, which is discussed, may be more appropriate.
  - See below, Hachem is mentioned. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Opening of rules section should be italicized for consistancy (the see also bits)
  - Fixed -kz
- Other copyediting is needed. A few problems I caught (there are probably more):
  - a patent attorney from Connecticut whose trademark holographic sunglasses have become legendary Really... According to whom? Reference or reword to remove peacock term "legendary"
    - Fixed. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Pineapple[34] and Omaha hold 'em[35] both vary the number of cards an individual receives before the flop, but are dealt identically afterward. (Omaha may also be played high-low.) Footnote placement makes sentance hard to parse. Move footnotes to end of sentance. Also, the fact that Omaha can be played high-low is hardly unique. EVERY poker game can be played high-low. The discussion of high-low that follows is also unneeded as well.
    - Fixed -kz
  - which all bear some similarity to each other What similarity? What makes community card games a coherant class?
    - Fixed --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Several sections are jargony, and need wikilinks at best to explain to the uninitiated. Consider an audience of people unaquainted with poker. The "Kicker and ranks" section has a lot of problems here. As a poker player, I can read it fine, but it gets technical in its language, and could benefit from, perhaps, wikilinking words like "Kicker".
  - Kickers and ranks section fixed. I'll look at others soon. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- While where on it, the whole examples section is probably too long. Insofar as it explains the flow of a hand, it is OK, and the "sample hand" section does this well. However, the Kicker and Ranks section, besides being overly techinical, is probably excessive and unnecessary, as it gets too much into strategy, which is not what this section should be about.
  - I have reduced the kickers and rank section substantially so that it only illustrates the concept at hand. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is close, but could benefit from some copyediting and perhaps a peer review.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive comments. I will try to address your concerns in a day or two. With respect to your second point, there is simply no reliable information before that time. I recognize it's less complete than one might like, but any additional information is speculative original research at best. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I play a lot of poker, but I don't read a lot of poker literature. However, I find that hard to believe. With the possible exception of Contract Bridge, Texas Hold'em has to be the most documented card game in history. The "Games and Hobbies" section of any Barnes and Nobles has as many Texas Hold'em Books as the rest of the section combined. No one has researched the history? There has got to be something more than this out there. I want to believe you that the information just doesn't exist, but it stretches my sense of credibility. Someone has to have researched this. It isn't like this is an obscure game... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read a lot of poker literature, and this is all I've found. Almost every single one of those books in any bookstore are simple how-to books. You will notice that the section references one book, Super System 2. This book's history begins after the first episode documented in our article. Despite your presumption to the contrary, poker's history in general is not well documented. It was considered a game played by lowlifes, and so much of what we know is reconstructed. I'm afraid you will have to take my word on this one. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As an example, I did a quick search. This was the second link after us on google:

As previously mentioned, "no one really knows" where Texas Hold'em came from. There is no precise information in regards to where the first game of Texas Hold'em Poker was played. However, according to legend, the earliest game played was in Robstown - Texas, in the early 1900s and it first came to Dallas - Texas, in 1925.

--best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't press that issue anymore. But there is enough else to work on to get this article to FA status.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the Haschem image, unfortunately there are no free alternatives for the two people discussed more (moneymaker and raymer). We originally had moneymaker, but its not clear that there is a legitimate fair use rational for this page. Haschem isn't completely off topic, he is mentioned and the world series in general is discussed extensively in that bit of the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've dealt with all your suggestions with the exceptions of the two mentioned above. Let me know if my modifications are satisfactory. Thanks again for your comments. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Support I struck through my oppose above. All fixes have been made. This is a featurable article now, IMHO. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I caught something and fixed it myself. Hope you don't mind.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Of course not! Thanks for all your help. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you replace $ with "chips" or "points"? It's difficult to judge articles like this, because as an editor of some Video Game articles I realize what the temptation is to go into detail about gameplay. I also read that "little is known" about the History of Hold 'em. That's not good, because without a 'known history' the article is reduced to a quickie guide to playing. The lack of categories and apparent connectivity to other articles (any applicable Navboxes?) concerns me. I don't have much an opinion about this article, but reading through it doesn't strike me with a sense of professional tone. ALTON .ıl 05:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alton - Thanks for your comments. Let me think about replacing '$'. "Chips" won't do, since in many casinos $5 chips are used, so chips != dollars. Also, "points" doesn't really work either, since most poker is played for money. Is the concern just over the localization of dollars? With respect to the history. I agree that the lack of history is unfortunate. But there is nothing we can do. As I'm sure you are aware, objections which cannot be remedied shouldn't keep this article from featured status. I do think the article is more than a "quickie guide to playing" however. Disputes over strategy are represented in the strategy section and there is some history in the history section as well as recent history in the hold'em explosion section. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Haven't read in fine detail but have a couple of minor points. First, the black and white first picture is kind of dull and in any case, I think the article could use a couple of other quality pictures. Also, the "see also" section can be removed since I believe all these are already linked to in the article. Pascal.Tesson 12:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I like the BW image; it illustrates many of the relevant features of the game (the community cards, the private cards, the bets). I have added a few other images and illustrations to the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- See also section has been removed. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Not a bad article, but there are several problems:
- The lead is too short, it needs to be at least three paragraphs, per WP:LEAD.
  - Lead has been expanded, although not to three paragraphs. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- More references are needed, especially at the beginning; "Objective" has none, "Betting structures", "Play of the hand" and "The showdown" has merely one footnote.
  - Discussion below. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have some issues with the "Examples" section; I'm not sure if it can be considered encyclopedic and again there are no references at all (almost expected by the nature of this section, I suppose). It should at least go to the end, imho.
  - Discussion below. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- There should be a section on the most important instructional books, not just the fictional works. Some of them are used as references but not mentioned in the main text. At the very least there should be a "further reading" section.
  - Reference to super/system added to history section. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- The history section could be a longer, and it basically stops at 1970.
  - Expanded this section. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would prefer a more neutral headline than "hold 'em explosion" and that section could also deal with the spread of poker in other countries than just the UK and the US.
- Why are all wikilinks to Hand rankings dubbed "poker hands"? Hand ranking seems like the better term to me.
- Are there no interesting external links worth mentioning? Sloan21 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Sorry for the delay in responding. Thank you for your extensive comments. I will work on the suggestions you give in the next few days. One that I would like to discuss is regarding the reference density. While I could site hundreds of books that support our description of the game, I don't seen why its necessary. The description of the rules is simple, and only a detailed description of the rules provided anywhere. Are there particular parts that you feel need to be referenced? If not, I don't see why more references do anything to improve the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I actually have a few other things to discuss from your comments. I talked with a few other people about the example section and they said it helps to illuminate the rules/structure section. My initial reaction was to agree with them. I really think it helps to illustrate the concepts presented (it serves the same purpose as an image, which is not strictly required to explain most topics either). The reason we don't list further reading (which was removed by consensus from an earlier version) or external links (by de facto policy of WP:POKER) is that developing and maintaining such sections is nightmarish. There is a lot of room for bias and spam to creep in. Given the wide variety of books/web pages, it is not possible to non-arbitrarily limit the number that are placed in the article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    - References should at least be used on the examples and general statements in the first sections (common blinds, most common televised tournament form. straddles offered in most casinos). Regarding the example section, I just find it odd to read about Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice in an encyclopedia, comparable FAs like Chess or Monopoly don't have such a section and I don't think the basic rules are that complicated to begin with; if there is consensus that the section is needed, so be it, but I think it would be much better to expand the rules section with additional examples and cut the examples section. I can't agree with you on the further reading section, bias and spam would be arguments against the use of such a section in general, but normally there are few problems. For example, I think it's strange that the text doesn't even mention Sklansky's Theory of Poker right now. Sloan21 15:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of lots of references, although I recognize this has become common practice for FAC. In particular I don't see why or how your examples would be referenced; we are not going to find a newspaper article about such common knowledge. --Ideogram 15:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree those claims should be cited. I'm pretty sure this all covered in the current citation (to Super/System), but I will double check tonight. I don't mean to be rude and contradict you about the problem of spam, but spam is a big problem on poker articles. There are a lot of texas hold'em books, of varying quality, and millions of texas hold'em websites that are basically link farms. It would be difficult to find consensus on a standard by which books are listed in a further reading section, and such a section would be of minimal benefit. I don't think its so strange that the text doesn't mention the theory of poker, this book isn't specifically about texas hold 'em and, while influential in poker generally, it isn't regarded as a particularly great book on the subject of texas hold'em. (In contrast to Super/System which is regarded as a great source specifically for texas hold'em although it covers other games.)

I don't want to shut down discussion, though. I actually initially wanted to keep the section in the article. If you can assist us in developing a standard for a further reading section that will keep it manageable, I will be happy to implement it. But since consensus previously decided this section would be removed, I don't want to reintroduce it until those original concerns are addressed. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. The whole text needs careful copy-editing by somone who's unfamiliar with it. Please network among WPians who've successfully worked on similar articles. In particular, there's much redundancy. Here are a few random examples of problems in the writing. (Please don’t just fix these examples.) The lead is too short to serve its required function (2a). Too many of the technical terms (e.g., "antes") are not briefly glossed on the spot, but just linked. It makes for a turgid reading experience to have to zig-zag out and back constantly if you're not already in the know.
- "outside of the United States"—Spot the redundant word. It's not used by serious American writers.
- "~~As a result of~~ By making such decisions, winning poker players ~~are able to~~ maximize their expected utility and win more money"

However, some of the text is well-written, and we really do need an excellent article on this topic. Why not collaborate with others to improve it, and then have a non-expert audit it for comprehensibility? Tony 10:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

- Thank you for your comments. Initially the article was written with the idea that it be read by people with knowledge of poker terminology. But I think you're right, in order to be an FA it should be accessible. I will attempt to make it a little more widely readable. Re, your specific comments: I don't see the redundant word, could you be more explicit?

"Of". Tony 12:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree having more eyes is better. I had hoped that WP:PR would have been helpful in this regard, but it was not. Since most of the active members of WP:POKER are involved in this article do you have a suggestion for where I might look for helpful copy-editors? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors for this, but I have never tried them so I don't know how responsive they are. --Ideogram 21:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed all instances of unexplained terminology. While terse in some cases, it should be possible for a careful reader to have some idea of what every term means without consulting the linked articles. Let me know if any are hard to understand or remain unclear. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Object~~ Your first reference goes to a broken link. Check all the references. --Ideogram 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I will check all of the references, but this one is not a serious problem. I added it myself and read the article to which it refers. The internet magazine only keeps articles up for 3 months after which all rights are returned to the owner. This article is not on archive.org (yet). I have contacted the author to request that he make the article available in some form or other, but either way the article did indeed say what the article claims it said. There is at least one other citation to this magazine that will have the same problem, I will contact the author of that article as well. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have confirmed that all other links are extant. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

At this time it appears the outstanding issues are more references, expanding the lead, and copy-editing. If others can take care of the first, I will be able to help with the last two. --Ideogram 09:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! I don't think the article needs more references, although I suppose I could add more. I wanted to discuss this concern with Sloan, but she appears not to be responding. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I found the prose to be lack luster and making a lot of assumptions about the readers familiarity with poker. I'd have prefered more on the history/development of the game.also

the objective of Texas hold 'em is to win pots, the object is NOT to win pots. The objective is to maximize winnings and minimize loses. This is one of the basic principles that every poker book I've ever read stresses.Balloonman 21:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have attempted to introduce every poker concept with at least one sentence of clarification. Every concept is also linked for a more detailed analysis. I guess I must have missed some, could you point out the points where you felt the article had improper presumptions? That would really help me.

Re: history. I appreciate that you would like there to be more, but I don't think there is much more to say. Can you point to something specifically that you would like to see? The reason I ask is that most of the areas where the article is shallow are simply unknown (i.e. who first played the game, how it emerged from other games, etc).

Re: winning pots. There was extensive discussion of this sentence (somewhere, I can't find it now). You will notice the first sentence of the next paragraph deals with your objection exactly. "The objective of winning players is not winning individual pots, but rather making mathematically correct decisions. " We opted to use a slightly inaccurate first sentence to introduce readers, while a more exact later one for correctness. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] 1080° Snowboarding

Self nomination. listy stub + rewrite by me + Peer review by Pagrashtak + Passes GA + thorough copyedit from Green451 = Current State. The game is weird in that it has no story, but I think it passes the criteria. Thoughts?--Clyde (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I don't think the lead does a good enough job of summarizing the article. Nothing is mentioned of the development phase, or the game's reception. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 17:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? The lead mentions that the game was well received by critics, and there's whole section on development, which I don't think needs to be mentioned in the lead. Green451 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose. I have no other quibbles then; support. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 18:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm not too sure on some sections of the article. I think the development section is under-developed, what does "a normal engine supported by the Nintendo 64", why did Nintendo embark on a Snowboarding sim? Why is "audio" given its own section when in fact, it barely covers the subject and instead could probably just fall within the Critical reception section. The critical reception is lacking, using easily accessible but low quality sources. What kind of influence in the gaming industry does All Game Guide carry? When were its reviews written? Who are GameBits? Its a Nintendo game, so maybe the audience would like to know what Nintendo Power thought of it. It's Japanese, so what about Famitsu? The EGM "source" is just the result of a user poll. I'm also not sure on the validity of http://magicbox.com as the source of games sales data, Gears of War has sold over 3 million copies worldwide and Rare claim that GoldenEye 007 has sold over 8 million copies, both of which disagree with MagicBox figures. - hahnch e n 18:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The normal engine part was actually something me and Pagrashtak were discussing on the peer review. The actual quote is "The 3D engine is, of course, the original N64 engine...", but both Pagrashtak and I were confused of the implications of this fact. It is from IGN, so I do not think it was tampered or edited to sound like that, but the decision was made that the sentence in the article best conveys the idea. Do you think it should be reworded or removed? We were not entirely sure, but left it in for lack of a better idea.

Y Done Removed and reworded

I'm not sure what are you referring to with a "why did Nintendo embark on a Snowboarding sim?".
Regarding audio, it is given it's own section simply because the information is there and relevant to the audio of the game. You haven't told me straight up if you want it integrated under it's own header in reception or just to simply put it in there, but I really have no problems with either one.

Y Done Moved into reception

Regarding reception, I wasn't aware the publishers you mentioned shouldn't be included. This game is from 1998, and I personally have no magazines from that time. I also looked through the magazine project, and they have nothing from the time period I need. Gamebits and All Game Guide were simply reviews I found, and All Game Guide did not have any dates. I looked for Famitsu and could not find it, and have removed the EGM poll. Since 1080 is from so eight years ago, there are not that many websites for sales. I know only a small number of places to look for sales figures, and Magicbox had them. I'm stuck in a corner here, and I really don't know what you expect me to do. I can remove though them, if that helps satisfy the critieria.--Clyde (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I found a better source for salesn figures, added a quote from Nintendo Power, and still cannot find any better review sources.

- The engine quote is strange: "The 3D engine is, of course, the original N64 engine..." I suspect this refers to the Wave Race 64 engine, but the interview doesn't make this clear. Pagra shtak 23:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- This article has some problems. The Development section claims that 1080 was announced on 21 Nov 1997 as Vertical Edge Snowboarding. However, the reference is dated 21 Nov and refers to the game as 1080. The section should also state that the game debuted at SpaceWorld '97. I also see some random formatting issues: game titles should be italicized, full dates should be wikilinked, and I see "snowboard" incorrectly capitalized. Pagra shtak 23:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look now. I've tried to address all of your issues. I suppose part of the blame should go to me, as I didn't look at references. I just focused on the copyediting element. Green451 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I saw somewhere in one of the references that it is the same engine as Wave Race 64, but I'm not sure. I'll look when I get a chance.--Clyde (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I searched everywhere and couldn't dig up the info. I must have been mistaken. I think it would be for the best if I remove it.--Clyde (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some replies above.--Clyde (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is there an image in the audio section? I don't think showing split screen capabilities is important to understanding that section of text. Jay32183 05:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Gameplay. I think it was there simply because it fit.--Clyde (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The "compared to" sentence in the awards section should be reworded. it comes off a bit confusing at first with having the two games one after another in the same sentence without anything to separate them. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence. See what you think now. Green451 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a and 2a. The lead is quite inadequate. And in just a few sentences, it manages a lot of glitches:

Why do we start with reference 2? "1080° Snowboarding is a one-on-one or single player snowboarding racing video game developed and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 64 and first released on 22 February 1998, in Japan." Last two words stick out at the end. "Third person perspective" needs a hyphen. "To jump and TO perform tricks"? "The game ... The game". "Five ?different playable snowboarders"? They represent eight different levels? (And why different, again?) Redundant "also".

Not professionally written, neither here nor throughout. Tony 13:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As to referencing problem, the citations starts at two because it has references in the infobox. I did some tidying up of the lead per your suggestions, but I don't think it's your style to copyedit or point out every mistake for a nominator. Both Green and I have exhausted our copyediting skills on this; should I go to the LoCE?--Clyde (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It may take awhile for the LoCE to come along, probably even after this nomination. You're better off attempting to find a good copyeditor who is either a Wiki friend of yourself or someone interested in the article's topic. LuciferMorgan 15:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been asking around and am still waiting for a response.--Clyde (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
- Awkward/ambiguous/inaccurate sentence structure throughout. Example: "The game uses real physics for the board and characters,[12] and was endorsed by Tommy Hilfiger via Tommy Hilfiger outfits,[8] as well as Lamar via licensed Lamar snowboards.[14]'" The game doesn't use real physics, it uses calculations based on real-world physics. Remove via ...; it's redundant. In addition to Tony's comments...

Y Done I think this particular example is fixed up.

"The game uses real physics for the board and characters..." Still awkward. "real" physics? as opposed to unreal physics? Sorry for the sarcasm, but I am trying to make a point here that there are redundant words here. What is "the board?" I assume it means the digitally rendered surfaces in the game? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to reword it again.

Still awkward. I recommend getting rid of the physics reference. It just doesn't flow well and most games are based on physics anyway (I doubt they truly used actual physics since fluid dynamics requires a LOT of processing power - more than Nintendo provides). — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

- ~~Make sure all references have published/copyright dates (these are often at the bottom of a page and not at the top unless it is a news release), if available. Example #21 should be 2007.~~

One thing I was wondering about. In cite web it is labeled simply as "date", so I'm nnot sure what we put in there. With the Gamepsot review, it says "Posted Mar 25, 1998 12:00 am PT" but at them bottom it says "Copyright ©2007 CNET Networks, Inc. All Rights Reserved." With every reference I have used the former, but I should I instead use the latter? Or is it possible to somehow include both?

The second date indicates when the latest copyright was made (today). You should use the first one unless it has since been updated. Don't use both, that is what the "accessed on" blank is for. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I used the first one if it was there, and the second otherwise. A few had neither, so I was stuck.

As long as you did what you could. Not all websites can comply. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

- ~~Published dates on references need to be wikified~~

Y Done

- References (such as reference 7) do not need to be after every usage of information from the source, only after a paragraph or end of information from that source.

instead of blah blah blah.^[1] blah blah blah.^[1] blah blah blah.^[1] simply put blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah.^[1]

Y Done I think this is fixed up now.

Still two references to [7] in a row. Get rid of the first one. Same with [21]

It was actually a formatting problem. Those are two different paragraphs and I think it is fixed now.

Please check #21 too. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

- Several passages are not referenced at all. Several examples (and these are from the first two sections) are:

"In match race mode, the player competes...allowed three times before the game is over."
"In terms of number of buttons pressed, the 1080° spin is the most complicated move in the game."
"It is a horizontal split screen race, and supports rumble paks. All standard and unlockable levels, snowboarders, and boards can be played by two players."
"Three additional snowboarders...right or left, respectively."

Finding the refs will take a while.

I removed the sentences I could not reference.

Still missing quite a few. Added ^{[citation needed]} tags to help.

- Several unnecessary commas e.g. "The game features...four countries, and contains eight levels."

Y Done This example is taken care of, but I will look for others.

look for anything with ", and" and ensure it is used appropriately.

- In short, it is a good article but not yet a featured article and doesn't represent the best Wikipedia has to offer. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Made some replies. Clyde (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    - A few more notes:

"The game sold well, with a total of 1,147,000 units sold." Sold is redundant.

Done

"well received" should be hyphenated

Done

"IGN's review stated "Do we recommend 1080 Degrees Snowboarding? Yes" as well as "there is a lot of fun to be had with this game." These embedded quotes are awkward. Try to make them flow more with the prose of the paragraph.

reworded a bit.

Use active, not passive, voice. Examples (not all-inclusive): "...was well received..." and "The control scheme of 1080° was considered..." in short avoid uses of "be" (was, were, etc) in conjunction with a verb.

Can you give me one example one sentence before and what it should be after?

Sure "1080° was well-received by critics, and won an Interactive Achievement Award from the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences," should be something like, "1080° garnered critical acclaim and won an Interactive Achievement Award from the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences." An easy way to remember how to do this is to immediately follow a noun by an action verb. "The game accomplished...", "The critically acclaimed game became...", etc.

Mmmmmm....garnered. I like that verb. Thanks, I added your example and will start working on the rest as energy permits.

~~Run a spell check (cut & paste into Microsoft Word or use Mozilla Firefox) :Examples (not necessarily all-inclusive): "invloving", "cartrdige" (is "paks" correct?)~~

Done checked twice.

~~Too informal (also technically incorrect grammar): "...designated level, whether that be a half pipe..." "be" should be "is."~~

Done

~~"Each has different abilities, and are better suited..." Fix subject-verb agreement~~

Done

Use no break spaces (&nbsp ; - can't seem to make this work to show you what to use, so just remove the space between the semicolon and the "p" to make it work) between all numbers and units. Use in figures such as "90 percent", "1,147,000 units", etc.

Done I think.

This is not a complete list of the things wrong with the article, but is a good start. Keep up the edits! You are doing a good job! — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I try. I made some replies and questions.--Clyde (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay so for now find refs and convert to active voice. I'll start working as soon as possible.--Clyde (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I went through and did a rounds of fixes. Any sections I need to look at again? Clyde (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(moved to left for ease of reading) remove references in the intro per WP:LEAD (these references are supposed to be later or elsewhere in the article). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I found a quick reference sheet from replacementdocs but still can't find the manual. I'll try VG.--Clyde (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] Monte Ne

previous FAC

Third nomination. Was not promoted before because of copy editing issues and lack of inline citation. Both of these should have been fixed. --The_stuart 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Opppose, after almost two weeks, no change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lots of work to be done here. I correct the footnote placement using Gimmetrow's ref fixer; since most of them were wrong, you might want to review WP:FN to learn to place footnotes correctly. Please review all of the section headings per WP:MSH. References need to be formatted; see WP:CITE/ES. Footnotes are not completely formatted: some contain imbedded links, many are missing author and publication date. The article is in need of wikilinking, for example, Harvey chose the name Monte Ne, supposedly combining the Spanish and Omaha Indian words for mountain water ... (there is a link for the Omaha Indian tribe). There's another problem with that sentence: Monte is not the Spanish word for mountain; it's the Spanish word for a weedpatch, weeds, wilderness or woods. Mountain is montaña. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To address your comment about Mountain≠Monte, the article doesn't claim that Monte is Spanish for Mountain, only that that is what Harvey thought. Any source you look at will give the same description for the origin of the name. --The_stuart 19:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to Sandy's points, identical footnotes need to be combined. ~~Instead of "Lord, Allyn. Historic Monte Ne (Images of America), 49", I'd recommend simply "Allyn, 49".~~ Non-free images need article-specific fair use rationale. There are still prose issues; count the alsos in this passage, all of which can be dropped: "and is also the only structure of Monte Ne still standing. Monte Ne also had the first indoor swimming pool in Arkansas,[2] and one of the earliest golf courses in the world;[3] it was also the site of the only presidential convention ever in Arkansas.[4]" Pagra shtak 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the long ref complaint. Don't really understand the comment about the "non-free images" I took all of the new pictures myself and the rest are all in the public domain.--The_stuart 22:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

The image description page for this image says it is copyrighted. You still need to combine identical footnotes, one footnote does not display, and many are not formatted properly. You may find {{Cite web}} useful. Pagra shtak 00:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand, that is a logo, and from what I can tell it complies fully with WP:LOGOS. --The_stuart 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the text of the tag on the image. "This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used." (emphasis not mine) That image does not have fair use rationale. Pagra shtak 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tried to come up with rational, does that satisfy you?--The_stuart 22:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. This article needs much work. The biggest issue is the prose style. A lot of the sentences are short and simplistic and really don't read well. I've listed a few examples later, but there are a lot of them.

~~"Eventually it went bankrupt" - why not just say, in 19xx, the community went bankrupt.~~

Because the community as a whole never went bankrupt, the various ventures did one by one and this is covered thuroughly in the article. Edited article to reflect this. --The_stuart 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to use the conversion templates on measurements. All measurements should have both standard and metric.

Done.--The_stuart 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Acres also has a metric equivalent. Some of your conversions appear to be in improper units (from square feet to meters? should be from square feet to meters squared). When you have two measurements (25 x 50 ft), you need 2 metric measurements as well. Also, please be consistent in the number of digits you use past the period, and please link the first instance of the conversion pair (use lk=on in the template) Karanacs 15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --The_stuart 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The history section has flow issues. It appears to jump back and forth in time, which confuses me.
- ~~First paragraph mentions Harvey, then the dates the resort was built, then jumps back 10 years to talk about Harvey again.~~

Removed dates, not necessary in this paragraph --The_stuart 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- "~~Harvey's other son, Hal, and his wife Anna and sister Annette joined them later." Whose wife and sister were Anna and Annette, Harvey's or Hal's?~~

"Harvey's other son Hal, wife Anna, and sister Annette joined them later." How's that? --The_stuart 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- "after its destruction Anna left Monte Ne" This is the first time in the section that you talk about Monte Ne by name. Since the lead says it was a resort, and the paragraph says they lived in a single house, this needs to be rewritten to "Anna left the area" (and where did she go?)

She went back to Chicago, fixed. --The_stuart 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- The paragraph on industries in Monte Ne reads more like a list. Is there a way to make it flow a little better?

Tried to add more to make it not seem so list like. --The_stuart 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- ~~"After 1910, Harvey and Monte Ne began facing serious setbacks" Then you go on to list events that happened years or decades earlier before jumping to events that happened after WWI.~~

Tried to make it flow better. --The_stuart 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving in the right direction, but not there yet. "Sadly, the next decade" - remove "Sadly," it makes this sound more like a magazine article.

Removed sadly, and did some more work on the paragraph.--The_stuart 22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing citations:
- ~~"Harvey stocked the waters with fish to ensure a good catch for the guests."~~

Removed. Don't know where that came from. --The_stuart 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- ~~The theme song for Monte Ne~~

Done --The_stuart 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- "The bank building was also bought in 1944 by D. L. King of Rogers, who remodeled it and made it home to his Atlas Manufacturing Company which produced poultry equipment. However, he moved it back to Rogers the next year. The building then stood idle, becoming victim to vandalism. All of its windows were smashed and it became covered in graffiti. Eventually, it was nothing more than an empty, roofless, cement shell."

Fixed. --The_stuart 18:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

- "The flooded Monte Ne become a site of interest for scuba divers who dive by the amphitheater to get a look at the submerged structure. However, the water of Beaver Lake is cold and murky, making this a somewhat uncomfortable and unproductive exercise."

This seems to me to be common knowledge or easily extrapolated from given information. --The_stuart 18:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

- First paragraph of Remains of Monte Ne section
Prose Issues:
- ~~"from a Reverend J. G. Bailey" - remove the "a"~~

What? --The_stuart 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok now I think I understand what you are saying, fixed. --The_stuart 17:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

- "He made a lot of money silver mining in Colorado, but Monte Ne seems to have been funded mostly by the sale of his books—mainly on the subject of free silver."

Your change still seems to leave the two clauses sounding awkward. In the first half, Henry is the subject and in the second half Monte Ne is the subject. Is there a way to reword that so the subjects match? Karanacs 18:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

- ~~"With individual investments of $52,000, and his own $48,000 investment." - incomplete sentence~~

Fixed. --The_stuart 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

- "Harvey began work on his resort in 1901 in great haste." - why was he in great haste? What did he do that it made it seem he was in great haste?
- ~~"first hotel to be completed was the Hotel Monte Ne in April 1901, which was opened in May of the same year" - simple is better~~.

fixed.--The_stuart 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

- "As was the case with Hotel Monte Ne, Missouri Row featured long porches-575 feet" - why the dash and the number, that seems to break the flow.

Fixed.--The_stuart 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How about -- As was the case with Hotel Monte Ne, Missouri Row featured 575-foot (xx m) long porches? Karanacs 18:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

- ~~"strike delayed construction, but by the end of May, a full workforce was in place" -- need 2 commas here or none.~~

Fixed. --The_stuart 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

- "but when the hotel opened finally" - change to "when the hotel finally opened"

Fixed. --The_stuart 22:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

~~"Cannon balls and shells from the Pea Ridge battlefield were sunk into the cement porch on either side of the main entrance" - Why?~~

I suppose decoration, but known of my sources say why. --The_stuart 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good enough, I was curious. Karanacs 18:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiple red links
How did people get to Monte Ne before the railroad?

Changed to reflect the lack of adequate roads and emphasize the need for a railroad. --The_stuart 17:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Be consistent in how you treat numbers which begin sentences. In some cases, you spell out the number; in other cases you don't.

Can you give some examples of this. I've looked through the article and haven't found any that I think need to be changed. I always believed that numbers below ten should be spelled out and higher should just be written as numbers. Is this not the case? --The_stuart 17:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

~~"14,000 oak railway ties were laid running through Cross Hollows, South of Rogers, where two definitive ravines met" Why is South capitalized? What is definitive about the ravines?~~

Fixed--The_stuart 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Full dates need to be wikilinked.~~.

Fixed. --The_stuart 22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Check your use of colons. I think they are overused in the article, especially the railroad section.
~~"They planned to build eastward to Eureka Springs" -- Who is they?~~

AO&W, fixed. --The_stuart 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

~~"the Frisco would not allow a connection" - why not?~~

"Frisco line was in the way and they would not allow a connection." How's that? --The_stuart 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

~~"A very expensive underpass of the Frisco was finally built, and still exists" - who built it?~~

by AO&W, fixed. --The_stuart 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How about -- "AO&W instead built an expensive underpass of the Frisco; this still exists." Karanacs 18:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --The_stuart 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

~~"and the building was designed again by A. O. Clarke." - it's unlikely this building was designed twice. Please rephrase.~~.

Fixed. --The_stuart 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

~~"He used the Monte Ne Herald," - newspaper names should be italicized~~

Fixed.--The_stuart 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

~~"Harvey's health and Monte Ne fail" - this is not a good heading. Maybe "Harvey's health and Monte Ne Failure," or just "Failure"~~

Done. --The_stuart 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think more of the article should have wikilinks.

Article has around 78 wikilinks. --The_stuart 18:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there is too much biographical information for Harvey mixed in with this article. He does have his own article, and you should be able to consolidate or eliminate some of the biography to make this focused more on Monte Ne.

Not sure how to do this since his life and Monte Ne were so intertwined, can you give any specific examples of what you think can go? --The_stuart 19:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article do you explicitly point out why the site was placed on the National Historic Register. I think this is a big oversight.

Fixed. --The_stuart 19:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Karanacs 15:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I went through and adjusted the metric conversions, some might need a little more work, but now they are correct. I also added some more wikilinks. I'll keep the article watchlisted and see what transpires.--MONGO 07:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] International Phonetic Alphabet

Fits all featured article criteria IMHO and is a superb resource for people who want to learn more about the IPA itself, and the sounds the symbols represent.

(I admit it's not necessarily the best resource for learning how to decode IPA, but we link to helpful articles from the IPA article. I don't think this is a problem, at the moment.)

Let's ~~promote~~ improve this article to featured status and give a round of applause to all the hard-working contributors. :) If there's anything that needs doing, please mention it! :D --Kjoonlee 19:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Support-looks good. Well done with the prose. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. I can't find anything to complain about here.--Danaman5 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment First off, do we really need a paragraph of italicized text, some if it in distracting bold, before the article even starts? Also the prose needs a little work, there's some MoS issues, and other things. Here's a list of issues:
- Lead could use explantion, see WP:LEAD.
- "A third affricate transcription sometimes seen uses the superscript notation for a consonant release, for example" sometimes seen is unnecessary extra wording.
- This article is very dense. There are a ton of terms a laymen would have to leave the article to so they can understand it fully. I guess that's alright if every effort has been taken to make it accessible. It's not so long (23KB of prose) that more time couldn't be taken to explain things.
- "From time to time, symbols are added, removed, and modified by the International Phonetic Association." From time to time is fairly informal also uses four words and could probably be replaced by one word (periodically might fit).
- There are citation needed tags.
- Use of contractions ("it should appear correctly, but this hasn't yet been done to all" is one example)
- "Although at first the IPA may seem too precise to offer any choice in how to transcribe speech, it is in fact possible to do so with various levels of accuracy." extra words, it seems like you could eliminate "in fact" and "at first" perhaps, also "may seem" sounds weaselly. May seem to who? Do we have a source here? This whole sentence sounds like an informal personal summary.
- Is the ref at the Education initiative section covering that entire section? It would seem the first sentence needs a citation. Quadzilla99 23:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Hi, could you tell us what sort of explanation would be helpful, please?
  - I'll have a look if all "glossary" terms are properly linked.
  - It's sporadic rather than periodical, so I think "from time to time" fits.
  - There are no citation needed tags as of this writing; there is one, but it's inside a comment.
  - Contractions have been avoided, except maybe at the tech note at the bottom.
  - I got rid of "at first" but I think it's a nice not-very-personal summary of the whole paragraph.
  - I haven't read the citation but it seems it's similar as the point above; the whole paragraph seems to fit together. Thanks for your comments :) --Kjoonlee 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    - I hope you're not telling me those are your personal summaries. Anytime you summarize things you need to cite sources, personal summaries are not allowed even if they're based on research. Quadzilla99 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      - I didn't understand what you meant by "personal summary" but if you mean that it must be properly sourced, I think any textbook on phonetics will mention that IPA transcriptions can be very "narrow" or rather "broad." I'll try to add a reference within 48 hours. (My book is at the office..) --Kjoonlee 07:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  - In the mean time, I changed it to "Although the IPA offers over a hundred symbols for transcribing speech, it is not necessary to use all relevant symbols at the same time; it is possible transcribe speech with various levels of accuracy." Does that sound better? --Kjoonlee 07:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    - OK, instead of "from time to time", how about intermittently, sporadically, or occasionally? --Kjoonlee 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Support It's well written, and everything else ;D Lεmσηflαsh ^(t)/_(c) 23:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I have quite a few concerns about citations ("Other phonetic notation"), OR ("Sounds that have no symbols in the IPA") and missing information (Don't shove UPA in "See also!"). I'll be reviewing this in more details when I'm done with Common Raven, which I've been asked to examine.Circeus 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, those are good points, I think. But what do you mean by missing information, and how is it related with the UPA..? --Kjoonlee 15:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: This article contains several red links (including on in the "Notes" section). Also, two sections have citation needed templates. Also, the "External Links" section contains 34 links, something which makes Wikipedia rather look more like a collection of links than an encyclopedia. Also, the article is 72 KB long, too long for an FA. Universe=atom^{•Talk•Contributions•} 18:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Length alone is not a criteria. We have articles that are quite a bit longer than that, and the tables (which single-handedly takes a lot of sizespace) cannot reasonably be dropped. I definitely agree with your other concerns, though.Circeus 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Red links are not valid objections. The fact that articles associated with this one has nothing to do with the quality of this article. Raul654 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I tdon't think this is even a good article. It is hard to read (both visually and, less so, stylistically). It is a waste of time for people who come to this, the obvious location, to find out how to read a transcription in IPA in Wik. To get this information, a first-time user would probably stumble through the ToC, try the introduction, scroll around and then either give up or check the links at the bottom, where s/he would finally get an okeh list of examples. If we put this up on our front page, we'll scare off a lot of normal people.Kdammers 11:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is a technical article on a technical subject, not an IPA pronunciation guide. This article links to IPA chart for English, which is essentially such a pronunciation guide. --Jtir 12:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  - The ave. Wik user should also be served - and conveniently. This article is simply not user-friendly. The link is almost hidden (i.e., some-one seeing an IPA transcription in Wik would link to IPA or type in IPA with the , to me, reasonable assumption, that s/he'd find out how to hear or say the word or name s/he came from. So, s/he would reasonably look for some-thing like that. But it first appears way down "after" the article itself). Kdammers 13:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    - IPA is currently a redirect. Should it maybe be a disambig, directing the reader to IPA chart for English as well as this article? Or would you want a more obvious link to the chart at the top of this article? kwami 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      - Thanks for pointing this out. The abbreviation "IPA" is far more ambiguous than that, as IPA (disambiguation) shows. I suggest redirecting IPA to IPA (disambiguation) and adding a subsection there for phonetics-related links. --Jtir 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        The redirect idea was discussed at Talk:IPA (disambiguation) in September 2006.--Jtir 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        Quick comment: the redirect idea was carried out after that, but it got reverted back within a few days IIRC. Resistance is prob. going to be very high. --Kjoonlee 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        Thanks, I am not going to change the redirect, since doing so would clearly be controversial. I have, however, made this change and this. I suggest having the IPA templates link to IPA chart for English, rather than International Phonetic Alphabet. --Jtir 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        No go, the IPA is International; we use it in lots of articles on Polish locations, for example, on Piotrków Trybunalski. --Kjoonlee 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        
        Thanks for pointing this out. Russian pronunciations can be found in the notes to We (novel) and Sergey Korolyov. This discussion might be better continued at Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet. --Jtir 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment The article now has links to IPA charts in the beginning. I'll see what I can do with the other stuff.. --Kjoonlee 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
CommentThe lead needs expansion as well, it also need to avoid single sentence, unless the final paragraph possesses a stand alone thought that is best put in one sentence. Quadzilla99 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- What sort of expansion..? Please be more descriptive.. As for avoiding certain constructions, that sounds a bit prescriptive considering styles are ultimately a matter of taste.. --Kjoonlee 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, right off the bat, the lead is choppy and not a compelling summary (have a look at WP:LEAD). Does the lead need to be so heavily referenced? The lead should summarize text from the body of the article, which should be cited in the body. Please see WP:MSH regarding section headings, which are very long here. Massive external link farm needs pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT. All sources should identify a publisher, as well as author and date when avaiable, for example, what is: Proposal Summary Form for adding new characters to ISO 15924. Accessed April 11, 2007. Publisher? Please check that all sources are complete per WP:CITE/ES. Citation needed tag in the article, and other uncited sections. The article needs work. Lacking in wikilinking, per the tag on another section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)
Oppose See SandyGeorgia's comments above. In addition, ref #27 is unnecessarily duplicated and whole paragraphs and sections are completely unreferenced. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] The Price Is Right (US game show)

This may get main-page visibility when Bob Barker retires. Perhaps a bit ambitious to reach FA before his retirement date of June 15, but any work up to then would certainly be beneficial. Please refer to the section on the quality of references on the article's talk page. Many thanks!—Twigboy 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In 2000, the senior employees of the modeling staff were fired, allegedly for contributing damaging testimony against Barker and the show in court.[16] The program has used a rotating set of models since 2002. - uh? What testimony? What case? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Response. Without getting too detailed in this context, I have revised it to the following: Pennington and Bradley were fired from the program in 2000, allegedly for testifying on behalf of Hallstrom in a wrongful-termination lawsuit against Barker and the show.[16] Rather than have a cast of permanent models, the producers transitioned to a rotating set of models. —Twigboy 02:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Article unfortunately needs lots of work to meet the criteria:

Article needs a deep copyedit. The language is clunky, the text is not clear in places, and the grammar needs improvement. It would be best if you could find an editor experienced with copyediting to make a once-through. If you want to attempt it yourself, User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a is a good place to start. Here are six proposed changes to show you what I'm thinking about:

"largely centering" -> "centering"
"The show is well-known[2][3] for its signature line of "Come on down!" which the announcer implores new contestants to do when their names are called." -> "The show is well-known for its signature line, "Come on down!", which is an order given by the announcer to new contestants when their names are called."
"Contestants' Row is the head-on competitive area of the show where the four contestants bid on an offered prize." - > "In Contestants' Row, four chosen contestants bid against each other for a single prize."
"In the final round of the program, the two contestants who won their Showcase Showdowns compete for a Showcase, a large set of prizes. The prizes tend to be themed, and a small pantomime story often relates the prizes in at least one of the two packages." - Clarity. Which two packages? Is a Showcase a package? Does a Showcase contain packages? Please explain. If I had to guess, I'd reword the second sentence like this: "The prizes in each Showcase tend to follow a theme, and often short pantomimes are given <by whom?> to make this clear."
"If a contestant succeeds at underbidding his showcase; bidding $250 or less[9] away from the price of his showcase; and having a closer bid than his opponent, that contestant is awarded both showcases." -> "If a contestant underbids his Showcase by less than $250, and if his bid is closer than his opponent's, then that contestant is awarded both Showcases."
"As well as hosting the program, Barker is also credited as the executive producer of the show." -> "In addition to being its host, Barker is the show's executive producer." "Credited" is not necessary unless there is some doubt that he is actually the executive producer.

Many unsourced statements need sourcing. For example, "Two well-known strategies for Contestants' Row are bidding" - well-known according to whom? "This is the only part of the program where a contestant plays alone.." - there are lots of statements here explaining the structure and rules of the program that you should be able to cite to reliable third-party sources. If you go through the article and cite every paragraph that currently doesn't end in a footnote (after reformatting per other comments), you can fix this problem.
Several copyrighted images lack fair-use rationales.
Lead is just too small for this article; please see WP:LEAD for tips on what it should cover.
There are many paragraphs in this article that are too short. Please merge single/double sentence paragraphs into surrounding text.
A number of sections are also too short. Why is "Broadcast history" empty, for example? "Computer games" and "Live casino game" are tiny. As a rule of thumb, I'd say that the TOC is about twice as large as it should be for an article of this size.
Why is the infobox titled "The (New) Price Is Right" instead of "The Price Is Right"?
Put ref tags after punctuation per WP:CITE.
Shouldn't punctuate sentence fragments in double quotes, per WP:PUNC.
Please format currency appropriately per WP:$.
Reference #17 is empty.
Would suggest formating the References section as two instead of three columns, it just looks too squeezed.

- Merzbow 06:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] Tropical cyclone

Submitted the article for peer review, which netted no comments, so am submitting the article for FAC. Thegreatdr 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The article seems rather long to me, I think some sections like: "Intensity classifications" and "Notable tropical cyclones" could be trimmed back considerable with content going to sub articles. Tomgreeny 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There already are subarticles on List of notable tropical cyclones and Tropical cyclone scales, which are much larger than the sections that were left. Removing more would leave the article incomplete. Besides, the article is only 45 KB of prose, within WP:SIZE's discretionary range (as calculated by User:Dr pda's prose size script); it just has a lot of tables and references which inflate the page size. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the only question I had at the peer review, mostly so I can get more input on the issue: should the table on the Intensity classifications section have colors? I personally do not think it should have, and if it does, it should have the Wikipedia-wide scheme being used, {{storm colour}}. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. There's a big blank gap in the first section due to the Weather nav template. Could you fix this? CG 06:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Which browser? I thought I just fixed this a minute or two ago... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looks awful in IE... I just nuked the template. I had changed it because it left a gap in Firefox, and when I fixed it, it left a gap in IE, so it was a no-win situation. Besides, there was already one of those bars above already. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: The article needs copyediting. I shall just higlight the text in the lead section and the need for copyedit -
- storm - needs wikilink
- "A tropical cyclone is a type of storm system characterized ..." to be "Tropical cyclone is a storm system characterized ..."
- "A tropical cyclone feeds on the heat released " - (1) remove 'A' (2) is there a better verb that can be used than 'feed'
- "Because tropical cyclones are "warm core" storm systems, they are fueled by a different heat mechanism than other cyclonic windstorms such as nor'easters, European windstorms, and polar lows." needs re-wording
- ""Tropical cyclone" is a meteorological term." - can it be included in the first sentence of the article as in "Tropical cyclone is a meterological term for the type of storm system characterized by ..."
- "The adjective "tropical" refers to" - can we avoid 'adjective' here
- "Depending on their location and strength, there are various terms by which tropical cyclones are known,... " - The cyclones are classified based on stength and location of occurance as ..."
- lead's first para has "producing strong wind and flooding rain." while the third para has "can produce extremely strong and powerful winds, torrential rain, high waves, and storm surge." - can we avoid repeat in the lead section
- "are born and sustained over" - replace with the noun 'develop'
- the intent here was to show that the data for the article is alredy in-there and all i am asking for is a copyedit of the article. Kalyan 09:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  - I've fixed several, but there are others I don't agree with. For example, points #3, #6 and #7. In others, there's a need for extra emphasis. The first sentence introduces that tropical cyclones can produce strong wind and rain, while the third paragraph picks up on that idea and expands it. I like the verb "feed": it produces a good visual image, while not making the language too technical. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Support. The article has really come together over the last few months. There are a few little things I'd like to comment on, such as the length, as well as some sections not having sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- It has 18 KB of inline citations, and tables and such are not counted in WP:SIZE. Which paragraphs are you talking about? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  - The size seems fine, then. The first paragraph in Mechanics, first in Coriolis Effect, and the first two in observation don't have sources at the end. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose; great start, but some attention still needed:
- There is a lot of repetition in section headings (see WP:MSH). For example, "Formation" has "Factors in formation" and "Locations of formation". Can those be reduced to "Factors" and "Locations"? The "Observation and Forecasting" section consists of only "Observation" and "Forecasting" headings.
- Oh my goodness, that See also ! See WP:GTL; topics related to an article should be mostly included within the text of the article. Is all of that needed? Why are categories listed in See also, rather than included as categories. Can External links be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT ??
- There do still seem to be prose issues, requiring a copyedit; starting at the bottom, I quickly saw: "Tropical cyclones that cause extreme destruction are rare, though when they occur, then can cause great amounts of damage or thousands of fatalities." And, undefined terms: "The deep layer mean flow is considered to be the best tool in determining track direction and speed." "Neither term is used in the South Pacific." What is used in the South Pacific? "It should also be noted that typhoons ... " It should also be noted is almost always redundant. I, too, suggest an independent copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  - I've asked a few users to have a look at the article, and I'll look at it over again in its entirety when I get home tonight. I've tried to cut off some links from the See also section, but I'm wary to cut off some that keep being added all the time (such as the hurricane seasons; they're a pretty good navigation tool, if you think about it). The current external links are what survived from this horrible mess (heh :)), but if there are some that you think don't belong there, we can discuss that. I'll deal with the section headings as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Hmm... "deep layer flow" should almost have an article, but I'll see what I can do about it. Everything else should be more or less dealt with now. Walkerma and I gave the article a full copyedit, but if there was something I missed, feel free to point it out. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Still some errors/citation issues in the article. For example:
- Times of formation (seasonal lengths) - Is this going by official bounds? If so, the Northwest Pacific goes year-round, for example. If it's from the citation, it's still off, because the citation says "The Northwest Pacific basin has tropical cyclones occurring all year round regularly though there is a distinct minimum in February and the first half of March. The main season goes from July to November with a peak in late August/early September" while the article says the season starts in April and ends in January. "South Indian" should be clarified - the Southeast Indian Ocean is under TCWC Perth (and would thus qualify as being under Australia), while the Southwest Indian is under MF. Perhaps it'd be better to use the dates as given in the various Tropical Cyclone Op Plans?
- Times of formation (seasonal averages) - Where are the seasonal averages from? They don't follow citation 26. They're not in the citation. Also, why has 95 kt been chosen as the bar for Cat 3? 100 kt 1-min translates roughly into 90 kt (87.7, using the 1.14 factor). 95 seems a bit arbitrary?
- An important one: The WMO recently updated its website and pages. WMO citations from before this update are all now 404s and need to be updated.
- I'm sure there are a fair few more mistakes, which I'll post as I find. – Chacor 07:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

[edit] Amenhotep I

I've been working on this article off and on for about seven or eight months now, and finally think it can stand up for FA. The article is now comprehensive to the point of being fairly exhaustive (Amenhotep isn't a very well known character) and well cited with the best academic sources. Thanatosimii 22:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments, mostly optional suggestions. The handful of online references need to have author/title/date/publisher if available, not just the accessdate. Add a space after note #26. The print sources seem to be repeated often with small changes in the page number. Have you considered using short notes? Rather than notes #11 and #12 giving full bibliographic information (which is listed under referenes again), you could have just 11. Breasted, p.17-18, and 12. Breasted, p. 18. The text seems well-written, but the frequent phrases about this being uncertain, or that probably happening, left me with a nagging sense of uncertainty about the subject. I suppose that's the only way to write it though, and I like the discussion of the background and reasoning behind some of these probabilities, like the family and year of accession. Nice PD images. I don't really like how the pharoah infobox squeezes the lead, but I doubt you can do anything about that. I would prefer sections not have just one subsection. Good PD images. Three of the four captions have periods, that should be consistent. Gimmetrow 04:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I put the author information in; they don't have publishers, though. Space after 26 added. The nagging sense of uncertainty is the nature of the beast, of course, and is an accurate impression of how much we know about the guy. I took out the periods too; periods generally shouldn't be in captions, but only in real sentances. Thanatosimii 06:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I see Gimmetrow's point: providing the complete bibliographic citation for a source under the "Notes", then repeating that information under "References/Print Sources" is repetative. And using short forms of the book titles (e.g., "Breasted, James Henry. Ancient Records of Egypt" becomes "Breasted, Ancient Records) should be done at least after the first appearance of the work. Or you could use Harvard-style inline references. You may want to admit that the actual dates of his reign vary between authorities -- usually (IIRC) within a ten years' window. I also notice that, admitting there is so little information about Amenhotep, you forgot to mention one scrap from a venerable source: Manetho, fragment 50, states that Amenhotep ruled 20 years & 7 months. (I can supply a full cite to the Loeb Classical Library edition of Manetho if you need it.) Whether or not this is still believed, it should be mentioned if only to then explain why contemporary authorities reject this information -- with cites. However, nothing I have mentioned is not fixable & would only improve the article. -- llywrch 00:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I shrank the references; I can see why that might be preferred. As for manetho, if you can provide some references for me to look at, I'd appreciate them. I've never found anything about this scrap, and I've searched all the big sources from cover to cover, so I wouldn't be sure how to begin. Thanatosimii 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked somthing, and the article currently does mention the possibility of 20 years 7 months, which I believe comes from Joesphus' copy, but I still can't find any reference to this "fragment 50" Thanatosimii 15:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Frag. 50" was the identifier used in the Loeb edition of Manetho. (I'm relying on that edition, for better or worse, because I expect it is the least difficult one for the average user to access.) This excerpt is taken from Josephus. (I'm not at home at the moment, but in a few hours I ought to be able to supply the needed bibliographical citation.) -- llywrch 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the citation info at Talk: Amenhotep I. That's an expense but slender book, so if you need more citations from it I'm happy to supply them on request. -- llywrch 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article become rated as a-class first before becoming featured? Dreamy ^{Whats up?} ^{Review me?}

It is within the Egypt Wikiproject. We don't have a well defined definition of promotion to A. And I'm not sure there's a particular list of prerequisite tests an article has to pass to get to FA, just the FA nom itself. Thanatosimii 03:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

An article does not have to be rated anything before it arrives at FAC. It could technically be rated "stub." Awadewit ^Talk 02:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is a very well-written article on a difficult figure. I, for one, appreciated the "weasel words" since we do not know many facts about Amenhotep I. To pretend that we do simply for the sake of style would be intellectually dishonest. Also, I am not quite sure why the previous reviewer is insisting on the use of the Manetho king list. That is a primary source and should be used sparingly, if at all; wikipedia articles are supposed to be written using secondary sources (as this editor has done) {WP:RS). Presumably, scholars have analyzed the king list, taken what is reliable from it and integrated it into their own work.

I also thought that the infobox dominated the article a bit too much, but since infoboxes are pre-designed, there is not much to do about that. Since infoboxes are not required, though, you might think about deleting it entirely and placing the information somewhere else in a more aesthetic manner.
I am very close to supporting this article because, in general, I thought it was well-researched, well-written, and, from my limited knowledge of the history of the ancient world, it seemed comprehensive. But, the website that is used as a reference is self-published. That cannot be used as a source. Once that is replaced with a reliable source, I will support. Awadewit ^Talk 02:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll get looking on replacing those two. It may take a brief amount of time. Thanatosimii 04:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Awadewit ^Talk 05:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Checking back. I noticed that the British Museum link doesn't work in footnote 4. Awadewit ^Talk 11:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe moved here? DrKiernan 12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose until a proper copy-edit is done throughout. The lead doesn't fill me with confidence.
- "sometimes read" is an odd way of putting it; so is "and meaning". Why not: Amenhotep I, also known as Amenophis I ("Amun is satisfied")?
- Internal link down from the lead not allowed, surely? (generally dated from 1526 to 1506 BC)
- False contrast: "He was born to Ahmose I and Ahmose-Nefertari, but had at least two elder brothers ..."
- "However, sometime in the eight years between ..." "some time", surely.
- his heir apparent died and Amenhotep became crown prince.[3] He then acceded to the throne ..." - How long after his becoming c p did he accede to the throne? ("then")
- Although his reign is poorly documented, it is possible to piece together a basic history from available evidence." Is it possible to remove the last three words? What else would it be pieced together from?
  - What about listing the kinds of sources used? Ex: "it is possible to piece together a basic history from temple inscriptions..." Awadewit ^Talk 11:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- "did not attempt to keep power" - "to retain the power of the dynasty"? Tony 10:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments (1) "However, neither of these references necessarily refer to campaigning, nor do they even unnecessarily date to Amenhotep's reign." Neither, nor, unnecessarily? It's a little complex, and a double negative. Can you re-phrase? (2) "Issues" - I see the plural is used in other Egyptology articles but it seems strange to me. Issue (in terms of children) can already be considered a plural. "Issues" is an old usage, yes, but I don't think it's common nowadays. (3) The first letter in "ḥtp-dỉ-nsw formula" doesn't show up on my computer (it's just a square). (I often get that though, particularly with phonetic characters.) (4) I recommend that you use citation templates. As I've done for the Andrews reference (note that the author is Andrews not Dunn). DrKiernan 11:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

[edit] Casino Royale (2006 film)

There were some problems with this nom. It had a great many supports, but I'm restarting it (Old nom) Raul654 21:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - First on the list, "Credit sequence". This does not need its own subsection. There's barely enough info as is, and it's pretty much talking about effects. "Special effects" should be re-titled "Effects", and "Credit sequence" should be placed in with that information. The same goes for "Vehicles and gadgets". This film is a land mark for the series because it's lacking this stuff. We should find information that says "WHY" it wasn't included, and then put that in the "Production" section. There isn't that much there, and this isn't something is probably going to be able to even remotely handle being it's own subsection (let alone the full section it is now), so it can be placed in the lead paragraph of the "Production" section. I'll limit my critique, to this, since every time I make any suggestions they are generally ignored. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment As the Bond movie title sequences have been one of the most consistent items to carry from movie to move, I think that a section about the credit sequence could warrant a subsection. Slavlin 21:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. It's one minor thing about the film, that only diehard Bond fans would actually care about. We might as well have a trivia section. Friday the 13th had a specific title sequence for the first several films, but was later change. It's apart of the opening credits. There isn't a section in Halloween III about the difference in title sequences, since the first two had the same type of opening with the gradual closing in on the pumpkin. It's something minor. Otherwise, we might as well have an entire section devoted to the removal of Q and Moneypenny. Or, a section about how this is a reboot of the franchise, starting from the beginning, yet M is played by the same woman from the last Bond films. It's minor, has more to do with the effects going into the opening credits (and less to do with the actual change of them). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

- Second concern is the "user ratings" in the Reception section. This has already been discussed on the WikiProject Film page, and all user ratings should be avoided. This includes IMDb and RottenTomatoes. Online polls not only lack reliable random polling (as the only people voting are the same ones that vote on every poll), don't get enough votes to provide a reliably sized sample, but we cannot verify that there isn't any vote stacking going on. It isn't hard to just change computers to vote again. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  - I've taken care of two of the things I mentioned, we'll see if someone has issues with that. I'm still waiting for someone to address the importance of the "vehicles and gadgets" list, especially when this film should be notable in that area for not having any gadgets. We don't list cars in other FA articles. The vehicles and alien life forces are a staple of Star Wars, just as much as vehicles and gadgets are of Bond, but you don't see those pages filled with a list of new creatures in each film (or what speeders and emperial walkers were used). Find information about the director not wanting to use any of those gadgets and lose the list. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support - Its a very well done piece, not anything really in particular to fix. Great job to those involved; I'm highly impressed. RideABicycle | Talk | 00:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that people are not actually reading this article and are just skimming it over. In the least, I would expect more "Conditional Oppose", like Erik, on the grounds that there are 2 citation tags in the article. This requires a bit of actual reading. I'm not trying to downplay your decision RideABike, but, this has been an on going issue in this FAC (and probably one of the reasons why it was started over). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm supposed to put in my two cents, and you are telling me I'm wrong. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure its at least somewhat skewed to expect a particular opinion. Maybe you should outline what acceptable responses are; then people wont accidentally support any articles around here. RideABicycle | Talk | 01:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Wow, someone who takes 18 days to get angry over nothing. Amazing. Oh, and that part about accidentally supporting articles, hilarious. You should e-mail Sinbad. ColdFusion650 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Oppose - There are still passages marked with a lack of citation that need to be addressed. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done The opening sequence subsection has been verified. Cliff smith 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the gunbarrel sequence, the last handful of sentences are personal observations that do not have any attribution to them -- am I supposed to watch all the Bond films to find out that Casino Royale really is the first to do so-and-so? I've also added further citation-needed tags, especially for the ends of paragraphs. Also, my previous citation-needed tag for the Chinese redubbing was removed without the problem being addressed; I've re-added it. If this article wants to meet FA status, then all pertinent information should be cited. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that the things that were uncited about the special effects were just lacking proper citation from a source which was already here: the documentary "James Bond: For Real". I fixed the ref and applied it where it was needed. Cliff smith 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The {{citation needed}} tag at the end of the first paragraph in "Effects" is unnecessary—the statement about things like Bond music and the catch phrase not appearing until near the end of the film needs no reference. It's similar to making a statement about the plot, which would need no reference either.
Cliff smith 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Other than the first sentence, the rest of the observations are based on comparing this film with all the other films. Is a reader expected to take that information for granted, needing to view all the 007 films to verify it? If no attributable source can be found mentioning it (indicating it's probably not important), then it's trivial and can be removed. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If such observations are trivial, which they appear to be, then remove them. You're right. Cliff smith 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both. I don't know why I added it at the end, I wasn't paying attention (if I did add it, I can't remember). Technically, it's "verifiable", but it really is trivial, unless we can find an attributable source citing why the director chose to push it to the end. Otherwise, it's just observable trivia. The problem with most of the "differences from other Bond films" type of information is that it relies on the "tell" instead of the "show" of encyclopedic writing. It's just "this is this, and it's different than that", instead of "this is this, because....". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that once such trivia is removed that the article will be a bit smaller, so that criterion 4 would be better satisfied, since apparently the article needs trimming. If anything could be condensed, perhaps the effects section. Cliff smith 23:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Erik removed that one portion that was kind of trivial. I wonder what the article would look like if we removed all observable facts (e.g. anything that is basically a comparison of the Bond films, and lists of the vehicles and gadgets, as that is really just comparing what this film has to what the other films had). Also, I think the actual article is only about 40-45kb long (b/c you are only supposed to count the prose inforamation, and the edit page counts every character including HTML code). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. There's not enough info in any section to warrant a spinoff article anyway. Just because it suggests smaller articles should be created doesn't mean that such a thing needs to happen. Cliff smith 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - great article, but GET RID OF THOSE {{fact}}! igordebraga ≠ 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per criterion 4. The article needs trimming - please read WP:SUMMARY. LuciferMorgan 01:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think one of the easiest ways for that is to remove the soundtrack information completely. It isn't that important to the article, and we can provide a link at the top to the actual article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well "Vehicles and gadgets" is unnecessary trivia and could be removed. LuciferMorgan 11:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried that suggestion, and the response is "it's a staple of the Bond franchise, and on all the other Bond articles (even the ones that once were FA). I made a suggestion at the top about what to do with that section, because right now I don't see encyclopedic content in it; I just see a list. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there is a separate list of gadgets, why don't we just make a link to said list? Cliff smith 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does your opposition refer to (what do you think needs summarization)? Cliff smith 00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the article fully in awhile so it may be there, but it isn't, then what I'm referring to is that if editors really want that "vehicles and gadget" informatin (it isn't not worthy of its own full section) then they need information from the director/writers, and whatnot, that discuss why that stuff wasn't included. Don't just list all the cars and little gizmos that Bond used, that's irrelevant in an encyclopedia, but talk about why it was decided to go against the tradition of Bond having lots of cool toys. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Continue to oppose based on use of Internet Movie Database in the references (1c). It claims no responsibility for its material. Commanderbond.net appears to have been reduced, but should also go completely as an unofficial site. Marskell 12:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your assistance in the removal of said refs and replacing them with reliable ones would be appreciated. Cliff smith 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done I replaced the last remaining IMDB ref. Cliff smith 23:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose Im still not at all sure about this whole "gadgets before plot" nonsence. It just doesnt seem right. Having a section about vehicles and gadgets in a film placed before the plot of the film (which could do with a bit of extending) is even discussed seems illogical. I would happily support if this policy was changed. There are also a couple of tags that are holding it back, but those can be fixed relatively easily. - • The Giant Puffin • 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Done The change has been made. Now let's see if whoever moved it above plot in the first place starts pitching a fit. ColdFusion650 12:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Good to see this is fixed - • The Giant Puffin • 09:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Support since any problems with refs are in the process of being corrected. I agree that the gadgets should come after plot, though this is a rather minor aspect of this article.
Cliff smith 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The fair-use rationale for the Craig photo under casting is pretty flimsy. Calliopejen1 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support Excellent source of information on all aspects of the film as I said before ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 11:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Continued Oppose, 1c, reliability of sources — same reasons as old nom, not corrected. There are still several items sourced to IMDb.com (although labeled as studio briefing), and a LOT of the article is still sourced to commanderbond.net. Others sources which don't appear to rise to the level of WP:RS include Ernie Els official website, and superherohype.com. Wikilinking also needs attention; common words like "critics" and "suave" are wikilinked (see WP:CONTEXT). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I have an issue with the uncited nature of the Cameos section. If these people's cameos are listed in the film's credits, but it can be referenced as such. However, there have been cases where there were unlisted cameos. Just giving the names does not help, especially with cameos of actors who appeared in previous 007 films decades ago. There should be attributable sources that reinforce these cameos, because it's not always convincing enough to look at a picture, then watch the film for the cameo's appearance. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The subsection of Cameos seems fairly trivial to me. Cliff smith 02:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Support per my original comment. The Filmaker 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

[edit] Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta

The old nom had many objections that have since been resolved, as well as much discussion. I'm restarting it. Raul654 19:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - I see no reason to oppose this article's promotion, though I think you should follow Kirill Lokshin's (among other users') advice and drop a few footnotes. HHermans 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose—My objections concerning the significant amount of redundant referencing have not been resolved (breaching the requirement for a professional standard of formatting). Nor has my concern that the text needs proper copy-editing (1a). I don't see the justification for restarting this nomination. Tony 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment While I consider the "problem" of citations to be irrelevant to any FA criteria, the notion that the text has not been copy-edited is spurious. First of all, it was reviewed by as many as five native speakers, so, if anything in the text is ungrammatical et al., it was probably missed by anyone but Tony (it is not unlikely, but it also means that, if present, those mistakes are bordering on trivial). Such problems Tony has presented in the past have been dealt with, so his "concern that the text needs proper copy-editing" has in fact been resolved, for all we know - as for all we don't known, well, he won't tell us. This, presumably, because it is convenient to paint a picture of an article that you oppose for entirely different reasons. It is also not the first groundless accusation that Tony has made in respect to this article (earlier, you will note, he suspected that references lead to each other, because, you see, he suspected it, and because he must be right).

In short. Comments regarding the number of citations are out of place: "excessive" citations are not opposed by any letter or comma in the FA guidelines, and, being present in that number in this and other articles, they do not pose any unforeseen practical problem. Comments regarding copyediting are in bad faith. Dahn 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose concur with Tony on the excessive referencing. Resurgent insurgent 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment, nearly every sentence is cited. Reference number eight should simply be listed as a source, as opposed to the three dozens cites it has now. -- Phoenix2 04:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment If you read the text and the guidelines, you will notice that doing that would go against regulations (for citations backing direct quotes, and for citations indicating outside views/comments). Again, I find it difficult to answer to everyone's take on citations, and to please every single taste. Dahn 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And since it's such a grey area, I saw no reason to oppose. I'm unlikely to cast an opinion either way for the article, but see now that the issue I mentioned was discussed to death in the previous nomination. -- Phoenix2 04:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, still concerned about copyediting, which hasn't been addressed, and the excessive, repeat citations impede readability and aren't professional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'll say it again here: comments regarding the number of citations are out of place; comments regarding copyediting are in bad faith (because, and I have to say this for a fourth time, all concerns of yours that were not about citations have been addressed). Dahn 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong support - as previously. I for one don't see any problems with the copyediting. It's a great article and follows all the guidelines. Current objections appear to be rooted in frivolity. Biruitorul 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose due to clear WP:POINT breach of criterion 1. c., which in my opinion is actually in very bad faith. I also oppose per 1a too, and see no reason this nomination was restarted. Dahn had no intentions of actually getting off his backside to address others concerns last time, so what's special about this time? Clear waste of FAC's time this is. LuciferMorgan 10:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Again, I do not respond to "breach" of what the rules may say by not saying, but to what the rules do say. This means that there is absolutely nothing in criterion 1. c) which would even dream of being applied here. Just because a certain number of editors think that there are too many citations doesn't mean that the article, as is, is not up to wikipedia standards (it means that it is not up to their own standards, and this alone means a breach of WP:POINT). And, let me be very clear about it: we would not be discussing the issues of what citations support if a note would have several citations (instead of a citation having several notes); this means that, if I had used another system (not less references) to begin with, LuciferMorgan would not be spending his precious time coaching me about how rules that do not exist should be read. Dahn 10:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's total rubbish Dahn. They do exist actually, only you failed to listen when told. Let's take a trip down memory lane...

Criterion 1. c. of Wikipedia:What is a featured article? asks for the following; "Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." So by the rationale of this criteria which is set out in black and white may I remind the FAC nominator, is the nominator saying the following is "likely to be challenged"? Examples;

"Promoted to brigadier general in 1803,[2][1]" - This isn't a claim but a fact, and is unlikely to be challenged.
"She died in childbirth while in Istanbul, just a few days before the Sultan was deposed (April 14, 1807),[15][16]" - is this different?
"He asked to be recalled in April 1807,[7][11][16]" - or is this different? Is this likely to be challenged? I think not.

The list goes on and on here with the amount of ridiculously cited info, in fact to the brink of WP:POINT. Only statements that are "likely to be challenged" need proper referencing which criterion 1. c. properly states. This article is clear abuse of the criteria, and almost an attempt to change the criteria so that every statement needs two or three citations. Considering that this "refers to actual guidelines", perhaps Dahn can finally stop turning this FAC into a criteria debate, get off his backside and address the article's problems hmm? LuciferMorgan 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Claims, ie. opinion, not facts. None of my examples are likely to be challenged for citations, so why have you cited them more than once. And this time, rather than go on some farcical rant with no basis in reality, actually answer my question. LuciferMorgan 10:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, LuciferMorgan: the guideline indicates what is the standard to be expected for potentially controversial claims; nowhere does it say that other sentences are not to be cited or not to be cited as much. It stands self-evident that there is nothing in 1. c), and, indeed, anywhere else, which would apply to "over-citation" or whatever you call your peeve. Furthermore, as you will see from the previous discussion, plenty of editors agree that citations should be used for facts and dates (because wikipedia is not a source, it points to sources).

And, talking of farcical rants, allow me to note how I came to be "responsible" for both ignoring and over-using criterion 1 c)... Dahn 10:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong support - as per previous comments. Also, in the meantime, the article has become even more polished; it looks like most of the stylistic objections have been addressed. As for the sole remaining issue under discussion—how many citations per fact—it reminds me of the medieval question, how many angels can dance on the point of a needle? Perhaps this goes to show that history is an endless repetition; in this case, the first time it was not a tragedy, so let's not make it now into a farce. — Turgidson 12:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Support I think this is a very good article so I'm supporting it. (I don't do weak or strong supports) However, I can also see where Tony 1 (above) is coming from - not the referencing that is fine - but the prose mostly it is good rather than excellent but there are many places where the phraseology is clumsy and better vocabulary could be used. There are too many "he"s, at the beginning of a new section the full surname could be used - these are all very minor things which can easily be addressed. I have made a few minor edits to demonstrate what I'm talking about. Factually and encyclopaedic wise it is excellent so all things considered this is FA standard Giano 13:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. The opposition to this article's promotion is getting absurd. "Too many references" is not a valid problem with an article that should prevent it from being promoted. I ask those opposing not to have their views clouded by the argumentation that went on the last nomination--just because the nominator was not exactly polite doesn't mean that the article is not an excellent one. —Cuiviénen 15:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm with the group that thinks this is ridiculously over-referenced. MLilburne 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it affects the readability in my opinion. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review) 18:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)}

I would just like comment here because I think I can put things into perspective regarding citations etc. I have written a lot of FAs (said modestly) over the last two or three years In the olden days 2004 citations and notes were not important - so we inserted very few, if any. But citing sources, rightly or wrongly, probably rightly is becoming increasingly more important to Wikipedia. Take Buckingham Palace currently on FARC, every word I wrote was true and from a reputable book, but someone says here [32] they want it defeatured because of an uncited comment. I can remember seeing that fact written, I had many books out of the public library to write it, but I cannotm a long time later, be sure where the last part of the uncited fact came from, so I cannot reliably reference it - and this is why I think a page should not be failed for not citing what may seem trivial at the moment. This was not written to be a good "lets read in bed" thriller but a factual account for research and students. Fail it on prose but please not over referencing. Giano 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As the main editor of four recent FAs and as a historian in training, I entirely agree on the importance of referencing statements. However, I still maintain that there is such a thing as over-referencing, and that over-referencing is simply bad style. If you have a sentence with no direct quotations, and with only one comma in it, it doesn't need two footnotes from the same source. It only needs one footnote at the end of the sentence. We can aim for academic style and readability at the same time. MLilburne 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I like your argument, Giano, and am encouraged to see it ... but ... very trivial facts don't need to be cited three and four times (and this is down from the six that originally came to FAC !). This has turned into what appears to be a WP:POINT to the editor who simply won't reduce redundant citations in spite of multiple objections, which do impede readability and aren't needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just thought it would be interesting to see how FAC has changed - as Sandy your normal habitat FARC where you and Licifer are demanding these cites is such a bore, it seems to me you want it all ways. Well good luck to you but its an impossible requirement. Giano 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, Giano; articles still need to be cited. Some of the facts in this article are cited four times, when one would suffice, and multiple citations to the same source are used in one sentence. As you well know, I have never advocated for such citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You and Lucifer say one thing on FARC and the opposite here. Make up your minds and then let the rest of us know what you want! Giano 20:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As usual Giano, you're talking absurd. We ask for citations, but we don't ask for statements to be cited three or four times for absolutely no reason. As concerns saying one thing and then saying the opposite, let's not delve into that area for I may say a few things someone may scream WP:CIVIL for (now that's the real bore)...LuciferMorgan 14:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Lucifer, I have seen you on FARC complaining that the mosy obvious and well known, non-contraversial facts are not referenced. You cannot have it both ways. Giano 07:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bring up WP:POINT when you are failing an article for not being in line with your artistic vision. It is grotesque. Dahn 19:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the statements that have the references out of numerical order? You've failed to address that...of course, the problem wouldn't exist if so many statements weren't double and triple cited. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 02:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why that would be a problem. This issue has never come up before, and plenty of articles with multiple citations do not have them in a numerical order - including, and I am repeating myself, those articles with several citations per note that were turned by other wikipedians into 1 citation per note. Also, what you will note that the notes in this case come in an alphabetical order (by author, with those having no author being placed first). To tell you the truth, I find the whole issue ridiculous: implying that I should change the entire article to create an "order" that could never really be preserved is not a reasonable expectation. I mean, how should I do that? I already said I see no reason for reducing citations (and numerical order is the least of my reasons) - even if I were to reduce them, the only way I could preserve an "order" would be if I also removed some citations with a single note (the sheer effort required is intimidating, over an absolutely irrelevant issue, and it would all be changeable in one second). The other option is asking me to redo the entire references system to multiple citations per note - I have answered below and in the first discussion why I consider that type of request abhorrent. Dahn 05:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm only trying to speak on behalf of the people have opposed for such a reason and haven't really made their opinions clear. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I was addressing the issue as it was presented (not implying that you are responsible for the request). I apologize for not having made this clear in my previous posts. Dahn 07:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Excessive referencing and 1a issues. Also it's aesthetically pleasing when multiple refs are required (which is rare) to have them in numerical order. Quadzilla99 19:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Further comment. On a more careful examination of the footnotes, I find that many of them point to page ranges rather than specific pages. For example, footnote 16, cited ten times, points the reader to "p.205, 208–209, 211–215." It seems unlikely to me that all of these citations are in fact pointing to the same range of pages. For example, footnote 21 is once used to cite a direct quotation, which is not likely to reside on "p.44–45, 251–267, 268–269, 274, 280, 445." This does not count as reliable referencing. If this article is attempting, as it seems to be doing, to set a world record for thorough citation, then in fact ironically it's not doing a very good job. MLilburne 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Look, I'm sorry I did not ask for your input when I edited the article. This is the fact: I have used and reviewed all that text, and all facts, claims, and quotes are to be found within those pages (I hope you are not contesting that, since that would imply that you are accusing me of manipulating wikipedia). Not only is this precise referencing, per what precedents exist, and per wikipedia format variants in circulation, but it is also very practical for this article - I had chosen multiple notes per citation to spare me the trouble of writing the same bit of text over and over again, and because the number of notes would have been at least twice what it is were I to do so. It also made sense, since, as you will note from an even more careful examination of footnotes, the largest portion of text I cited, the one from wikisource, is not split into pages or chapters or anything (so why bother with the rest?).

Implying that I should change it is, as I have said in the past, unfair. Not only because there is a specific request that editors should try to adapt to referencing in articles instead of changing it, but also because, based on this whim, I would have to redo the entire article only to be faced with a different set of editors who have other demands from referencing (if you read the previous debate, you will note that I have given concrete examples of editors who turn multiple citations into single notes). I will not be repeating this point in the future: I trust it was understood and it can be picked up from here. I also trust that witticisms of the "set the world record type" will not be repeated. Dahn 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh crumbs. I was so excited to see a Napoleonic general on FAC: there are some lovely images, and the text looks fine from a first scan (no doubt some nicks and tucks are possible here and there); but I just can't stand to read the article due to the excessive and distracting citations. A dinky footnote after every punctuation mark (often three or more) is just overkill. The citations are meant to support the text, providing verifiability: the footnotes here are killing the text, and making the article difficult to read.

By way of example, the first paragraph of section 1.2 - "Mission to Egypt and 1805 Campaign" - (two sentences, one semicolon, two fullstops) cites the same source after each of those punctation mark (i.e. three times in two sentences - at least the commas are uncited in this case). The last paragraph of that section (three sentences) cites source 2 five times, and source 7 and source 1 twice each. How is this at all helpful? The last parts are a bit better, sometimes "only" one citation per sentence. Please, sort out the citation, so we can discuss the article rather than its format. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose until the unsightly and distracting overcitation is dealt with. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak support - images size should be left unspecified according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I also think there are too much red links, but this are minor problems which can be solved within minutes, so I'm half-supporting it. Eurocopter tigre 20:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is the matter of layout, as indicated in the same guideline - I have tried several default sizes, and noted that the images vary considerably in size (the only time when this is not noticeable is when the pictures are set at 180, which is minuscule), while the indicated width is not as much as to harm the text (whatever size the text may have - which means that people who may have problems with the layout are likely to have the same problem with 98% of the internet). Also, the presence of red links is not actually a criterion (in fact, in deliberation for my previous FA, I was told that it may be an incentive). Dahn 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - A sentence really doesn't need more than one reference; if each only had one reference (if the others were removed), would the people opposing because of excess referencing change their votes? --HHermans 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying a sentence doesn't need more than one reference is flat out wrong. In some cases its required if the sentence contains two statements not supported by one ref. Although as I said above not nearly as often as this article uses multiple refs for one sentence. Quadzilla99 16:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Typographically, they can still be one footnote; and, technically, if that does happen, we should indicate which source is responsible for which half of the sentence. But I don't always do that myself, so I won't insist on it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

- Yes, that would help reduce the problem. Resurgent insurgent 06:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- That and having the references referring to specific pages would certainly be a great help. I would want to look at the result before committing myself though. MLilburne 16:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No. This does not have enough information or many of aspects most other FA-Class articles have. --LtWinters 11:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Care to back that allegation with some sort of argument? Just what do you feel it is "lacking", LtWinters? Dahn 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Sorry, but I don't think it meets criterion 1(a). I at least did not find it "engaging", despite the promise in the lead of murder and intrigue.
I'm also concerned about criterion 1(b) as the first 28 years of his life is covered in a single paragraph.
It is over-cited. See: "Ypsilantis had previously escaped to the Russian camp,[13] and, according to Ghica, was briefly considered by his allies as ruler over both Principalities (just before Russian occupation took over);[13]". If this comes from [13] why duplicate the ref? And "The British bombardment, coming at a time when the Muslim populace was celebrating Eid ul-Adha,[8] was met with panic, and Sébastiani's group of French officers was soon the only organized force present on the European shore.[8] In his messages to Selim, Duckworth asked for the French ambassador to be evicted, for the Ottoman fleet and the Dardanelles military facilities to be handed down,[8][1] and for Russia to be granted rule over Wallachia and Moldavia.[8]" Evidently the whole section comes from [8] so why repeat it 4 times? There are many such examples. Once again, I am sorry as it is clearly all factually accurate and verifiable (and so meets criterion 1(c)) but it's just unnecessary. DrKiernan 15:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on citations. There are several problems here
- It is unusual, and deprecated by anglophone manuals of style, to have two footnotes in succession citing the same source, whether done by our many-to-one use of <ref>, or by Ibid. or anything else. It is marginally tolerable if they are on successive paragraphs; but that's not the case here. It makes the text hard to read.
- It is uncommon to have full citations in the footnotes; more common to have short forms in the notes, and full forms in the bibliographies. This permits citation by page numbers where they vary, although this is less of a problem here.
- It is uncommon, and makes it hard to read, to have three footnotes at the same point. More usual to have one, mentioning all three sources; this is why short forms are useful.
- The quality and provenance of source differs amazingly. The Encyclopedia Americana is a tertiary source. If better sources can be found for its points, it is not necessary to mention it at all.
- On the other hand, Marx, Irving, Thiers, Ghica are nineteenth-century authors, with the weaknesses, and few of the advantages, of primary sources. At least Marx (thanks for the link) is expressing his opinion; it should be attributed to him in text. One of the uses of an encyclopedia is to answer the question "Was Marx's view of Sebastiani justified? Is it now consensus?" Citing only Marx makes this impossible to answer. (I see that Irving is cited primarily for his long quotation; good.)
- It is undesirable to cite sources in Rumanian if the same material can be found in English. English is more useful to our readers; and a cynic might suspect that the sources were consulted only at second-hand. I'm sure this is unfair; but it is better not to raise the question.
- On the Revue des Deux Mondes, my opinion is divided. Much of what it's being cited for is Sebastiani's diplomatic career, on which it is likely to be perfectly reliable; but some of it is the secrets of diplomacy. We know more about that than we did in 1833. A modern secondary source would be preferable.

This is a lot of work; it is a very good article; but it is not the best we can do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Note for the next nomination: My remarks above are intentionally a comment, not an oppose. I believe this would be a better article if the citations were reviewed; I doubt this would change more than a couple words of text. I express no opinion on whether this should be disqualifying for FA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

[edit] State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)

Ever since it failed the GA review, the article was cleaned up and was expanded. I know it's a bit short for a FA but it is a topic with much history. If you oppose it, please give suggestions on how to fix it. Thank you. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 05:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:
1. The name is not the common name. No one knows it as SR 1002; it's known as Tilghman Street and Union Boulevard.
2. The writing isn't great.
3. Reference 25 ("1941 Lehigh County Map") does not show that the cities built Union Boulevard. It could have been built, at least partially, by the state.
4. Before "Thus, in 1987...", a sentence that I wrote, but that needed a source, was removed. There is now no explanation of why Church Street is the west end.
5. Reference 5 ("Diners of Pennsylvania") does not say anything to support "traffic improved on the William Penn Highway". It also doesn't say that "the public was ignoring the railroads"; what it says is that the "the railroads are virtually ignored by the traveling public" now, not then.
6. The major intersections table has unnecessary formatting such as the bolding of routes and the gray background. I suspect that the "DeLorme Street Atlas USA 2007, Toggle Measure Tool" does not have enough precision, and thus two decimal places is false precision. It definitely is for the overall length, which references MapQuest, since if you click "reverse route" it changes from 13.77 to 13.81.
7. None of the external links are useful. The map links do not belong on a long road, and do not even lead to a point on the road. The other links are only somewhat related, failing Wikipedia:External links.
This needs some work on the writing and original research fronts. --NE2 06:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The agreed upon naming convention is what the title of the road is. --myselfalso 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Who agreed on it? The guideline says that we should use the common name. --NE2 06:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things. First of all, the article is following WP:PASH rules on the junction table don't blame the article. Second PennDOT has this route signed as a quadrant route why do you want to rename it, we had this conversation before. And Delorme does use the two digit decimals as well as other department of transportations, meaning it can be used here. I agree with some things, but what I don't understand is the sentence about Church Street. You seem to have wrote it, but wikipedia has a rule, if it doesn't have a source is deleted, and you didn't have a source, so you might have been lying about that sentence. Although, theres one point I agree with you but strongly disagree with rest. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 06:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Read false precision.

You removed the sentence, and now the next sentence doesn't make sense. It says "Thus...only the portion...between Church Street and PA 378..." but doesn't say why Church Street is the end. --NE2 06:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you can thank Vishwin60 for driving me away from the article; I might have helped fix the problems were it not for him. --NE2 06:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I removed it, it has no source. If I can be kind enough to provide it for me I would be grateful. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 06:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but I'm pretty sure it's true. Without it, the article is incomplete. You're going to have to find a source. Try looking through state laws from that time period. --NE2 06:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the ugliness in the debate that just happened here has been moved to the talk page. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 23:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. The fact that there's ugliness that needs to be moved to a separate page proves that the article isn't stable enough to be considered for a featured article. Both sides make valid points: SR 1002 isn't really a common name, but it's the only name that applies to the entire road that the article is about. The AfD for the article, while it was extremely POINTy, seemed to indicate that the road was notable not because it's a secondary state highway, but because it's the main street of Allentown – so maybe the article needs to be written so that it's about Tilghman Street and not the state highway (as it originally was). Regardless, this (as well as the issues surrounding the junction list) need to be resolved at the article talk page and/or Wikipedia:Requested moves before the article is considered for a higher status. -- 66.165.10.74 18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The name of the article should not apply to FAC, especially since the name is of a naming convention]] decided by the WikiProject. --myselfalso 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the vote. WP:USRD members already have decided to name the articles as their signed. There's nothing wrong with the junction table, its simply following project standards. And stop calling the article ugly and assume good faith. Your vote was not helpful by the way. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 20:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they were referring the the discussion (see Vish's comment above). —Scott5114 ↗ 23:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I want some FAC reviewers to comment the article based on the writing and forget about the damn name. The article is using the correct name and it was decided by project members and anyone wants to change the naming they can talk on the project about it but the article is following project standards and therefore shouldn't be blamed on this FAC. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I concur with the above. Raul654 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I don't really like the choppy writing style. --TREYWiki 22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please provide a better explanation of why you opposed it. Because you don't like the "choppy writing style" doesn't help me improve the article. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Actually, it doesn't help anyone to improve the article, other than a crude comment about choppy writing. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4} 17:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    - The overall flow on the article needs some work. It stops and starts with choppy sentences. Like this.--TREYWiki 18:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      - Thank you for elaborating. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4} 18:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment the league of copy-editors will fix the problem with the writing, after that, it should be considered an FA. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 23:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Also, I'd like to have the citations numbered correctly. They are all over the place. When citing a source more than once, put <refname="namehere>reftext</ref> first, then <refname="namehere/> where you want the other citations with that source to be. I dont like to see the numbers go 3,1,2,4,7,10 ect. --T. Wiki 23:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I did do all that. Please comment on something useful to help the article, since this has already been accomplished. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 01:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry about that, some users explained what you meant. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 01:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

[edit] Joe Sakic

Self-nom It passed GA a few days ago, and since then, I've strived to get it to FA status. Cleaned up the article, nearly doubled the references used, and added another photo. Now has plenty of references, is completely neutral, and describes everything about Sakic. Kaiser matias 22:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Kaiser made the article a truly encyclopedic. It looks great, has plenty of sources, is well-written, and should be a basis of other biography articles. Jmlk17 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Support, yes! Too bad there aren't a few good quality free images...--Phoenix 04:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I know the images are not the best quality, however, it is difficult for me to get photos of Sakic being a few thousand miles away. And the ones that are on have a completely free license, with no restrictions, being that I was the one who took the pictures. Kaiser matias 04:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that for the most part, I wasn't blaming you for the lack of images. The prose is good anyway, and I think this article is ready to roll. --Phoenix 04:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything to help improve Wikipedia. Kaiser matias 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Support Well made bio. Just one thing, couldn't you convert the "awards" section from a list into a table. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 08:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Support, but:
- Would change the main article templates to see also. The main article templates is to use for example, when you have a resume of something that is expanded in a different article. That's not the case. The Colorado Avalanche or the Nordiques article do not expand on the career of Sakic at the clubs. Fixed those
- Early on in the season, Sakic first proved himself as the leader of the team, commenting on the Eric Lindros situation. While Lindros was busy holding out against the Nordiques, who were again doing poorly. When asked about Lindros, Sakic stated,(...) - That While Lindros (...) sentence doesn't really make sense. Or am I just missing something. (English is not my first language, I apologize if I'm wrong) Changed the wording, hopefully it's cleaer
- Although I have corrected some, I'm not sure there aren't anymore. I mean this: references should be after the comma or the period, never before. Corrected
And that's all I think. Very good work. I edited this article a few times before and I was surprised to see how it has improved. Congratulations.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 14:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Records and achievements is listy; needs to be converted to compelling prose. WP:DASH attention needed throughout. A one-paragraph lead? Pls see WP:LEAD — it should be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article. Publication dates (not just years) should be given when available in the footnotes; for examples, see ^ Zeisberger, Mike (2007). Sakic is no ordinary Joe. NBCSports.com. Retrieved on May 14, 2007. The correct publication date is June 15, 2001, but the source says 2007 ??? All of the sources should be checked for accuracy. Since retrieval dates are wikilinked, publication dates should be as well. What is the data source for the tables ? For a bio, there is very little info about his personal life. Why are important awards piped in the lead ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think some of the achievements there could even be merged into the prose, if not all of them. I'll consider tackling that. -- Phoenix2 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Sandy, abbreviations also need proper formatting when they initially appear, see here. Also dates shouldn't use "th" and didn't should be did not ("The Avalanche didn't repeat as Stanley Cup champions"). Quadzilla99 13:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also the International play section is close to proseline, it need re-writing. Quadzilla99 13:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm also going to have to point that this also probably also fails 3. It's unfortunate, but an infobox pic that shows the back of someone's head unfortunately does not represent the best of Wikipedia's work. Quadzilla99 03:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment to point out on that, there are few images of Sakic on Wikipedia at all, so it is indeed one of the better of Wikipedia's work. And considering the fact that it has no restrictions on its license, I don't see how it is that bad. Yes, it is a back view of Sakic, however it is better than no image of Sakic whatsoever. Kaiser matias 04:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I understand that these photos are the best we can do at the moment. However, they are undeniably weak, so I recommend keeping just the first one and omitting the other two, which are quite similar. MaxVeers 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose needs more citations for me:

"Swift Current Broncos" section 2nd para needs some citations

"Quebec Nordiques" section which citation references his captaincy (if any)? I am confused because in 89 he became captain which is usually only given to one player and then in 92 he became captain again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Object very good start to build on, especially given the extensive references, but the prose is way below FA standards. Take the lead: the first sentence can be shrunk to avoid the "who is". The second sentence "One of the most successful players ever, Sakic is known for having won two Stanley Cups, various NHL trophies and being named to play in 13 NHL All-Star Games, as well as one of the strongest team leaders to ever play in the NHL." also has to be rewritten. First, the peacock terms need to go (also applies in many other places in the article). Then note that the phrase "as one..." is incompatible with "known for". The whole article similarly needs a lot of polishing: one sentence paragraphs need to be merged to improve the flow, fanboyish sentences like "It is with this excellent skill that he has managed to be one of the highest scoring players in the history of the NHL." have to go, bulleted list should ideally be rewritten as a coherent section, etc. Pascal.Tesson 22:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment was waiting for to hear what was wrong with the article. Getting everything fixed up will take me a couple days, so don't be suprised to see nothing happening on the article in the short-term. Kaiser matias 03:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is obviously going to fail the nomination, as I don't have the time right now to fix up these objections, but I would like to make some points. First of all, the bio section is more or less consistent with Martin Brodeur, which is already FA, and Dominik Hasek, which is also a FA-candidate and has not had any objections on its bio. I don't understand what is needed about WP:DASH, which could be a policy I'm not aware of. Tables are not referenced in the Brodeur or Hasek articles, so I don't see why it should be here. Again I'm going to contest the opposition to the images. They are the only ones on Wikipedia, and they have a free license. Quadzilla99 said they don't represent the best of Wikipedia; however, as the only ones, they are the best of Sakic by default. Aside from that, it needs a lot more retouching, and has no chance of getting fixed in the short term. Kaiser matias 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Two concerns:

Use of peacock terms throughout the text. An example: "scoring an amazing 120 points in 82 regular season games and 34 points in 22 playoff games." Do we really need to tell the reader it was "amazing"?
The free images of Sakic barely show the subject. There's no way you can get in contact with Sakic (or his PR team) and ask for a free image? CloudNine 11:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

[edit] Bionicle

It's a great article that has been worked on extensively by various Wikipedia members, most notably Drakhan. With all the time and effort put into it (and it's various related pages), I feel that the Bionicle page should receive some recognition. (And, I'll admit I'm a fan, so that's the main reasoning behind my wanting to nominate this, but it's still a great article disregarding that). ElectricTurahk 19:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Object — The caption for Image:BionicleTextLogo.jpg says "'Bionicle' logo as used on packaging and the websites.", but the image page is licensed as GFDL-self. These can't both be right. The article does not have many references, and many of the references used do not appear to be reliable sources. (e.g., forum posts) Pagra shtak 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Object - The article does not have enough in-line citations.Kmarinas86 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I seriously want to know why you are all hung up on citations. It just doesn't make sense. And what's wrong with BZPower? I happen to work (WORK, not just be a member), and know that anything made as a source there will be 100% accurate (Unless a theory topic is linked to, but that wouldn't happen). Most of the posts are by the Bionicle author anyways - how aren't those reliable? And the image... Seriously, how's that a bad thing? Swert, a good friend of mine, made the logo using almost the exact font LEGO uses for the Bionicle sets. Would you rather it be some scanned blurry thing with background imagery making it look bad, or a nice, clean title made, ableit, by a fan? ElectricTurahk 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think those sources a semi-reliable, since they are purported to be from the Bionicle author. However, I think there should be better sources for the Māori language terms (e.g. http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/). As for the logo its obviously GDFL. Though, it doesn't have to be GDFL, so try using their actual logo with an appropriate disclaimer.Kmarinas86 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- With regard to the image, here's my problem: The caption says that it is the Bionicle Logo. The image page says that BS01Swert made the image. If these are both true, it therefore follows that BS01Swert created the Bionicle Logo. I find this suspect. As for why we're "hung up" on citations, verifiability is a Wikipedia policy and proper referencing is an important element of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Pagra shtak 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would refer to the image as a rugged instantiation of the Bionicle logo. IOW an amateur recreation of the logo in attempt to avoid "copyright violation", since using the actual logo in wikipedia, in their eyes, might go against fair use. Notice the almost unnecessary point BS01Swert makes when referring to the different font he is using (link - the middle prong on the "E" is tipped down in contrast to the "E" in the actual Bionicle logo). Obviously he doesn't want to use the real logo, which is this.Kmarinas86 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Object — Lead almost certainly fails WP:LEAD and "Since this controversy, Lego has been careful to make sure that all new Bionicle names are not common terms in other languages." has a {{fact}} tag. Chwech | hum-dee-hum-hum 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Snowball Oppose. Too few references. The article is list-like and too short. Lead paragraph is too short. The prose is not up to feature article standard. It looks like a fan site (not that fans are not allowed to write articles, but being more comprehensive will help). The information is not comprehensive. What about its popularity? How was this product marketed? SeleneFN 22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, too few references; lists need conversion to prose. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Snowball Oppose. Please review WP:WIAFA before nominating in future. LuciferMorgan 10:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

[edit] University of California, Los Angeles

As the recent primary contributor to this page, I nominate UCLA for Featured Article status. The previous GA nom failed a year ago, and in that time the article has been expanded, revised, referenced, and checked thoroughly. This article satisfies the criteria, however I must note that I am a student there, so some subtle bias may be present (please, be especially critical about this point). Additionally, I know at this point the constituent pages are weak and barely fit Start-class, but let's start from the core article and go from there, right? ALTON .ıl 03:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Not bad, but here are some issues:

1.) "On average, UCLA's enrollment is about 35,000 students." Uh, what? On average? There should be an exact figure presented here that is from the official source (UCLA), not an average of unofficial sources to give an approximate figure. This leads me to the fact that you should probably run the semi-automatic javascript program.
2.) "seven Professional schools, and five Professional Health Science schools." Is this weird capitalization for a reason that I'm missing? There are some other odd capitalization throughout the article (e.g. "the Master's degree", etc.)
3.) "Academically, the university was ranked 14th in the world, and 12th in the nation." By whom and when? You need to state the source and the year. (i.e. "Shanghai Jiao Tong University ranked the university 14th in the world and 12th in the nation in 2006.") Please do this throughout the article. You need to imagine this article being read 10 years from now. Would it still make sense with its current wording?

Better, but still awkward and year not stated. I could obviously just fix this myself, but I will let you know the error so you will look for similar instances throughout since you are more well-versed with the article. "The academic college ranking list Top 500 World Universities." Is the list titled "Top 500 World Universities"? Need comma before "Top" then and title should probably be italicized.

4.) You need to be careful to avoid academic boosterism as you stated in the nomination. For example, "The university constantly has one of the most competitive admissions pools among American institutions of higher education" is unacceptable. An acceptable alternative would be: "UCLA's 23.38% admittance rate was the 25th lowest in the nation" (I made the position up). Or, "The Princeton Review ranked UCLA as the 12th hardest school to get into the nation" (again, I made up the figure). Mostly withdrawn, but still some minor issues.
5.) ~~"For the past several years, no American university has had more applicants than UCLA." Ok, state the number of years then. Don't just give us a vague word like "several".~~
6.) ~~"though the majority of undergraduates are from California." Ok, what percentage is from California? I'm sure this number can be found and it would be more informative than "the majority."~~ Fixed, but your solution was long-winded. Be as concise as possible! Instead of two long sentences now, you could write "Students come to UCLA from all 50 states and more than 100 countries, though approximately 92.6% are from California." Every word is valuable. Don't use 20 words when 10 will convey the same message.

Those six points are just from reading the lead. This indicates to me that there are other similar issues throughout the article. Please try to go through and fix them. From a quick glance at the rest of the article (I didn't check for prose issues), here are some more issues:

7.) Image:Uclapowellsnow1932.JPG needs a fair use rationale and a new tag.
8.) ~~Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), "Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case." 10.1 and 10.3 need fixing.~~
9.) ~~Integers under 10 should be written out, in my opinion (e.g. five instead of 5). Although I'm not sure if this is official wikipedia policy, but it is good writing protocol.~~
10.) The rankings section is selective in its inclusion, indicating some bias. While I think rankings are generally pretty stupid, people still care about them somewhat, so they should be included. The most notable ranking that generates the most press is the U.S. News & World Report Ranking (I'm talking undergrad, here). If you mention The Kaplan Guide to College, Washington Monthly, and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University rankings, surely the USN&WR ranking should be mentioned (and perhaps the Times Higher one; I have no idea if these are favorable or not to UCLA, btw). The USN&WR grad rankings are already mentioned since they are favorable.

Better, but I'm still not completely satisfied. I realize it's impossible to have a perfect Rankings section, and people have differing opinions on what should be included. Personally, I think mentioning UCLA as a "New Ivy" is worthless because we have no idea what that means and defining "new ivy" takes far too long. Are these schools that don't have a long tradition of excellence and also are not in the Ivy League? Is that why schools like Stanford and MIT aren't listed? The rest of the section looks pretty good. I'd replace the New Ivy mentioning with USN&WR undergrad ranking - like it or hate it, it's the most read college ranking publication.

11.) "Newsweek also ranked UCLA 12th in its annual ranking of the Top 100 Global universities, ahead of private schools such as Princeton(15th) and Cornell(19th) and USC(54th)." Don't arbitrarily choose schools they are ahead of...serves no purpose. I could say UCLA was ranked behind Georgetown, Harvard, and MIT (I have no idea if it is, I was just making up schools to prove a point). This gives us no additional information. The only time I would say it might be significant to mention another school if it was stated something like "UCLA ranked third (behind Harvard and Stanford)..." That makes sense to me, but arbitrarily picking schools behind UCLA in a particular ranking, does not.
~~12.) "11,860 applicants were admitted, 23.38% of the total." Don't start a sentence with a number, unless it's written out.~~
~~13) Image:UCLA Bruins Logo.png needs a fair use rationale.~~
14.) Great photos! Really colorful and nice. I personally would like to see some of them on the left. I believe the wiki manual suggests rotating them right and left. Mostly personal taste, though, but I think it makes the article look better. Consult the manual, though, as I could be wrong.

Anyways, didn't get a chance to read the entire thing thoroughly. It seems like a great article, but definitely needs some fixin' before reaching FA status. Good luck! -Bluedog423^Talk 07:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Honestly, this is the kind of feedback I need from Peer Review, but nothing except the automated hints ever comes up there. Your points are totally valid, and I realize the faults. I have to say that some of your points I'd like to discuss first. To me, if one adds the clarification "Shanghai U ranked UCLA..." then it would be equally just to demand that I also list Shanghai's qualification to rank UCLA. "Shanghai U, the leading ranker-of-colleges, ranked UCLA..." and then I have to state who decided Shanghai was the best for that job. About point 10, I especially need help here. I'd include them all, favorable or not, but like you I did not want to include a vastly overwhelming section on rankings, as if to imply that was all that makes up the college. About point 8, someone brought up a good point when these were minisculed previously. The headings there are the actual names for those enterprises, meaning "Trademarks and Licensing" is the department at UCLA (also the reason why there is a seemingly superfluous "UCLA" in "UCLA Healthcare").

I need to be sure these (many) formatting errors are the source of your oppose. I suspect the greatest difference between GA and FA is that the writing is more professional and encyclopedic. (not to dodge the fire but those sentences you cited were not authored by me!) Additionally, would these attempted corrections change your view, or is that a concrete opinion? This is amazing, I never expected such a great response. Your examples and justifications are awesome. Thanks for giving such a comprehensive review, most of all. ALTON .ıl 21:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for the appreciation and clarification of a few points. I have crossed out the items you have fixed to my satisfaction. I really don't think you should spend precious words qualifying if Shanghai U is qualified to make rankings - people can click then wikilink and decide for themselves or do a quick google search. Words are valuable and should be spent describing UCLA, not some ranking service. Good luck! -Bluedog423^Talk 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

PS A couple hours later I went through most of your points and applied them to the article. I haven't gotten through revising the whole article, but just to let you know. ALTON .ıl 23:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Bluedog423 makes very good arguements as to why the artiicle might not be considered for FA. I have personally worked extensively on the Lehigh University article and know the trouble of attempting to write an article on a school. Good job separating the housing into another article to clean it up. The rankings section is not truly NPOV due to the lack of information on HOW the rankings work for each publication. Try to limit that section and also clean up the grammar a little. Good luck with the nomination and if you clean up those parts, you should succeed. Plm209 (talk • contribs • count) 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That article looks excellent! Would you advise turning the ranking section into a bulletted list, like that Lehigh's? I'm really lost on the ranking section, and I know that is what will cause this article to fail, simply because I do not know what to do with it. ALTON .ıl 21:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, lists are BAD as I understand it. Prose is considered the much better practice. See What is a featured article. The ranking section will never appease everybody's tates and it cannot be perfect. Just do the best you can. -Bluedog423^Talk 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose There are several whole sections of the article that have no or few citations, including several instances where quotes are not cited. I think the article could also be reorganized to flow better, and the lead needs work.
- Lead issues
  - wikilink Shanghai Jiao Tong University
  - The paragraph on applicants sounds very choppy.
  - if the 100 NCAA team championships are more than any other university then you don't need to mention that UCLA was the first to reach 100 NCAA team wins.
  - prose issue: "comprises of" -> "consists of" or "comprises"
  - The lead needs to be rewritten to include things like ARPANet and the AIDS discovery
  - Lead mentions Campaign UCLA, but that's not mentioned in the body of the article (unless I missed it)
- History section
  - 1st three paragraphs begin with "In <year>"
  - 2nd paragraph, first two sentences both start with "In <year>"
  - 2nd paragraph in general has several sentences that are very long and complicated. Can it be edited a bit to simplify?
  - Third paragraph doesn't flow -- how do we get from number of graduates to a discussion of the school athletic name? The athletic name information might be better placed in the athletics section
  - acre needs to have corresponding metric measurement
  - Why does the history end with 1934? Has nothing else happened in the last 70 years that would be notable?
- Campus Section
  - Westwood has previously been wikilinked and doesn't need to be linked here.
  - need a citation for North campus building being "old-fashioned in appearance and clad in imported Italian brick"
  - need a citation for information about Ralph Bunche
  - paragraph on parking does not flow well
  - UCLA instated a policy on filming and professional photography at the campus -> what is the policy?
  - need a citation for the last quote in this section
- Rankings
  - Newsweek needs to be italicized the second time you reference it.
  - Can you rewrite this section so that not all sentences begin with UCLA. You can also use "According to ...", "The magazine .... "
- Libraries section has weird capitalization.
- Library section also needs to be expanded a bit. Right now it reads mostly as a list of librarians, and I think it should focus more on what is special about the libraries (although Page Ackerman is important for being the first female librarian of a large system)
- Academics
  - need a citation for "This year, 11,860 applicants were admitted, 23.38% of the total."
  - who is debating "the major current debate"
  - can you describe a little more the "holistic" admissions process
  - need citation for information about the Dental School
  - I would put admissions under Academics
- Notable People
  - The faculty section talks about Nobel Prize winners twice.
  - Can you expand the alumni section? Have a small description of who the people you list are and why they are famous (comedian Carol Burnett, film director Gore Verbinski, etc). Can you list people who aren't necessarily in popular culture -- government officials, etc?
  - Since you talk about faculty above the notable people section, move the distinguished faculty list to that section instead of in notable people.
- Athletics
  - The athletics section needs more citations. First three paragraphs are citation-free right now.
  - What are the "major Division 1-A sports?" Be more specific or list the number of sports that they participate in.
  - In this section you again list the 100 NCAA championships info twice.
  - How many Olympic Games has UCLA sent athletes to? If it's only 1 Olympics, that's different than if it were 20. Please also cite this paragraph.
  - no citation for Earl Watson quote.
  - The section seems to jump back and forth between talking about basketball and talking about other sports.
  - Contradictory information: "The Lexus Gauntlet is the name given to the official competition between the two school." and "Games between the two schools have no official name"
  - I question whether you need to mention the number of victories/titles for UCLA vs USC. I would instead talk more about Beat 'SC Week or anything else that makes the rivalry special.
- Student Life section
  - Please cite this section!!
  - The Housing section is very short. Can this be expanded?
- Activism
  - I suspect that this entire section could be moved to the history section
  - Needs citations
  - prose issue: ""for openly identifying as a member" --> this could be misconstrued by a non-native speaker. Openly identifying who?
  - Did anything happen when Davis was dismissed the second time, or did she leave without protest?
  - How long were the universities shut down in 1970?
  - Daily Bruin needs italics
- Major Incidents
  - I don't believe this section is necessary. Is the data breach notable enough to be included since it isn't known that there are any consequences?
  - The Taser incident should go in History, as should ARPAnet
- Peripheral Enterprises
  - I would include UCLA Healthcare under Academics as it is a teaching area
  - I would put Hospitality under Campus
  - I would put Trademarks and Licensing under Athletics
- Your external links section can probably be pared down.
- References
  - Citations 61 and 62 don't have Daily Bruin italicized properly and 59-60 don't have propery italics either (See the and use newspaper= instead of publisher=
  - Several of your citations have the publisher listed as Official Site. Please be more spcific (UCLA COnference Center, etc)
As for the rankings section, if you can work on the prose a bit and include any missing publications as was suggested above, I think the section is fine.

Karanacs 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WOW, even more than the first editors! Thank you so much, honestly. The reason I am so frustrated with this article is because neither Peer Review nor Good Article nomination garnered any contructive comments. It seems that only when going for the final gauntlet articles are paid attention to. ALTON .ıl 00:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I'm being picky. I've been working on Texas A&M University and we've had it submitted for FA review for the last few weeks. A lot of the things I've pointed out to you were things that were pointed out to us before. Good luck!! Karanacs 02:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

[edit] Mexico

It is a very nice article. And it has been translate from Spanish in where it is already a Featured article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hugo Mosh (talk • contribs) on May 29, 2007 (23:45 UTC).

Oppose. Lack of references and citations about article. I didn't even see any in the history section. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Many of the statistics are also underreferenced. ShadowHalo 11:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Whole sections lack citations! -- Underneath-it-All 13:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose as per above; lacks citations. Translation from a featured version of the article in another language doesn't automatically render this one as featured... -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This is almost WP:GA quality. I'd post it there first. Plus, it JUST failed a Good article candidacy, and is current on MedCom. Snowball oppose.--Wizardman 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose See above. Also, IMHO, a well-written article shoudn't be proposed using poor grammar: "It is a very nice article. And it has been translate from Spanish..." It just doesn't help your case... — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, not even close, particularly the history section. It has a scant coverage of pre-Hispanic civilizations, and at its end, discusses a barely-known treaty. It doesn't discuss life during the virreinato, the Gadsden purchase, and leaves the AMLO situation with a cliffhanger. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 02:08, 1 June 2007.

[edit] GoldenEye

Previous FAC

I feel that this article is very well-written, has a good amount of sources, and is well organised. Under the recent guidence of WP:BOND, this article has seen an improvement and is now at a very high standard. Reasons for previously failing the article at this stage included a lack of references in the Vehicles, gadgets and guns section, the plot section needing copy-editing, and general source problems. These have been amended. - • The Giant Puffin • 13:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - There's a lot of images, which make the article look untidy. Alientraveller 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some of the images, and rearranged the remaining ones to make the article look less cluttered - • The Giant Puffin • 19:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

DoneFurther changes have improved the situation more - • The Giant Puffin • 16:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Support well written and referenced, though some images may not be necessary (the St. Petersburg and Monte Carlo on "Development" and most of the "Vehicles and gadgets", in my opinion) igordebraga ≠ 17:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. No apparent problems. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support per igordebraga. Cliff smith 00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Support The pictures mentioned by igordebraga have been removed. The pictures there now are used sparingly and appear right next to the text that references them. They have good placement, and I think the ones left all belong there. The content is well written. ColdFusion650 13:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This article is not comprehensive; that is a result of the sources that the editors consulted. Since GoldenEye is a relatively old film now, there is a fair bit of scholarly criticism on it, so you can have a "Themes" and "Style" (or some such named) section that is fully sourced to academics. This page looks like a fan page to me (and I'm a fan of James Bond, so I want it to be good!). Since this is a film, you need to discuss the art of film; there is absolutely no discussion of that here. Also, you need to discuss the content of the movie a lot more (and I do not mean the plot - I mean give an analysis backed up by scholars). How does this film deal with gender issues or the end of the Cold War, for example? Those would be two of the most obvious questions that would need a lot of detail. This page is missing way too much to be an FA. The editors need to do a substantial amount of research, revise the page, submit it to peer review and then resubmit it to FAC. It is easy to find articles and books on Bond and even specifically Goldeneye. Try google scholar for a beginning. There are also some collections of essays (I listed these down at the James Bond FAC which suffered from the same lack of scholarly sources. WP:RS. Do not sell Bond short. Awadewit 07:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

~~Oppose. Prose is generally poor. Why is "Different Direction" capitalized? Why is the gadgets section near the top of the article?~~ --- RockMFR 15:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have decapitalised the different direction section. Is there any section in particular that is poorly written? - • The Giant Puffin • 16:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The gadgets section is near the top because Casino Royale was decided as the template for all Bond film articles, as it was considered the best. And after a long discussion over there, it was decided to have the sections go in that particular order. ColdFusion650 16:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this convention makes any sense. Plot and cast are far more important than a list of gadgets (which is important, yes). --- RockMFR 02:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not my decision. Uniformity across the Bond film articles is very important. In this particular case, it's more important than reordering this individual article. As this change would have to be applied to all Bond film articles, it should probably be discussed at WP:007. ColdFusion650 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Well thats since been changed throughout the series, so the article is now better organised - • The Giant Puffin • 16:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The choices made on the article's style need more consistency. For example, the lead uses "17th" yet the the article uses "six". LuciferMorgan 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There's some kind of writing convention for when to use numerals and when to write it out, isn't there? ColdFusion650 01:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I usually write out numbers less than 11 and use numerals when 11 or greater. --- RockMFR 02:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

According to that convention, the above is a non-issue. ColdFusion650 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Mostly it's not comprehensive enough as Awadewit said. Here's some other things I picked up:
- Prose needs work. One section begins "They were unable to film at Pinewood Studios..." Each time you begin a new section you shouldn't use "they" or "he" each section is similar to a new article. You wouldn't start the early life section of a biography by saying "He was born on..."
- ~~"The book follows the film's storyline quite closely," quite is informal and redundant.~~
- ~~"Bond drives a tank through St. Petersburg and through a wall." Saying through twice there makes for weak prose.~~
- I agree with RockFMR about the order of the sections, gadgets should be lower.
- ~~Ref 20 is blank, a ref in the other media section is not formatted at all.~~

~~IMDb is not a reliable source though (#20).~~

- "~~GoldenEye was adapted into a highly-regarded[60] and very successful[61] video game for the Nintendo 64 by Rareware." Can we move these refs to the end of the sentence for readability's sake?~~
- ~~Per the MoS section headers shouldn't begin with "A[n]".~~
- ~~"This brought doubt over whether James Bond was still relevant in the modern world, as many of the previous films pitted Bond against Soviet adversaries." Needs a cite, doubt from who?~~
- ~~"already been booked." Booked doesn't seem very formal to me, maybe it's just me.~~
- Dashes aren't done correctly see WP:DASH. Quadzilla99 05:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed all of the above except for the placement of the gadgets section, the A[n] as a header, and the dash problems. I would change the placement of the gadgets section, but someone would simply revert it citing the aforementioned reason. ~~At present I cant think of an alternative heading for "A different direction", although I'm working on it~~. I have changed the "A different direction" section header. As for the dashes, which uses of the "-" are incorrect? - • The Giant Puffin • 15:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:DASH, I'll look it over later today. Quadzilla99 13:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The above concerns were addressed however, as I said when I opposed it needs a themes/styles section and some expansion as Awadewit said. Quadzilla99 03:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How is source 20 not reliable? IMDb is a pretty reliable source, and the link provided clearly supports the passage it is attatched to - • The Giant Puffin • 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think someone is a little confused. IMDB is not a reliable source for future movies. They have a tendency to post rumors as fact. However, for movies that have already been released, they are just fine. Check how many articles reference them. However, the IMDB ref has been removed. It turns out that the same information (the opening credits being about Russia collapsing) is included in the next ref, the interview with the guy on jamesbond.com. So, it doesn't really matter about IMDB anymore. ColdFusion650 11:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not confused. IMDb is generally not considered reliable, especially the trivia sections, if you have time see here, here, and here. It's been removed so that's not an issue anyway. Quadzilla99 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Done Well thats done per removal of the reference in question - • The Giant Puffin • 13:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per above, and because the article has fancruft parading under "Vehicles and gadgets". LuciferMorgan 10:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fancruft? - • The Giant Puffin • 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah in my opinion it is. Should be removed. LuciferMorgan 11:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole section? Or particular sentences of it? Vehicle and gadget sections are always included, they're not fancruft themselves - • The Giant Puffin • 11:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole section yes. If it's always included, then it shouldn't be - it means someone is always adding fancruft. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The fancruft policy states that fancruft is unimportant. However, it is common knowledge that Bond movies are characterized by their gadgets. In fact, some critics say that the more recent movies are centered around the gadgets. They are very important and not at all fancruft. And by my count, I've cited 3 policy pages to your none. I win. ColdFusion650 23:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the Bond series is famed for its use of exotic cars and futuristic gadgets, it is not fancruft, as said above - • The Giant Puffin • 08:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Fancruft is not a policy page, so read more clearly ColdFusion650 when you wish to sound smarmy. Also, as stated at[33], Wikipedia isn't a collection of information. Also check, Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. This is pure fancruft and there's no getting away from this. Furthermore,

Criterion 1. a. says ""Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." It isn't engaging, as the article's list under "Vehicles and gadgets" disrupts this.
Criterion 1. c. Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources" - I contest that www.jamesbondmm.co.uk, www.mi6.co.uk and www.commanderbond.net fail WP:RS as they appear to be James Bond fansites.

Feel free to amend the above issues. LuciferMorgan 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, without sounding smarmy, the vehicle and gadgets section is not a trivia section. Secondly, I agree that it shouldnt be in list form. And, finally, mi6.co.uk (atleast) is a reliable webite, and just because it is dedicated to a certain fictional universe does not make it unreliable - • The Giant Puffin • 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Done The article has now been copy-edited by at least three people, so it is now "well written". The sources you claim to be unreliable are reliable, and many of their claims have been backed up by other websites. The vehicles and gadgets section now has more real-life context so that it is not purely a trivial section - • The Giant Puffin • 19:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Support I find most of the errors mentioned by the opposition to be incredibly small and not at all districting from the article, nor do I see them as basis to deny it featured status. Moreover, I disagree with the article not being comprehensive enough. Gan fon 02:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, per all of the above mentioned concerns, and "Timothy Dalton's third film" is a really bad choice for section heading. Footnotes are not correctly formatted; see WP:CITE/ES. The article is mostly plot and trivia, short on reception and release. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you think of a better heading? ColdFusion650 11:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done I changed the heading - • The Giant Puffin • 13:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Support I think it looks okay. However, the gadget section might need a tad more work. I suggest eliminating "technical" junk, or at the very least, add spoiler tags. --Cesario (JPN) 01:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose until copy-edited properly.
I find the use of present tense in the opening sentence awkward; it's followed by past tense, particularly in the second para. Second sentence: a film is not a screenplay.
"it did not win any awards"—no, "it won no awards".
Audit the whole thing for comma use. Here: "Critics viewed it as a modernisation of the series with Brosnan a definite improvement over his predecessor.", I don't want to read it first as "the series with Brosnan (as Bond?)", then have to reverse to comprehend the grammar. So this is required: "Critics viewed it as a modernisation of the series, with Brosnan a definite improvement over his predecessor.
"The film was the basis for GoldenEye 007, a flagship video game for the Nintendo 64 and revolutionary first-person shooter developed by Rareware." Was the revolutionary first-person shooter developed by Rareware? Comma to make it clear what Rareware developed?
"a 3-film contract"—spell out single-digit numbers.
"The producers cast Pierce Brosnan,[10] who was prevented from taking over the role from Roger Moore in 1985 because of his contract with Remington Steele." The tense is wrong. "Had been". Tony 04:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have fix all of the above apart from your first point. The first paragraph is in present tense because it talks about the film in general, whereas the second paragraph is a summary of its development, reaction, and influence - all events in the past. As for the screenplay point, I have changed it to "script", I hope this is an improvement - • The Giant Puffin • 09:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the rest of the article? You really need to locate others for help. Research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the good copy-editors. Familiarise yourself with their work, and when you ask them for a favour, show them that you've done so (it’s a form of flattery). This is a valuable investment in a collaborative framework that will serve you well in your future development of FA nominations. Tony 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I don't even understand that. He's fixed everything listed. What do mean the rest? When he's done everything, there's nothing left. There is no rest, unless you know something not listed here. And in that case, list it, or fix it yourself. ColdFusion650 01:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Done I have asked a few people to help copy-edit the article - • The Giant Puffin • 10:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose The syntax is badly done. Needs better copy editing - Flubeca t 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just made a sweep of the article and it seemed pretty good to me. I only made pretty minor adjustments. Could you point to any problems? Peter ^Isotalo 10:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Done The article has now been copy-edited by at least three people - • The Giant Puffin • 19:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - "Locations"?? - Eh...that needs to be turned into prose and merged with "Filming". Also, "Vehicles and Gadgets", see about turning that to prose and trying to incorporate some real-world context into that. If you can't get a good prose out of it, at least try for the real-world context. I get that it's "a staple of the franchise", but it's also fanboyish. There needs to be some kind of real-world context, and not just "hey look what Bond drove in this film". Examples of real-world contexxt would be citing the director's decision to use the BMW Z3 over some other car. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it into two paragraphs (one for vehicles, one for gadgets) and I added a note about the three-film deal BMW had. Theres also a small note about the DB5 and the Tiger helicopter. I'll keep looking for some production-related choice for the gadgets, but I doubt anything of the kind will come up - • The Giant Puffin • 14:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks better. (I was going to comment on the locations and how to address that in the article, but you took care if it as I typed). I haven't read through the article specifically (because I owe Alientraveller's E.T. FAC a thorough read first), but I noticed you are using IMDb for a Timothy Dalton biography. I can say that using IMDb for anything other than just a list of film credits will get scrutinized as unreliable by the "regular FAC reviewers". If the biography as IanFleming.org is the same as the one on IMDb, then just ditch the IMDb citation. If there is something specific you are using from the IMDb site that isn't on the IanFleming.org site, then try and do a google key word search for what you have, and try and find something more reliable. The reason being is that IMDb doesn't list where they get their information, so it's better to have a more reliable source like a news organization, or some place where Dalton gave an interview detailing what you are using the IMDb source for.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs)

Done I removed the IMDb reference. The Ianfleming.org reference was more reliable, and I moved the MI6 production reference to act as a second reference. - • The Giant Puffin • 14:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've been asked to help copy-edit the article, and I will do that to the best of my ability. However, in making a preliminary review of the article, I have some suggestions and concerns to offer:

The release year (1995) should be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead paragraph.
There is a MOS standard where images are not supposed to fall directly under the section heading, which happens withe image in "Legal battles and a new Bond".
Not sure if the dam image (heheh, dam image) is properly placed. Maybe it can go on the right side, and the picture of Alec in the Plot section could go on the left side?
The tank image and its caption do not seem to fit the Plot section very well. I realize that it's an attempt to provide a free image, but the tank image should be applied in a production-type section like the BMW Z3 image has been used.
Are there no images available that show multiple members of the cast, including Bond, the girl, and the villain(s)?
Release and Reception should be combined. There is not much content for either, and if that is all that's available, then it seems like it could be combined.
The Soundtrack section should come before the Release/Reception sections to be in rough chronological order.
The Censorship section should be a subsection under Release.
There appear to be some references that use the Cite web template instead of the Cite news template. This should be corrected for consistency's sake.

These are just preliminary suggestions based on the article's structure. I will review the content and copy-edit wherever I can personally at a later time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed all of them except the tank image, the cast image, and the cite news parts. I would move the tank image, but theres nowhere else for it to go, so it will probably have to go altogether. As of yet, nobody has found an approproate cast image, and I'll look through the references later. I have moved the image under "legal battles...", but I dont know if thats a suitable place either - • The Giant Puffin • 08:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Done The search of a cast image is ongoing, although it looks unlikely we will find one. Other than that, those concerns have been resolved - • The Giant Puffin • 10:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Some content concerns below.

There are several references from fan sites that do not seem acceptable as attributable sources. While I am fine with an interview with MI6, something like its trivia would not qualify. In addition, using a movie location site could be questionable because it is not a site with editorial oversight.
Referencing IMDb for information other than the cast/crew (which the site copies directly from a film's credits, with some minor changes) is not acceptable, either. This is user-submitted and cannot be used as an attributable source, which brings the entire "Age-suitable ratings" section into question. For awards, while I don't question that these are true, I'm sure it's absolutely possible to directly reference the award sites for these nominations instead of IMDb.
I have to join the ongoing concern about the "Vehicles and gadgets" section. While it may seem like common sense that vehicles and gadgets are a staple of the 007 franchise, their significance would need to be explained in each article, as it should be assumed that it is a new topic for the reader. After the first paragraph in this section, the information basically describes what is used in the film with no indication of any real-world context. This and this do not seem to be attributable sources, either.
Why is a minor review being used to support information in "Modernising the series"?
I think the Reception subsection could be revised to explain in more detail what was liked and disliked about the film. What stood out to me most were the Time and Entertainment Weekly reviews that never really say exactly why they didn't like GoldenEye. Is there any criticism, positive or negative, about the film's plot, the action scenes, Judi Dench as M, etc.?
The Production section seems to me to be out of order. My first impression was that the franchise was placed on hold because of License to Kill, but the reference only points to its box office information and no actual evidence that it was an influence. (At least, for me, it seems placed to imply that its failure hindered the continuation of the franchise.) I'm trying to best explain how the Production section could be better presented. I think a big part of it is that the writing and content is choppy. Featured film articles are supposed to be the best that Wikipedia has to offer, and I'm not sure if a mere copy-edit will improve it.

—Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I managed to find a link to past BAFTA nominees, but the Saturn Awards website only provides past winners. I'll keep looking for that, as well as trying to improve your other concerns. I have a book that I used to cite the Z3 information, it should hold some real-life context on the other vehicles. As for the gadgets, I'll have to look across the internet for any production notes on those - • The Giant Puffin • 10:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also rearranged the production section, and removed the trivia and movie location website have been replaced with more reliable sources. I extended the rectption section to include some more specific praise and criticism, and it now contains a paragraph about the reaction to the film's attempt to modernise the series (which now contains references from a major review) - • The Giant Puffin • 20:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nicely written, plot section goes into too much detail for my taste though. Anynobody 06:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? Cause there have been people complaining that I took too much out, that it needs expanding. ColdFusion650 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The plot section's details are crucial to explaining the events and plot in the movie - • The Giant Puffin • 10:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Still oppose. Despite the claim that much more copy-editing has been done, it's not good enough. Let's look at the opening few sentences as an example:

"GoldenEye is a 1995 spy film that is the 17th installment in the James Bond film series. Actor Pierce Brosnan portrays MI6 agent James Bond for the first time in GoldenEye, succeeding Timothy Dalton in License to Kill (1989). Unlike previous James Bond films, the screenplay was not based on a work by Bond creator Ian Fleming. The story was instead conceived and written by Michael France, with collaboration from several other writers."

- "GoldenEye (1995)is the 17th film in the James Bond spy series.", or something like it, might be a more succinct opening, without "film" twice.
- Did Brosnan succeed Dalton in License to Kill? That's what it says.
- "Screenplay" vs "story" - unnecessary distinction. Try "Unlike previous James Bond films, the screenplay was not based on a work by Bond creator Ian Fleming, but was conceived and written by Michael France,..."
- "Collaboration by".

I've received unhelpful comments on my talk page about this one. Despite that, I'm applying the same standards as I do for all FACs here. Tony 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the problems you mentioned. As for the rest of the article, I asked a few people to copy-edit the article, and a lot of changes have been made. If the article is still badly written, then I dont know how it could be solved. Several people, including myself, have read through all of the article and a lot of the wording has been changed. If you still feel the article is unacceptable, then maybe you could make a few alterations. I will read through it again, just in case, as some of the copy-editing did not improve the situation too much - • The Giant Puffin • 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments - Here are my initial assessments, it basically stops at the last paragraph of the Production section. All return when I've had a chance to finish going through the whole article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Could the opening be written better? Something like "Goldeneye is a 1995 spy film directed by Martin Campbell, and the 17th installment in the James Bond film series."
1. Could probably remove the "in Goldeneye", as we just introduced the film's name in the preceding sentence. Also, I'd replace a couple of the "Goldeneye"s with "the film" or something similar; it becomes redundant to continually say the film's title each time. Maybe change "Goldeneye was the first Bond film.." to "The film was the first in the Bond series to be made after...", and then I'd probably bring up the last "paragraph" into the second, as it's just two sentences.
Production - maybe change "made" to "produced", as EON didn't make anything, they just funded Campbell and France, and the other writers and crew to "make" it.
1. Maybe merge "Writing" with the general production information, because it seems to be a weak (weak as it not a lot of information) section, and could probably go right after the introduction of Campbell as director.
2. Modernising the series - this section seems more about how people reacted to trying to modernize and how the film was finally responded to when it was released. This seems less to do with production, and more to do with "reception". If you move that section, you could probably do away with the "writing", "filming" "legal battle" sub headers, and have one section for production, since all of the sub sections are not that large themselves. Then, I'd probably put the info on the legal battle first, followed by the Albert Broccoli info, then the writing, and last the filming. (that's IMO) It would also help with the images breaking through the sections.
Bond also drives an Aston Martin DB5 near the beginning of the film, a reference to the original DB5 used in Goldfinger - No source that says this is a reference to Goldfinger. Drawing conclusions based on observations is original research.
Vehicles and Gadgets - "GoldenEye was the first film bound by BMW's three picture deal,[30] so producers were offered BMW's latest roadster, the BMW Z3. It was featured in the film months before its release, and a limited edition "007 model" sold out within a day of being available to order. As part of the car's marketing strategy, several Z3's were used to drive journalists from a complimentary meal at the Rainbow Room restaurant to GoldenEye's premiere at Radio City Music Hall" = this is good, it has real world context
1. Everything else in that section is entirely in-universe, with no real world context whatsoever = that's not so good.
Images - Do we have to have a picture of Brosnan that literally breaks through 3 sections? Is there a better image, or maybe more information? It's free, which is great, but it's a little big for the area. The same goes for the bridge image. It's a good image, but it's a little large. It also breaks into 3 sections. That says to me that either your image is still large, or you don't have enough information. It's free, so we don't have to worry about providing a FU rationale for its use, but per WP:IMAGE-"Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text". I think these two kind of overwhelm the 6 sections they force themselves into. I'm not saying we have to get rid of them, just that their use/placement/lack of surrounding text concerns me.

I have fixed all of those concerns, except for the gadgets section. I combined and rearranged the production section, moving the images around whilst doing so. I also tweaked the intro a bit, and removed the original research from the vehicles section. However, not much real-life context is available for the vehicles. I added the information about the Z3, which was mainly available because of its use in marketing the film, which wasnt the same for the DB5 or other vehicles. As for the gadgets, I doubt any production-related decisions or real-life context is available at all. All I can think of is to completelty scrap the section altogether, but that would leave a small paragraph specifically about the Z3 - • The Giant Puffin • 20:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There has to be a way to take that information (because I understand that it is a staple of the franchise) and merge it with something else so that it isn't lost entirely. Even if you do "scrap it altogether", the small bit about the Z3 can go in the production section. You could take those two paragraphs of Z3 info and condense them into 1 concise paragraph that mentions their deal with BMW, and what the film makers decided to do to the BMW for the film (e.g. what they added to it). We probably don't need to have the "appears at the beginning of the film" bit. Say something more like "For the film, the Z3 was given ......" BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the Z3 information to Production, I put it in before the filming part. But that still leaves the vehices and gadgets section with no real-life context. There's not really anything to merge it with, and even if there were, there would still be the question of its relevance and the reliability of the source backing most of it up - • The Giant Puffin • 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could move it all to the talk page and leave a note saying that real-world content needs to be found for it. This way it's still visible to people who come to the article, but it doesn't inhibit the FAC. If you do go that way, I'd also leave a note saying not to archive that information when archives are performed. What I noticed now is that the production section is overrun with images. It could probably be fine with only two, three at the most, depending on the placement and which you pick. The free ones are always your best bet to keep, although the Hammer/Sickle image is used to illustrate a theme for the film. I'd probably say remove the bridge image, and move the BMW information to the bottom of section, this way you give yourself some breathing room before you get another image. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I rearranged the production section a bit, dropped the dam image, and put a note on the talk page about the vehicles and gadgets section - • The Giant Puffin • 12:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks much smoother now. Alright, the first chance I can get to really sit down and go through the article line by line (if I can I'll make any c/e changes as I go) I will. Good work so far. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 02:08, 1 June 2007.

[edit] Michael Schumacher

former fac (correcting-incorrectly archived)

This has had a copyedit, 2 PR and a review or all refs in the last few weeks so I'm sure enough has been done to make it a FAC. Buc 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

* Comment Why is the career section organized the way it is WRT the year splits? It seems sort of random? Why do 1991-1993 (a 3 year spread) and then 1994-1995 (2 years) and then 1996-1999 (four years)? It seems sort of arbitrary. Also, some of these titles use ndashes and some use hyphens. Pick one and stick to it. See TOC for the problem this causes.

- Done

Otherwise the article seems good, but I want to see a better explanation for why the above was done before I give my full support.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Not bad, but I have some concerns:
- The lead could be a bit longer, per WP:LEAD it should have three to four paragraphs. Right now there is only one sentence that describes his F1 history really ("After winning two championships with Benetton, Schumacher moved to the Ferrari and won five consecutive drivers' titles with them."), the rest is mostly analysis and records, and other things are mentioned that night not be as notable in comparison (ambassador for UNESCO).
  - This has been discussed at length on the talk page. Prior to this it was felt that the lead was too long so a lot of the stuff you mentioned was removed. Buc 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

** Early years is a bit short as well, only one paragraph dealing with his childhood.

Is anymore really needed. It's not a major subject. Buc 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, normally more information about the early life would be typical for a biographical FA. One the German page you can read for example that he already met future competitors like Senna, Frentzen, Heidfeld or Häkkinen during his kart years, or that he started with a kart licence from Luxenbourg for financial reasons and because it allowed younger drivers. Also, his manager's (Willi Weber) role is not pointed out enough imho. He basically discovered him, later financed his early carrer almost on his own and had a ten year contract awarding him 20% of Schumachers earnings. -- EnemyOfTheState 15:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this view, that period of his life is usually given a fair amount of prominence, with some authors making links between the early 'family' nature of his racing and the later Ferrari set-up (would you believe!). Willi Weber did not discover Schumacher, btw, I don't think they linked up until FOrmula 3, several years after Schumacher started racing seriously. I can add another paragraph to fill that section out a bit. 4u1e 14:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

~~Done~~

The description of his career could use more analysis, I think it would be difficult for people with no prior knowledge to understand why he preformed better in some seasons than in others. For instance, in 2002 and 2004 a lot of statistics are provided, but it's never mentioned that his car was widely considered superior to the rest of the field. Same in 2005, here I would expect something about the inferior Bridgestone tyres that season.

Will add to this but Bridgestone are mentioned. Buc 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

** Helmet picture is a bit small, also I think it would be preferable to include both of his helmet designs side by side.

Best size to fit the section. Buc 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

But if you use a fair use image anyway, why not use both of his main helmets, like this?

It that your image? If so by all means upload it. Buc 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

~~I uploaded it here, use it as needed. -- EnemyOfTheState 17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)~~

"delivered a vocal performance" sounds a bit strange, I don't think he sang in the film.

~~Done~~

**Images formating is not very clean, a lot of different sizes. -- EnemyOfTheState 13:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

~~Done~~

Oppose - I think there are subtle POV problems. Perhaps this is a legacy of the editing of the now banned User:Ernham. eg, it points out that in 1992-93 and 1996-97 and 2005, that his car was not good, but does not state that in the other years he did have the best car.. so it gives the impression that if he wins -> best driver; if he loses -> bad car.

Tried to re-phares it to give a neutral tone. Buc 16:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In particular, the 2002 and 2004 cars were probably the most dominant technical machines in F1 history. It also doesn't mention criticism that Schumacher has a subservient team-mate, or that allegedly, telemetry from his teammates car is given to him but not the other way around (according to Herbert anyway). It should probably be noted that he enjoyed the most reliable car of all time as well, before Bahrain 2005, he went ~58 races without mechanical failure, and most other drivers maybe go only 7-8 without a mechanical failure, or maybe only 2-3 depending on the car... Other thing is that the article is not sourced properly, eg in the 2003 section, only the tyre issue and the first three races are sourced. The others are not sourced, and maybe wrong, eg 16 not 13 points. I also randomly picked up an error where it implied that there was only on SC period at Monaco 2004.

I don't understand. Buc 16:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some other interesting issues like uneven coverage, with 2005 and 2006 getting a lot more than the others. Also, the lead is pretty flowery, it doesn't mention that he was widely criticised for his actions in 94 and 97,

It does mention 97. 94 would be too POV since officially nothing happened. Buc 16:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually criticism of 94 is mentioned as well, specifically that "many F1 insiders blamed Schumacher for the crash". Been in there for ages, in the face of much opposition from you know who. Agree that 05 and 06 are disproportionately long, but the point about 94 and 97 doesn't stand. 4u1e 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

and not only did he cause the collisions, he was determined to have done so deliberately. I think it should also be noted that his winning average is not the best....and is much lower than Fangio. Simply because of the safety (as well as WWII cutting into Fangio's career), in the old days people got killed a lot, perhaps 20% of the competitors were killed every year, whereas in the last 25 years, only 2 people have died. Thus a modern driver is going to last longer and win more. eg, I think Schumacher in an olden day likely would have been killed at the 99 UK GP, if not earlier; I'm guessing Alonso would've been killed at Brazil03 before he had even won a race in one of those old things. At present, I think the lead is a little misleading. The bit about Brazil06 seems a bit over the top, they are likely to be nice to him since he is being farewelled. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the lead is pretty flowery, it doesn't mention that he was widely criticised for his actions in 94 and 97, and not only did he cause the collisions, he was determined to have done so deliberately. - It was determimed for 97, but not for 94 or he would be DSQ.

Simply because of the safety (as well as WWII cutting into Fangio's career), in the old days people got killed a lot, perhaps 20% of the competitors were killed every year, whereas in the last 25 years, only 2 people have died. - Where is that connected with Schumacher's carier?

Thus a modern driver is going to last longer and win more. eg, I think Schumacher in an olden day likely would have been killed at the 99 UK GP, if not earlier; I'm guessing Alonso would've been killed at Brazil03 before he had even won a race in one of those old things. Pointless speculations.

I think it should also be noted that his winning average is not the best....and is much lower than Fangio. This should be mentioned in Fangio's article, not here. --Sporti 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that all this analysis should be in the article, I'm simply saying why I think it should be pointed out that he does not have the highest average, since in the modern era, there are a lot more events (in any sport) each year as well as more longevity, and so a medium quality competitor will win more than even the best guys of yesteryear. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the logic is faulty: the longer your career, the harder it is to have a high average. Giancarlo Baghetti would have had a 100% win rate if he'd retired after his first world championship race! 4u1e 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm wondering whether the Laureus sports award thing is a bit overstated, comparing him to other sportsmen, since I think it's a bit over the top comparing different sports. Ok, I might be biased but the 2004 awards for the 2003 don't sit well with me. MS scraped 93-91 past Raikkonen, who drove an old car which had a mechanical failure when he was on course for a victory...Yet Michael Phelps was the only guy to break 5 WR in on World Championships.....Ok, maybe it's just me but I don't like Laureus that much. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Take that up with Laureus then. This comment seems a bit irrelevant. Buc 15:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point, we shouldn't be judging whether he deserved the award, only that he won it. 4u1e 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

True, true.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The second Peer Review has only been running for about a week, and there is still a large amount of work to be done the referencing, as I suggested on the talk page a short while ago. I am still in the middle of working on this and in my opinion the article has been nominated before it is ready. Many of the web references are not suitable, and over the next week I will be replacing them with refs from the six or so books on him that have so far been written. 4u1e 23 April 2007, 12:34

*Comment * "It also doesn't mention criticism that Schumacher has a subservient team-mate, or that allegedly, telemetry from his teammates car is given to him but not the other way around (according to Herbert anyway)." - That would need a source, but I'm not 100% sure this should be mentioned at all. Unless you make an entire section on him being treated as nº 1 within the team.

I think that can be sourced; it's a very well known comment and oft mentioned in my experience. It probably ought to be included. If I may issue some advice. Take a breather. Forget that you're aiming for the coveted FA star, and imagine all you're doing is taking some input on how to improve the article. Come back, and reread this debate. I found it to be hugely useful and interesting, as much as the average article, and I think you'll find some great tips here. It would also be worthwhile, I suspect, getting a translation of the German article if you haven't already. --kingboyk 23:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone fill me in on the Herbert thing because I honestly don't know what that is. Buc 06:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

google:telemetry+schumacher+herbert (basically, Herbert was pretty quick when he arrived at Benetton, and alleged that Schumacher promptly withdrew access to his telemetry, whilst retaining access to Herbert's telemetry). This one looks like a reliable source (ESPN). HTH. --kingboyk 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"I think it should also be noted that his winning average is not the best....and is much lower than Fangio." - I don't think this should be mentioned at all. He won 7 championships in 14 full years (not counting the first year, in which he raced 4 or 5 times and the season in which he broke his leg). Why is it so important to say that? What does it matter? And you imply the more time a driver races (because they don't die early), the easier it is to have an high average. False. Schumacher raced 200 more races than Fangio, it would be impossible to beat Fangio's average and will be forever. The lower the number of races, the easier it is to maintain an high average.

No, I meant that if you play for longer, then you will win more total races, not that your percentage will increase (all things staying the same). As in, if you get 18 races per season instead of 6 in the old days, then if Schumacher was racing with a dominant car in 2004, he won maybe 15/18 races? but if there were only six races a year like in the old days, he could not accumulate that much anyway. In Fangio's case he won 5 out of 8, so he was winning at a higher rate. The average in any case is simply a measure of success rate. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"it doesn't mention that he was widely criticised for his actions in 94 and 97, and not only did he cause the collisions, he was determined to have done so deliberately." - It is mentioned he was widely criticized in the controversy section. And saying he done it deliberately in 94 is POV. In my opinion, he didn't do anything wrong. But that's my opinion.

Other than these points, I think your suggestions are good.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Contrariwise, I think Schumacher made a deliberate, cynical move in 1994. Despite that, I agree with Serte (and Sporti above) above about the reporting of the incident in this article: There is no clear agreement among notable sources that it was deliberate, or that it was Schumacher's fault, so the position taken in the article at present is the correct, and neutral, one. 4u1e 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment This video 1 desribres how Schumacher's driving tehnic in the corners was different to majority of other drivers' by comparing telemetry data between him and Herbert, who also explains the difference. --Sporti 10:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice video but what's your piont? Buc 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It terms of content, I think that all the above reviewers are more capable than me to comment. I just wanted to make a stylistical remark. There is an inconsistency with the inline citations: most of them are after the pm (correct!), but some of them spread around the text are before the pm (not in acord with MoS).--Yannismarou 10:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What is pm? Buc 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation mark, I imagine. 4u1e 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Done

I think every comment has been addressed now. Buc 15:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure Blungyen's points are addressed, although to be fair as he hasn't responded, it's a bit hard to tell. You could try dropping him a line about it. There are also still dubious references like the current number 27, which is taken from SimHQ, a website dedicated to computer simulations and was written by this guy. I'm sure he's a lovely man, but I don't reckon he counts as a reliable source. I'm still working on hard copy refs, by the way. 4u1e 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a book so I can't really check that. I could try to find another sourse on the net (found this [34] and this [35]). And I really don't know what to do about Blungyen since as you say he's not responded. Buc 21:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I should have said, I've fixed that one. The book's fine. The previous ref was from a website, which is fine in itself, but it wasn't a motorsport website, and the author doesn't appear to have any more authority than, for example, me or you! Re Blungyen, if you've made honest attempts to meet his comments and he doesn't respond to them then there's not much more you can do. I'm still not happy that all the refs are OK though, so I'm withholding my support until I've worked through them. Checking the refs is what takes the time, so I can't give you a list of ones I'm not happy with any quicker than I can fix them myself. 4u1e 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that I was away for a while. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments. ~~Full dates are supposed to be wikilinked (WP:MOSNUM). Date ranges should be separated by ndash (see WP:DASH). Awards and honors section is choppy.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "choppy"? Also Does anyone eles think some of the section could have better titles. Like arn't "Awards and honours" the same thing, same issue with "Controversies and criticism" and "Family and off-track life". Buc 05:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Short, loosely or un- connected phrases and paragraphs, is how I understand it. Try to make the links between the ideas contained in each phrase, sentence and paragraph clearer. 4u1e 12:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done the best I can but you might want to check it. Being dyslexic the wording info is an area where I struggle. Buc 14:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note; please do NOT strike other reviewers' comments. Per the instructions at FAC, reviewers will revisit and strike their own comments as they deem items completed. By striking my comments, you make it hard for me to know what I've re-checked and what remains to be checked. The items I mentioned above have been corrected; I haven't looked at the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I appoliges. The reason I do that is because what I find sometimes is that users will make comments on things which need to be fixed and then don't come back to strike them after they have been fixed even if you say so on there talk page. Buc 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments. It has improved, but be vigilant. It wasn't hard to find little issues such as:

"Schumacher won 9 out of the 17 races"—Remove "out". Single-digit numbers are normally spelt out.

"1994-1995"—For ranges, use an en dash. Who wants to see squidgy little structures? This involves many subheadings. "1994–95".

"also include"—Remove one.

"fifth place finish"—It's in BrEng? If so, hyphenate the double adjective.

Audit the whole thing for "alsos".

All these fixed. Buc 07:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the satement of '"also include"—Remove one' does not mean remove the appearance of 'also' while 'include' is not there. I think a lot of sentences now sound disconnected from the sentences in front. --Cyktsui 13:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert if you think it was better before. Buc 18:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"His best result was a fifth place finish in his second race, the Italian Grand Prix, in which he also outpaced his teammate and three-time World Champion Nelson Piquet." Does this imply that he outpaced these participants in the previous race? Tony 03:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wording sounds fine to me. Buc 07:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, trust me: remove "also" from that sentence for a stronger flow and no loss of meaning. Only use it if it's absolutely necessary for the cohesion; a good example is the second sentence of Dominik Hašek.

English is not my first language, but wording sounds fine to me too. Can't really see your point, Tony.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 13:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for now:

Why do some seasons get so much more coverage than others? 1992, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006 all seem to be covered fairly extensively, while the paragraphs on 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, and 2004 are all pretty short. Could you expand those a bit?

I'm generally not a big fan of "criticism" sections, but I think it really doesn't make any sense in this case. Why not just move the information from that section into the paragraph of the appropriate season? I think that would make the whole a nicer read.--Carabinieri 22:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if the subject known for being controversial it should have it's known section. Buc 08:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

But why not just add the information about the crashes and so on in the paragraphs about the seasons, in which they took place? I think that would make the article a lot easier to read.--Carabinieri 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Done Buc 06:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No it's not.--Carabinieri 12:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've exspanded the seasons you mentioned as much as I can and added mentions of the controversial moments into the seasons paragraphs. Is there a problem? Buc 07:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Reaffirm oppose Since it is a bit messy up there, I still feel the team orders part is POV. Team orders have always existed in F1 but it seems to downplay the extent to which Ferrari use them. Teams like Williams and McLaren, they do not explicitly at the start of a season or contract deliberately focus on one driver. The drivers are free to race until one of them cannot win the championship anymore and the other guy needs help. At times, they have lost their championship because their drivers split points and a third guy from another team won in a three way race. Williams and McLaren have always sought the best two possible drivers and let them race. Ferrari does not. A mediocre driver is sought, and they sign a contract agreeing to let Schumacher win (Irvine), the telemetry thing (Herbert) most notably. They are explicitly and obviously focused on Schumacher, at the detriment of the second driver. This is not mentioned in the article much. Team orders have always been a big part of attention put on Schumacher, and here we only have one paragraph. The controversy section is only about 60% larger than his private life. This violates UNDUE, since if you look at coverage in the news, the incidents etc, probably have 10 times more coverage. Another problem is that Ferrari is often associated with bias by the FIA. True it also involves Ferrari generally, but Schumacher is an alleged beneficiary so it also has to be noted. Things like the 2003 Euro push, the 2004 Italian non-push of Alonso, 2005 non push of Heidfeld, the 2003 Michelin tyre ruling, the 2006 non flexible wing ruling, the 2004 RTT ban on BAR, 2006 mass damper ban on Renault, 2006 penalty on Alonso, 2003 penalty on JPM etc. The politics isn't covered enough. Also, the part about Ferrari being transformed should also note that his success is in large part due to the unparalled technical supremacy (like no mech failures for 3 years), which Schumacher can't be directly responsible for. There are also reffing problems. See the 2001 paragraph. It is sourced to a BBC fan mail page. That's not allowed. There are some other parts which are not sourced properly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a bunch of points, so I'll break them out, if that's OK, for clarity:

Team orders/NPOV: We've got to be a little bit careful here. In reacting to your points we could end up implying that there was something underhand about Ferrari's use of team orders. There wasn't. They did use them, but this was 100% legal at the time and team orders actually played a very significant part in the history of this sport. McLaren and Williams chose to follow a different approach, but that was their choice, right or wrong. Other teams have also chosen to focus on just the one driver, Brabham under Bernie Ecclestone for instance, so it's hardly unique to Ferrari. Obviously team orders did give MS an advantage, and by 2004 had become controversial, so they should be mentioned, but we musn't tip the balance too far the other way. Don't forget the furore about McLaren's use of team orders in the 1997 European Grand Prix and the 1998 Australian Grand Prix, without which Mika Hakkinen might not have gone on to win his first world champsionship! What do you feel needs to be added here to restore balance? 4u1e 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Length of controversy section violates WP:UNDUE. I find this a slightly odd claim, to be honest (Sorry! ;-)). The weight given to a topic is not just about the number of words - even having a controversy section says that this is a serious matter for this particular topic. I don't see particular benefit in going into all controversies involving Schumacher to the nth degree. Every time two drivers make contact they tend to disagree over whose fault it was. I think we've got the really serious, career defining incidents covered in sufficient detail here. Is there a serious incident missing from that section? I don't think the pushing incidents count - I believe that in general they were legal, the unfairness consists in the greater attention he got from marshals than other drivers.4u1e

Ferrari is often associated with bias by the FIA - yes it is. It's an issue which can be discussed in some depth, as I've seen some journalists (Mark Hughes from memory) attempt to debunk that notion. Fwiw I believe that it is true, but it hasn't stopped with Schumacher's departure (Ferrari flexi floors earlier this year) and pre-dates Schumacher's time at the team: The retention of V12 engines in 1989 for example or (IIRC) fuel tank size in the early 1990s (to keep those thirsty V12s happy), or traction control in the first two races of 1994 (after it was banned). On that topic, the rules were changed in the early 2000s (many believe!) to reduce Ferrari's superiority, so this is hardly a simple matter! It should be covered in the Scuderia Ferrari article in more detail and mentioned fairly briefly here - although it will be difficult to reference properly, because it is, almost by definition, speculation. You are not going to find a source confirming that the FIA actively skews its own rules to favour or disfavour Ferrari! 4u1e 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref'ing problems - I agree, although I emphatically disagree with the examples Blnguyen restored last night, which were completely inappropriate, as far as I can see. It's something I'm working on, but I've allowed myself to be distracted by other things :(. 4u1e 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In summary, more re-drafting to take a little more of the positive gloss off, and the refs do still need work, but I think to follow all of Blungyen's suggestions would go into subjects better covered elsewhere in detail, and push the article to the other side of neutral. 4u1e 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

2003 Euro push, the 2004 Italian non-push of Alonso, 2005 non push of Heidfeld - As of 2004 push is illegal even if the car is in a dangerous spot.

What's this got to do with the article? Buc 07:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

the 2003 Michelin tyre ruling, the 2006 non flexible wing ruling, the 2004 RTT ban on BAR, 2006 mass damper ban on Renault, 2006 penalty on Alonso, 2003 penalty on JPM - Not directly related to Schumacher. --Sporti 15:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

They are really because they affected his chances of winning the WC. Buc 07:41, 26 May 2007 (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 02:08, 1 June 2007.

[edit] Animal Liberation Front

I believe this article meets the whole criteria. It explains the subject and is non-bias, with the proper sources and quotes. Also, it has links for further investigation and a good set of pictures, logos, and personal testimonies associated with the movement. Overall, it seems a very well written and balanced NPOV article.Maziotis 16:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments. The lead should mention a bit about the origin, and the lead may possibly be a bit long. Filled out one citation. In the notes, some access dates are linked, some are not, and some don't have access dates. This could be more consistent. Gimmetrow 05:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
More comments
- The photos should be spaced better and more uniform in size. Also, there's too much info in some of the captions that should be incorporated into the main text.
- Some of the wikilinks are redundant. Link only on the first use, preferably not in the captions, to avoid overlinking (e.g., Ronnie Lee, Rodin Webb, Underground Railroad, etc.)
- Acronyms should be consistent, i.e., change "U.S." to "US"
- Reduce the number of quotes. Technically, it doesn't seem to be POV, but it has a pro-ALF tone by extensive use of quotes. Paraphrasing would help. Maybe pull together a separate section on ALF philosophy near the beginning (including the 'extensional self-defense' paragraph)?
- Not only access dates in the notes, but other problems there as well. Some retrieval dates are wikilinked, others aren't; note 52 is blank; 26 might as well be blank.

I didn't go through with a fine tooth comb, but some of these are basic technical issues that should be fixed up before promotion to FA that stood out immediately to me. Hope this helps, bobanny 02:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This article doesn't use references appropriately: many are missing wikilinked dates, duplicate citations in sequential sentences (only one at the end of a sequence is needed; see ref #43 for an example), and numerous paragraphs of specific information are uncited ("In 1965, the group was re-created, this time ... members lay down between the hunters and the fox.", "In August 1974, Lee and Goodman were arrested...released after serving one", "In response to the emergence of this more violent strain of protest...started to monitor activists.", etc.). Throw on top of that the unaddressed problems above and failure to follow all WP:MoS guidelines, I just do not believe this is "the best Wikipedia has to offer." — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
- The lead contains too much redundancy, e.g., "removing animals from laboratories and farms" is mentioned twice.
- The lead is too long; it should be shrunk by a factor of two. The quotes can be moved into the relevant sections.
- Not enough context. For example, there is almost no discussion of the relationship of the ALF to historical or related groups like BUAV or PETA. Nor is the relationship between the ALF and vegetarianism discussed.
- Way too much reporting on how the ALF sees itself, which in the end turns this into a pro-ALF article.
- Almost no critical reporting other than the violence/damage issue. For example, evidently many people think it OK in some cases to experiment on animals, but we hear nothing of their views.
- Many of the references have dates in a hardwired format; the dates should follow user preferences.
- Several references contain URLs but lack access dates.
- (Minor) One of the references is dated in the year 20404.
- The current debate in the U.S. over ALF arsonists being sentenced under terrorist law suggests that it's better to let the dust settle on this article.

Eubulides 07:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 02:08, 1 June 2007.

[edit] Raëlian Church

100% sure

(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
(b) a system of hierarchical headings; and
(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
(e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reversions and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
It has images where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

90% sure

(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)

80% sure

(a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
(d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias; see neutral point of view.

Kmarinas86 04:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Without even beginning to read, are the flag icons necessary? I'd also like the see that table be class="wikitable", but that's a minor quibble. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- They are not necessary, though I'm not sure if the table is necessary either. Thanks for the tip on the table, it makes it appear better.Kmarinas86 05:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment..ummm..I get a big blank white section at the top of the page. I think you need to reformat the top.

- I am not a fan of the flag in the lead text.
- I see some problem sentences:
  - To enter, a woman declares an oath or signs a contract. Through these, it is agreed that one becomes Raël's bodyguard - not sure how but sounds funny.
  - For these reasons, several journalists have tried to know what the Raëlian Angels go under. - huh? Sorry I can't suggest something as I am unsure what it is this actually means.
  - ...~~Mike Kropveld, the head of Info-Cult, expressed a lack of concern for the Raëlian Angels~~ ~~- what does this mean? He wasn't worried about them? What is Info-cult anyway?~~ bette, but expressed a lack of worry is clunky.
  - In the seminars, people use colored bracelets to indicate whether they want to be alone, have a couple, or meet anyone. - are available or taken?
  - touching 17-year-old girl(s) and a boy in an explicit manner as observed by their father who had previously agreed to attend weekly meetings after two years. The boy said that his mother's friends who were part of that movement deceived him. - needs rewrite. Not encyclopedic in tone.
  - The two think the video shows that the Raelians' must stop their cult operations. However, Sage Ali, a Raëlian guide, said he has no fear of the tape and knows of nothing in it to hide - needs a rewrite. Sorry I can't suggest something as I am unsure what it is this actually means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:34, May 22, 2007 (UTC) [36]

Oppose The writing isn't up to the FA standard. The style is very choppy and there are a lot of odd word choices and grammatical errors. MLilburne 08:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - For the amount of criticism this group has received, and the loads of potential reputable sourced citations out there, this part of the article looks pretty scant for some reason. And I also agree with MLilburne, the writing is choppy and strung together. Definitely not "engaging", or "brilliant" prose, as required by Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Also, this article is concurrently a Good Article candidate. Is that allowed? It seems a bit odd. Smee 09:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Not only is it concurrently a GA candidate, but it has three, count them, failed GA candidacies behind it. MLilburne 09:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOWBALL Oppose . Three recent failed GAs, indicating nowhere near close to FA potential. A special character in the first section heading? (See WP:MSH). Thank you for repeating WP:WIAFA for us; a lot of the same applies to GAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the three recent failed GAs have to do with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church&oldid=108627105 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church&oldid=126448977 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church&oldid=127161806

They have changed signficantly. So it's not exactly the same article. However, I do admit that the prose is choppy. This has been due to my recent simplifying of the English. I'll have to turn some pairs of sentences into complex sentences, though I'm not sure how fast that can be resolved. I also admit some of the criticism concerning Raëlism is in the Clonaid and Raël articles. But I think having the same criticism in all three articles is a bit redundant. Some people may think the criticism of Clonaid should be in the Raëlian Church article, but I think that has already been somewhat addressed. Despite that, I believe some will see that as a deficiency preventing this article from FA status. If that becomes signficant enough, I will have to merge those articles (under what name?). The criticism section is reaching the point where it is getting larger than the rest of the article. If that's what is required for this article to get to FA status sometime in the future, then I will do it. I may decide to find 100 third-party sources. But if they all say about the same thing, then there isn't really much to add. I'll see if there are new criticisms, as I think the current ones have already been exhausted in the article. A Google News search indicates that the vast majority of the criticism is centered on the cloning claim (Clonaid):

raelian critic OR controversy OR controversies OR questioned -clone -cloning] (13 results) From looking at the previews, none of them appear to be relevant.

raelian critic OR controversy OR controversies OR questioned (168 results)

clonaid critic OR controversy OR controversies OR questioned (200 results)

There appears to be no scholar more serious than Susan J. Palmer when it comes to going into the Raëlian movement and doing research. It appears criticism from a scholarly angle has already been exhausted. On top of the immense repetition of the Clonaid subject by the media, I think there is little more than a 10% expansion possible on the Criticism section in Raëlian Church unless if material is merged from other articles.Kmarinas86 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so far, I made some attempts to improve the prose as well as adding a new "Controversy" section (a milder form of the "Criticism" section). I know that it is almost a law that some areas of the article will have better prose than others. However, what is the best and worst part of the Raëlian Church article when it comes to prose has not been addressed yet. I could better knowing these two facts. Some of the new text I added are as follows:

According to Amelia Thomas of the Middle East Times, Israeli Kobi Drori, a Raëlian Guide said that the Lebanese government contacted their organization to offer the right to build their interplanetery embassy in Lebanon. However, the offer would only be given on the condition that they did not display their logo on top of the building, because it mixed a swastika and a Star of David. According to Drori, Raëlians attempting to negotiate the matter have declined the offer, who wanted to keep the symbol as is.[33]

According to Soh Ji-young of the Korea Times, in August 2, 2003, Raël was denied entry into South Korea by immigration authories. This action was taken by authorities as a result of Raël's association with Clonaid, which claimed to have cloned a human being. The Korean Raelian Movement said it would stage protests near the center of Ministry of Health and Welfare which banned Raël from returning to their country.[34]

Arguments have also directly criticized the Raëlian Church for its cult status and threats against sanctity. Other arguments against the movement include child abuse by members, the use of condoms, and sexual intercourse at Raëlian gatherings. Lastly, those who point out the use of the swastika in their logo as well as their support for limitations on the right to vote have given called the group fascist and racist.... removedKmarinas86 03:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Check for unencylopedic tone and bad prose in these. My eyes are dry.Kmarinas86 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know where to start in terms of the prose, as it is a long way from FA standard. One general thing you should watch out for is that you have a tendency to omit "the" from a lot of phrases.

The word "the" appears in the lead 21 times, in the "Members" section 18 times, in the Activities section almost 30 times....Kmarinas86 02:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at the "criticism" section:

The introductory paragraph isn't really necessary unless it can offer something with a bit more content than it currently has. It needs to generalize a bit better.

- RemovedKmarinas86 01:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is the church considered a cult? What justifications are given for calling it a cult?

- It's called a cult because the Raelian Church is a weird minority religion. But I don't think I can state that common, but unencyclopedic, and (always) implicitly given reason. No one ever states why. It's weird, so that's why its called cult. If it was less weird, like Mormonism, it would be called a cult less often. Note the clincher is that it is minority religion. Islam is weird to many, but its a majority religion, so it isn't nearly weird enough to be called a cult. In no articles have I read the word even being explained, because the justification is juvenile. I don't think such a naive reason deserves space in the article. Except, if you like me putting that naive reason in the article. =) Kmarinas86 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What does "threat to sanctity" mean?

threats against the dignity of human life

Kmarinas86 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the little flags in the article?

- They are there because of what they do. They add content to the article.
- But it will have to be removed now since too many people don't like it.Kmarinas86 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What is an RMX 2010?

Despite being born over two decades apart, many media people strongly associate the Raëlian Church with Clonaid, whose subsidiary, BioFusion Tech, said that they developed a cell fusion device in order to create human clone embryos.

The phrase "portrayal of brutal mentality" is a very strange one. I don't think you mean portrayal.

The Vatican said that experimenters expressed "brutal mentality" by attemping to clone human beings.

Kmarinas86 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Raëlians have stirred controversy concerning pedophilia." A very unclear sentence.

- RemovedKmarinas86 03:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"The Raëlian idea that children should have a sensual education is at the root of this controversy." Are you going to explain what this education consists of?

This controversy is explained by the Raëlian idea that children should have a sensual education that includes masturbation, breathing excersize, and massage.

Kmarinas86 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to go on, but I think it makes it clear that the article needs a lot of work. MLilburne 22:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello MLilburne, Smee, and SandyGeorgia, there has been, what I believe to be, signficant changes to the prose in the article. I have read some featured articles in the past and have attempted to replicate their tone of speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church&diff=133115400&oldid=132619388

Kind regards, Kmarinas86 06:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I recognize the hard work that you've done, but I'm afraid that I really don't see the prose as having improved significantly. MLilburne 11:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe that the prose has been improved at all?Kmarinas86 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra%C3%ABlian_Church&diff=133253066&oldid=132619388 Kmarinas86 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem to be making some progress now. Not enough to make FAC on this round though--I think aiming to make GA would be a more realistic goal, really. MLilburne 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as per Deckiller. It might have improved, but is nowhere near professional standard as required. Throughout, there's a sense that a loose oral style is the basis (e.g., "like in some Christian denominations"). Most sentences need surgery to be of acceptable standard in an encyclopedic register. Tony 13:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference is very subtle, and IMO not very well defined. Additionally, it has been my experience that a "tight" oral style leads to choppy prose. The "middle ground" is not very well defined either.Kmarinas86 20:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also the phrase "loose oral style" is sneaky. It doesn't mean anything except what you want it to mean. Google search current results 0 hits for this phrase (except 1 hit in google books), so explain what you mean by "loose oral style": http://www.google.com/search?q=%22loose+oral+style%22 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22loose+oral+style%22 http://books.google.com/books?q=%22loose+oral+style%22

In anycase, isn't the point of good prose to speak in everyday language?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose

Prose varies considerably depending on the purpose of the writing. As prose is often considered to be representative of the patterns of normal speech, many rhetorical devices are used in prose to emphasize points and enliven the writing. Prose which aims to be informative and accurate, such as history or journalism, usually strives to use the simplest language possible to express its points. Facts are often repeated and reiterated in various ways so that they are understood by a reader, but excessive use of this technique can make a serious piece of writing seem pedantic.

I removed "like in some Christian denominations"...Kmarinas86 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. 3 failed GAs? I don't know why this is taken to the FAC level. I don't quite enjoy the "Raëlian ideology" in a list-type format. In the image "Poster of Yes to Human Cloning (right)", why are there miscellaneous people in it? Crop out the picture of the poster and leave your religion-mates out of this encyclopedia article. The article is too short for FA. It's too short even with all the pictures and tables to make it look big. Box-quote is inappropriate because it puts POV on this religion, supporting it as a non-cult. The table to compare the meaning of MADECH in French and English appears non-encyclopedic. Discuss it in regular prose. SeleneFN 00:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Also "Anold's flat bed truck with Raëlian symbol of infinity". We don't need to know this is a flat bed truck. We certainly don't need to know it belongs to Anold." SeleneFN 00:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed everything you mentioned except the length of the article and the three failed GAs.Kmarinas86 03:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

By moving material about the movement's size from the Raëlians article to the Raëlian Church article, I have added another page or two to the length of the article. Now tell me if it is too short.Kmarinas86 03:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The current Featured Article, Diplodocus is about just as long by word count and by references. But it was longer before you made your comment. Thanks for helping.Kmarinas86 04:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I admire your perserverance, Kmarinas86. I do think you have all the necessary material, but it really needs a better copyedit. The prose just isn't quite up to "brilliant" yet. However, I do have a few comments that might help you copyedit this yourself (League of Copyeditors has too much of a backlog). I will give you a sample of the kind of copyedit that needs to happen before it comes near FA potential:

The image " Raëlian Church in South Korea" is really more of a gathering of the churchgoers. The caption should reflect that. When you say "Church", people naturally think of an actual building.
In the Original name section,

"a small the MADECH organization was born" - grammatical mistake
"By 1976, Raël created International Raelian Movement to replace MADECH." This should be the last sentence of the paragraph to transit from the old name, which you explained, to the new name.

"Order of Angels" should be one paragraph. "For this reason..." fits perfectly well after your previous sentence because it is a continuation of the same issue.

"journalists have been curious about what sort of pressure that Raël puts on the Raëlian Angels" maybe changed to "journalists have been curious about Raël's influence on the Raëlian Angels". Your "what sort of pressure" just doesn't sound professional.
Citing "Skeptical Inquirer" isn't really a good source.

"According to Brigitte McCann of the Calgary Sun in October 7, 2003, Mike Kropveld..." too many names. Omit McCann as she's not important in the point you're trying to make.
"Information from the movement's online newsletter Raelian Contact suggests the existence of a internal "structure" of 2,300 Raëlians who are strongly devoted to the Raëlian Church." Too wordy. Just say "Information from the movement's online newsletter Raelian Contact reflects on the structure of the Raelian church"
"there is a level assignment, which can go up or down." It's kind of obvious.
"about 170 Raëlian guides in the structure (level 3 to level 5) " to "about 170 Raëlian guides in levels 3 to 5..."

Anways, as you can see, quite a few sentences need work. Put your effort in eliminating any word that can be omitted, as they are just decorative. The prose just needs to sound more professional, though it's hard to give any specific advice for that, except read more FAs. SeleneFN 06:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Advice was Great =D 10:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Too many external links, a picture in the cites?, 3 pictures of the same symbol?, maybe with some reformatting work to make it flow better from section to section.Mbisanz 05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

External links removed. Picture in cites removed. Two copies of the the picture removed. Reformatting work not done yet.Kmarinas86 11:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If the only problem with this article is the prose, I think the article must then be really close to FA. It would be nice if someone experienced in good prose could do a copyedit of this article. I never seemed to get an A in college English.Kmarinas86 17:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose ... I'll have to apply for GA.Kmarinas86 03:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 02:08, 1 June 2007.

[edit] Telecommunication

A vital, core and good article that has previously been nominated for featuring (nom). The changes in this version include the trimming of some technical detail, a better discussion of telecommunication and society and some basic explanations to introduce the modern operation of the telephone, radio, television and Internet. Cedars 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the "Etymology" box necessary? Couldn't it be conveyed just as effectively at the beginning of the section? -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 03:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the "Etymology" box is because the description stands alone. It could be integrated into the article but I don't think it would help the article's flow. If you feel it interrupts the article though, I could delete it? Cedars 11:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Object. Several sections, especially in the history supersection, are poorly cited. The Key concepts section also seems choppy and tries to cover a great number of topics in too short of a space without a proper organizational structure. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me identify what parts of the article are poorly cited? The article has 60 citations, 16 of which are in the History section. I have also added some headings for the Key concepts section. I will continue to try to make some improvements to that section. Cedars 11:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just that the referencing is inconsistent. In the subsection "Early telecommunications," the development of a newtechnology carries a citation, while in the next paragraph, the first paragraph in the subsection "Telegraph and Telephone," there is no citation for the date (or inventors), or why they considered it to be an imporvement over old technology and not a new innovation. In the thirs paragraph of that same subsection, it is mentioned that the telephone is developed simultaneously by two different inventors. This is likely to be different from what most people know about the development of the telephone (which is that Bell invented it), and this statement should be sourced, but it is not. The references of the entire article need to be scrutinized. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this helps me to understand exactly where the citations need improvement. Cedars 09:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose—1a and 1c. Great start to the article, though. I'll keep this brief, since I accidentally canceled out of the screen. Examples from the lead:
- "In modern times, this process almost always involves the sending of electromagnetic waves by electronic transmitters but in earlier years it may have involved the use of smoke signals, drums or semaphore." Missing commas. The "today" in the following sentence is redundant.
- "There are also many networks operating that connect these devices, including computer networks, public telephone networks, radio networks and television networks." "Networks operating" seems awkward, but then again, I'm sleepy :)
- "Computer communication across the Internet is just one of many examples of telecommunication." is this a necessary sentence? If it is, you might want to drop the "just".
- "In recent times, optical fibre has radically improved the bandwidth available for intercontinental communication, helping to facilitate a faster and richer Internet experience and digital television has eliminated effects such as snowy pictures and ghosting." Awkward ("...and digital television"); please chop the snake. This is entirely optional, but you can remove "in recent times" due to the present tense, just like "today" above. It's up to you; I don't really mind this, because it adds flow.
- "Telecommunication remains an important part of the world economy and the telecommunication industry's revenue has been placed at just under 3% of the gross world product." Missing a comma.
- As an afterthought, the list in the first section needs proper punctuation.
These issues demonstrate the need for a thorough copy-edit throughout the entire article. Please locate copy-editors to help polish this potential gem. I agree with Ryan that the additional citations should be sprinkled throughout the article. Wikipedia has a borderline reliability with many people; therefore, we must add excessive citations to our articles to prove verifiability. If you are using one source for 2-3 paragraphs, just try to sprinkle a few citations throughout each para to demonstrate that the entire section is using that reference. Keep up the good work! — Deckill er 23:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 02:08, 1 June 2007.

[edit] Harry Potter

previous fac

This page was nominated by someone who didn't really get the process, so I'm completing it on thier behalf. Serendipodous 17:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Controversy section should probably include a brief summary of Controversy over Harry Potter in addition to the link. ShadowHalo 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I think this nomination needs to wait until after the final book is released in July. The article may be comprehensive for what we know today, but we are already aware that more information is coming shortly. Wait until the series is completed, see if there is anything that needs to be added or changed to the article, and then resubmit.
- I think the Characters section either needs text or needs to be removed. If you choose not to explore the characters in the article, then the list you reference could go in a See Also section.
- You are missing references in the Chronology section and the last paragraph of themes and motifs. Also "Early in its history, Harry Potter received overwhelmingly positive reviews, which helped the series to quickly grow a large readership. Following the 2003 release of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix however, the books received strong criticisms from a number of distinguished authors and academics." does not appear to be sourced, and there are other places further in the article that are lacking a citation.
- I read once that the New York Times created their children's bestseller list because Harry Potter was taking all the top spots on the regular list. I found a source for you [37]. I think this is definitely notable enough to be included in the article, as well as more on the discussion of whether this is a children's book or not.
- The controversy summary definitely needs to be expanded.
- citation 43 needs to be put in proper format
- The pop culture section appears to be mostly trivia. I think it should be removed in the article. You could mention the Ned Flanders/Simpsons stuff in the controversies article.

Karanacs 15:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Karanacs makes a good point. It might be comprehensive now, but in about 2 months it will be anything but stable and instantly become less than comprehensive meaning that it will fail at least 2 featured article criteria and the large amount of edits it will generate could also cause degeneration of article quality. We should wait until the article is stable and comprehensive. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per above, the article is likely to get slaughtered with edits and become an epic battleground of ideologies. After said cleanup, it should be good to go. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 22:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose-us Article...us? Sorry, bad joke :P. Oppose as per Karanacs - The article will be much more stable a few months after the final book. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 06:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose This article clearly has the potential to be a featured article at some point (there are few topics with as much readily available information), however, the topic needs to be relatively static in order for any real work to happen, and clearly, that's not gonna be realistic until after the 21st of July. Come back in 4-6 months and we'll be all good. — mrmaroon25 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The plot summary should be slightly expanded, I see in previous fac, that it has been disscused and editors said, that they feel it isn't neccecery as other articles allready cover it - yes, there is no need to cover every single Quidditch game, still the events that form the main plot line, continuated trough the series, should be mentioned, it is abnormal that Voldemort's return is covered using only four words ("Voldemort's rise to power"). The Themes and motifs section is an oppinion of its author, especially the unsorced part where Rowling's naming abilities are praised - I couldn't help thinking it looks more like an essay, then encyclopedia article when I read it. All together sub-sections of "story" seem somewhat awkward - at least I was expecting that "universe" will tell about things like owls and houses, while "Recurrent elements" seemed like title for section, which would cover blood purity, the structure of books (e.g. the story begins with summer at Dursleys'home) or major recurring conflicts such as disbelief that Voldemort is alive. The translation section says that the books are often translated by expirienced translators - it wouldn't hurt to tell that this is not always true and mention difficulties translators meet, and mention fake and pirate translations ---- Xil/talk 00:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 02:08, 1 June 2007.

[edit] L. Ron Hubbard

This article has been greatly improved since it's review for WP:GA status. Anynobody 08:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - Let's see here: A whopping (140) citations, (8) images, (6) of which are free-use images, and quite a comprehensive article at that. This looks like a good candidate to me. Smee 09:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
Oppose per 1(a), prose is choppy with short, one-sentence paragraphs scattered throughout. Resurgent insurgent 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments

I think for such a large article the lead ought to be expanded per WP:LEAD.
First paragraph in Early life section is only one short sentence - merge it.
"...and later headed West..." to where, why?
"...Church biographies..." can we clarify which church?
Refs [20], [53], [94] need moving in accordance with WP:CITE
Date formats need unification e.g. "March 25, 1930" and "25 March 1924" in same sentence.
Ref's [14] and [15] need a full stop in front.
Education and Early fiction career sections contain a lot of short paragraphs, flow them together.
Is "CoS" defined anywhere? I wouldn't use such acronyms.
Per WP:MOS, avoid links in headings.
Fair use images need fair use criteria applied.
Attribution required for "the creation of dianetics is a milestone for man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his inventions of the wheel and arch." quotation.
Starting the "Legal difficulties..." section with a long wikilink doesn't look good and, again, too many single-sentence paragraphs.
Probably a good idea to wikilink ₣ to French franc.
You've already got a link to the controversy, do you need to have "(see Scientology controversy)." wikilinking there as well? "The legitimacy of Scientology as a religion." also links to the same article, as does "a portion thereof".
"His next marriage to Sara Northrup - Parsons former girl-friend - happened in August 1946" - does marriage happen? I would seek to reword this.
"Sara Northrup, filed for divorce in late 1950, citing that Hubbard was, unknown to her, still married to his first wife at the time he married Sara." - no need for first comma I think.
Some block quotes in quotations, others not, some in italics, some not - need to be consistent.
I would prefer to seee ref's 138 and 139 with proper titles rather than plain URLs.
External links probably need a good pruning per WP:EL

Hope some of these points help. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. The Rambling Man 14:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't {{Reflist|2}} work better than {{Reflist|3}} here? There's some overlapping text. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to {{Reflist|2}}. As an aside, it looks like all of the points brought up above are easily addressable, and we can work through those helpful suggestions in quick order, I'd imagine. Smee 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
  - Thanks for the change. It might be a bit of work, as there's a heck of a lot of prose here. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 23:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestions The Rambling Man and agree with Smee that all can be done in a short period of time. I knew the article wasn't "perfect" so I'm happy to get a good list like this :) Anynobody 23:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to write up some fair use rationales for those two images (how did it pass GA without them?) --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The fair use rationales do not explain the specific use of the non-free images in the article. Jay32183 02:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Question: - And if all of the images were given detailed fair use rationales that satisfied this? Smee 02:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
  - I haven't reviewed fully yet, but the article is not allowed to have non-free content without detailed fair use rationales at all, so it is an automatic objection. I will not review further until the rationales are there or the images are gone because it really does not matter. Jay32183 03:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Sounds fair. Then we shall go about adding those detailed fair use rationales. Smee 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
Oppose. The article as it currently stands is a poster-child for how to crucify someone by loading undue weight. A real encyclopedia would simply state that many (even most) of Hubbard's claims about himself were disputed by others, and list notable examples such as the ones mentioned here. What a real encyclopedia would not do is systematically dissect them all in extreme minute detail and actually begin arguing points and building a case against Hubbard, as this article clearly and blatantly does. The article almost literally reads like "...then in 1938 Hubbard lied about blahblahblah, and in 1940 he claimed blahblah which was later proven to be false by Prof. Blahblah. Judge Soandso also noted 'I wouldn't believe anything Hubbard said anyway'. Then in 1942 Hubbard lied about....." and so forth. The whole article is one long string of setting up Hubbard claims and then knocking them down. Just because it's true Hubbard lied about his whole life doesn't mean his article is supposed to be a freakin' Master's thesis epic deconstructing it all. I'm sure this is great fun for some people, but as a good encyclopedia article, frankly, it really, really, really sucks. wikipediatrix 04:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- And do you have any specific suggestions as to how to improve the article towards Featured Article Status, other than the points outlined by the other users above? Smee 04:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes: remove all the hyperobsessive junior-detective work that I just referred to, and reduce it to the simple facts and sources. Stabbing a dead guy is sufficient, it's not necessary to twist the knife, urinate on him, and set his corpse aflame. If someone wants to write an article called List of everything L. Ron Hubbard ever lied about in his entire life since childhood, so be it, but that's not the name of this article. (Oh yes, and the image also has problems, see the article's talk page for more about that.) wikipediatrix 04:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. You evidently have strong feelings about this. Perhaps you should copy the current article into a subpage, say, User:Wikipediatrix/L. Ron Hubbard, and edit it accordingly and then present it to us either here or at the article's talk page, to show as an example? Smee 04:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

It's simple really: just state, for example:

"Hubbard ate a lemon pie in 1968"

and then give a relevant source citation, instead of saying:

"In 1968, Hubbard lifted a fork to his fleshy mouth; the fork, containing lemon pie, was swirled around with his red pulpy tongue, savoring the meringue as it coagulated in reaction to his saliva. Reportedly, crusts of the graham cracker crust were stuck in Hubbard's bicuspids for hours to come, despite his best efforts to work them loose with the aforementioned red pulpy tongue. Others stated that they felt queasy after witnessing Hubbard eat the pie".

Yes, there is such a thing as too much information. Just as we don't need to hear every detail of Hubbard's digestion, we don't need to hear every detail of his sordid past spelled out in gleeful detail, because regardless of what the editors' intent really is, the end result is that the article looks like someone's trying hard to make Hubbard look as bad as possible. (The fact that he makes it so easy to do is beside the point.) wikipediatrix 04:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think, if you created an example of what you mean, at User:Wikipediatrix/L. Ron Hubbard, instead of, ahem, giving us examples with, shall we say colorful metaphors and language, we would all appreciate that a lot more, and also be able to more precisly understand which areas you want to change and how. Smee 04:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

If my example didn't make it clear, what I am saying is that the article devotes entire multi-paragraph sections to matters that would be better dealt with in a mere sentence or two. Such as: the Blackfeet matter, the India/Tibet matter, his college courses, his war years (why is such an enormous amount of space devoted to his barely-existent military service? the YP-422 section is large, the PC-815 section is HUGE, the Coronado section is also huge, and the "after the war" section is also large), the "Legal difficulties and life on the high seas" section in general, and pretty much everything after the "Biographical controversies" section starts. Even Adolf Hitler's article doesn't come close to this sort of microscopic treatment of misdeeds! wikipediatrix 05:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Though your comments are helpful, if you were to provide us with an example in your user space, it would give us a model to go on, and sort of compromise between the two versions, or something like that. This is all I will say about that, but an example in user space would be helpful. Smee 05:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

wikipediatrix the inconsistencies discussed in the article are just a sample. After reading several CoS sites they have him doing MANY things not talked about here (on the Hubbard article). Anynobody 07:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So? That doesn't pertain to anything I just said. This article isn't about Hubbard so much as it is about debunking Hubbard, and way too much text is devoted to it. If you really can't see it, look at other bio articles on controversial people, such as Adolf Hitler.

Ask yourself why the Woody Allen article doesn't contain a section devoted to Mia Farrow's sourceable accusations that he molested their son, or why the Frank Sinatra article doesn't contain a section devoted to media accusations that he hoaxed his son's kidnapping. (If these men had been Scientologists, I bet these matters would be analyzed in microscopic drooling lurid detail!)

Just because criticism exists and may even be true doesn't mean it needs to be in the article and sure as heck doesn't mean it should take up such a huge chunk of the article. Undue weight, undue weight, undue weight. Is anyone listening? Undue weight, undue weight, undue weight. Say it with me. wikipediatrix 13:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment, what to focus on first -- Well, certainly the recommendations put forth above, and first, by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), are helpful, but also, they are relatively easy to implement on short order. Perhaps it might be best to table the rest of this discussion, close this FAC, and open another one, even if it is very soon - after we have addressed these initial (20) points, above, including also the fair use image rationales. Smee 00:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
- Starting a new discussion is way too soon. The fair use rationales are still not acceptable; I checked just now. Also, Wikipediatrix's concern about the focus of the article is legitimate even if you don't understand it. The main reason the concern isn't more specific is most likely because it will take a major rewrite to fix. There is probably also an issue of wordiness as an attempt to disguise the other problems. Jay32183 00:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Well then, we have 2 options. Close this FAC, and begin to implement changes, or keep the FAC open, while implementing changes. Smee 00:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
Oppose Article has a NPOV tag and really should be broken into separate pages for career, early life, writing, criticism, etc Mbisanz 05:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment There is not only a problem with undue weight but also one with an undue mass of information. The section on Hubbard's service in the Second World War is longer than that of Chester W. Nimitz, the commander of the United States Pacific Fleet. And that is not even something he is notable for. Steve Dufour 13:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose This article has a lot of problems. Some parts of the WP:MOS were not followed. The article has some POV-issues, and in some cases appears confused as to whether its subject is L. Ron Hubbard or the Church of Scientology itself. I've listed out some of the bigger errors, but the editors also need to do some work on the prose. There are areas that are very repetitive and not very well-written.
- full dates must be wikilinked
- newspaper and magazine names should be italicized
- a comma should be placed after a year
- In Family Relations, you list L.Ron, Jr. (which makes it seem his surname is Hubbard), and then later refer to him? by a different surname.
- after the first sentence, always refer to the subject by his surname, not his full name or first name.
- many copyediting mistakes
  - excess commas or not enough
  - verb tenses can be weird (esp. Writing Career)
- poor prose in general
- many facts are repeated multiple times (do we really need to be told twice in one paragraph that he allegedly kidnapped a kid?)
- trivia section needs to go away
- if you have a Main Article link, do not have a sentence that says to look in a seaprate article
- citation issues
  - citation 14 has no text
  - citation 34 is not formatted properly
  - is there a way to differentiate citation 37 and 38
  - websites need a publisher (and author, if possible) listed
  - citations 56 and 57 are likewise not properly formatted
- I think there is an excessive number of external links. Please trim.
- weasel words aren't cited properly
  - "unusually prolific author and lecturer" (I know this is backed up later, but still needs to be cited)
  - "He became a well-known author "
  - "legendary science fiction editor "
- I don't believe you need the brief biographies of Hubbard's parents. Please condense.
- The paragraph on whether or not he travelled to India is really trivia and can be removed.
- I think it is very POV to say "The Church of Scientology's official account of Hubbard's university career does not mention its premature conclusion." At this point, Hubbard is dead and is not responsible for what the Church of Scientology publishes. This does not belong in his biography.
- Need to use both standard and metric measurements -- see conversion templates.
- Is the Explorers Club section really notable enough to be included in the article?
- Several red links need to be taken care of
- Is it necessary to detail the plots of some of Hubbard's fiction? Unless there is something especially noteworthy about those plots (and it's not evident in the article), I would not include them.
- The info about being a special office for the detective agency seems like trivia.
- Dianetics section needs citations for quotations.
- Need more citations in Scientology section
- You've linked to Mary Sue Hubbard multiple times; only link the first time.
- It's not necessary to mention the current leaders of the Church of Scientology
- If possible, you should integrate the family relations and writing career sections with the rest of the article.
- The lead needs work as well. You should need no more than one sentence stating that some facts of his life are disputed. Instead, expand more on aspects of his life that have been confirmed. Also, nowhere in the article is his military service mentioned, so it should not be in the lead.

Karanacs 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Stubby paragraphs. Needs major copyediting, in the very least removing all single-sentence paragraphs merging them into existing ones. Lead-in paragraph looks too eager to talk about controversies surrounding him where it should simply describe his life's major events with only a brief sentence about the controversies. SeleneFN 23:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Unfortunately, it's premature to nominate this article for FA status. As detailed above, it needs a significant amount of work to get it up to scratch. -- ChrisO 06:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose — tagged with "NPOV dispute" and "trivia section" templates, which goes to show that the article is in no way ready for FA status yet. (Ibaranoff24 14:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC))
Oppose Stubby paragraphs, and the article needs a vast cleanup. LuciferMorgan 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose See above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 02:08, 1 June 2007.

[edit] Sale, Greater Manchester

I think this passes the FA criteria. Epbr123 18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Support excellent article. Chensiyuan 09:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for now.
- Why does "a relatively low percentage of manufacturing premises" require five citations when the rest of the section doesn't have a single one?
- I don't like how we have "Civic history" and "Political divisions" before the History section.
- Demographics is very ugly. Prose needs to be weaved through those numbers or people are just going to skip it. And why is it in the past tense?
- Arguably too many stub sections.
- Could you not list a date on any of those weblinks in the references?
I will try to look at prose later. Marskell 10:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- - A citation has been added to the Economy section. I'm not keen on the "Civic history" and "Political divisions" sections but they are in line with WP:UKGEO guidelines. Demographics is in the past tense as it refers to the 2001 Census. Dates are unavailable for all references without them. Prose have been added to Demographics. Which sections are too stubby? Epbr123 11:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article uses book sources for certain citations - these cites need the specific page number of the book they're referencing. LuciferMorgan 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, same problems as other noms, which I've already typed twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Sandy's criteria concerns which are at the other noms. LuciferMorgan 15:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was not promoted 02:08, 1 June 2007.

[edit] Harry Potter fandom

Taken this through two peer reviews, and is currently a GA. I feel this is an excellent, comprehensive, and well-referenced representation of the fandom, with all free use images. If this article is passed, it would be great to see it on the Main Page in time for the 21 July release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: I shall review the article and provide comments in a short while, but getting JK Rowling to FA would be the best thing for July 21. I just checked the article is already at GA level. If you are interested, i think you should look to take that article to FA. Kalyan 05:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: Only had chance to read lead and pottermania section but have the following concerns:
- "official release date at midnight that morning" - not very clear
  - Cleared this up.
- The paragraph on summer camps seems out of place to me.
  - It's meant to demonstrate what kids who are clearly fans of the book have to do when they are at camp.
- The Pottermania section is mainly about the book releases. Consider retitling the section, or include more generalised 'mania'!
- 'Influences on Culture' again seems to be random (the headache doctor sounds a bit odd). I'm not sure how you split Harry Potter Fandom influence on culture to the influence of Harry Potter itself.
- The article concentrates mostly on the books. How has the fandom community reacted to the films for example?
  - The hard part about this is that there's very little material with which something like this could be cited. There are plenty of newspaper articles about online fandom and book releases, but movie articles and scholarly works are hard to come by. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - forgot to sign above comments Quantpole 22:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, doesn't fully describe the extent to which the series has affected the world, as per Quantpole's comments. Having said that, the lead does not sufficiently sumamrize the article and needs to be improved. Since that little quote under 'Fan sites' needs a spoiler warning, it's probably not necessary; I would think a link to the text is fine. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed the spoiler warning and can accept that concern that it is not broad enough, however, I would appreciate more comments on the lead -- what more should be said in order to encompass the whole scope of the article? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for different reasons. The article seems to be confusing Harry Potter fandom with "popularity of Harry Potter". The two are not the same. For example, a Harry Potter theme park has everything to do with the popularity of the Harry Potter franchise, but it has nothing to do with the fans of Harry Potter (except that some of them will probably visit the park). The "Pottermania" section is particularly bad about this. — Brian (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps the two subsections of the "Pottermania" section should be moved to the general Harry Potter article. How would it look then? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  - I don't think the problem is the existence of the section, though. I just think someone needs to comb through the article and separate out all the bits that are about the general popularity of the Harry Potter franchise and leave the bits that are about the fans of Harry Potter. — Brian (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

withdrawn temporarily pending improvements to references ~~and units~~. BenB4 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plug-in hybrid

A couple months ago I started an ad-hoc improvement drive on this article just as some experts decided on their own to improve it. About a month ago, it underwent peer review, and all the suggestions seem to have been followed. The result as, over the ensuing weeks, stabilized into what I believe is a very well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral article. BenB4 06:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment ~~Please size all thumbnail images IAW WP:MoS.~~ — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Y Done done 75.35.115.68 10:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Okay, now for a full review (sorry it was late last night and I didn't get a chance to really look at the whole article and just did a quick check). The article appears written pretty well, but has some problems.

First of all it could use some more pictures (recommended, not required) to better illustrate the subject. I recommend at least one picture for every 2000 words (though the image guide recommends 1/500). In addition, you may want to vary the positions a little for style (some on the left, some on the right)
Problems with 1a, 1c, and 2a (this is common for FA candidates, so don't too disheartened).

The prose is not very engaging and is very dry/technical. Please try and spruce it up a little.
Many sections that are completely unreferenced; everything in the article must be verifiable.
The lead does not follow WP guidelines (WP:LEAD).

Technical problems: make sure are dates are wikilinked. Measurements should also be wikilinked in their first use and conversion templates would help to show km/mile conversions.
Be specific, not vague. Example "Many existing PHEVs are conversions of 2004+ Toyota Prius hybrid cars, which extend their electric-only range and add plug-in charging." How many is "many?" Do you have a source for that? See weasel words.

In short, get some more references (or reference sections better), make the guidelines are met (the criteria above, WP:MoS, & WP:GTL), and go over everything with a fine-tooth comb. I suggest getting this article upgraded to Wikipedia: Good Article status first and getting a peer review. This should help many of these problems. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

- Currently the article has one picture per 536 words, by my count. I thought we are following WP:LEAD -- how is it not? I will add references to the two unreferenced sections and work on the prose. BenB4 21:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WOW! My bad! The comments on the picture were supposed to be on another article. This is what happens when you have more than one window open at a time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Every section is referenced now. Thank you very much for pointing that out. I will continue to work on the prose. BenB4 21:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely disagree. The whole section on series and parallel hybrids is missing a reference as are several others. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified the "many" problem that you pointed out, and looked again at WP:LEAD -- the only way we violate it is to introduce some clarifying terminology (PHEV-xx for all-electric miles) which I think is essential to understanding that jargon. The rest of the lead is definition, terms, and a summary of the most important points in the article. BenB4 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I could have been more specific: An article of this length shouldn't have more than 3 paragraphs. In addition, the lead should introduce topics that will be discussed in the body of the article. Nowhere other than the intro do you discuss the sources of the electrical power (wind, nuclear, etc.). I think there are others too, just make sure you cover them later in the article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Done shortened intro per comments. BenB4 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You also need to ensure that nothing in the intro isn't expanded upon later in the article. Definitions and the PHEV terminology do not belong there. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to seriously question your judgment if you are indeed claiming that a definition doesn't belong in the intro. Can you find a featured article which does not define the subject of the article in the intro? And the terminology establishes context for the jargon that is used throughout the article, just as WP:LEAD says it should; it also says that it should be treated with common sense. BenB4 00:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I haven't questioned your judgment; I fail to see why you should question mine. Don't take technical criticism so personal. WP:LEAD states "...specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar." I do not believe that your intro falls into this category. Where does it state that "terminology establishes context for the jargon that is used throughout the article" Why not simply state general terminology such as "PHEVs are categorized by the distance that can be traveled on electrical power alone," and go into the descriptions of the specific terminology later? This makes it capable of fulfilling WP:LEAD.— BQZip01 — ^talk 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that if multiple sections used the same jargon that it was best defined in the intro (since the TOC is usually consulted after the intro depending on what the reader wants to learn). If I were to follow your advice, a TOC user jumping to the second or later section that used it might miss the meaning. Are you sure that you think the article would be better if that could happen? BenB4 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Mild support The only dates which are supposed to be wikilinked are those including year month and day; and the only reason to do so is the minor reader service of letting the reader format them as he likes. I see only two such dates in text, and not linking them is preferable to linking every date, contrary to MoS. I would look at WP:WIAGA, by all means; but I would avoid the GA like the plague; it has never been more than "a couple of editors like this" and it is now much worse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotta disagree here, there are a LOT of dates that aren't wikilinked (far more than 2) - double check the references section and you'll see exactly what I am talking about. If you don't want to get the article FA status, be sure to follow this advice and openly violate WP:MoS. One of the requirements of a Featured Article is that it follows the MoS. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Are you serious? We have to wikify all the dates in the references? What purpose could that serve? BenB4 06:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It has three purposes:

Allow personal settings to determine the format of the date and lets users read dates that is most common to them (increases readability).
Standardize the date structure throughout the document
It meets the criteria of a featured article (see WP:DATE)

You don't have to do it if you don't want it to be a featured article. It's really easy and shouldn't take more than 30 minutes tops: simply put brackets around each date. Look at the code and you will see that all of these dates are different in the code, but not on your display.

[[2007-06-01]] displays as 2007-06-01
[[June 1]], [[2007]] displays as June 1, 2007
[[1 June]] [[2007]] displays as 1 June 2007

— BQZip01 — ^talk 18:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done all of the wikilinkable dates, even in the references, are wikilinked. BenB4 00:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Still missing at least 2 in the references. In addition, "September 25 to 27, 2006" should be rephrased -> From September 25, 2006 to September 27, 2006

In addition, please check your numerical units for currency (problematic throughout) IAW WP:$. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done I made those changes and the currency symbol changes you suggested, too. BenB4 23:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please slow down and make sure all of the changes have been made before you claim it is done; do a search in your browser for "$" and fix all of them. There are plenty of places that it is not used properly (for starters the first instance shouldn't have a space and should be wikilinked to the currency). In addition, your measurements should have their first instance wikilinked and could be abbreviated too. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Copyedit needed, along with some more sources.
- Intro:
  - Inconsistent units - It says PHEV (miles) and then PHEV(kilometers)km, with the units spelled out and the abbreviation.
- History:
  - Stubby, short sentences here don't make the prose flow well; needs copyediting - "The gasoline powered engine was connected to the trans-axle via a worm gear.[11] The car could be plugged into a standard 110 Volt AC outlet for recharging."
  - "The vehicle, which is owned by CalCars technical lead Ron Gremban" - needs cite
  - "On November 29, 2006 GM announced plans to introduce a production plug-in hybrid version of Saturn's Greenline Vue SUV in 2009[10] with an all-electric range of 10 miles.[16]" - I would probably stick both references at the end of the sentence.
  - "On January 7, 2007, General Motors' Chevrolet Volt was unveiled" - There is an external link on the word "unveiled". Word shouldn't be linked, but possibly this could be a reference.
  - Last paragraph - "On May 22, five research projects". I can tell you mean May 22, 2007, but should include the year to be clear to readers in the future.
- Technology:
  - Needs to be wikified more. For example "Orion bus", "Honda Insight", "Civic", Accord", ...
  - Where it mentions "Orion bus (earlier post)"... I may be missing something, but I don't see the Orion bus mentioned elsewhere in the article. It's unclear what "earlier post" I should be looking for.
  - "series hybrids" - doesn't need to be bold the second time
- Modes of operation - needs more cites
- Batteries:
  - "Because the number of full cycles influences battery lifetime, battery life may be less than in HEVs which use a smaller window of ." - smaller window of what? Needs copyediting.
- Conversions of production hybrids:
  - Various words have external links. These should be removed, or if appropriate, made into references or put in the external links section.
- Vehicle-to-grid electricity features:
  - "See also: Net metering" - this is not formatted correctly. I recommend putting this in the "See also" section at the end of the article.
- See also section:
  - This section should be placed before the references. See WP:LAYOUT
- Potential disadvantages:
  - Think this needs some more cites.
- Commercialization:
  - George W. Bush should be wikified.
- Overall this is a good article, but with some problems to be fixed. --Aude (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  - As for the "PHEV-(miles)/PHEV(kilometers)km" those are actually the ways that PHEVs are described in English and metric units.
    - Well, I tried changing it to "A plug-in hybrid's all-electric range is designated by PHEV-miles or PHEVkilometerskm representing the distance the vehicle can travel on electric power alone. For example, a PHEV-20 can travel twenty miles without using its internal combustion engine, or about 32 kilometers, so it may also be designated as PHEV32km." but as you can see that looks terrible, so I replaced the parentheses instead of italics. It looks much better with parens and italics both. BenB4 05:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      - I assume then that miles is considered the default measurement and "km" is added to denote that it is the kilometer measurement instead? If so, please make that clear in the article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        There is no "default" -- in U.S., people use PHEV-20, and in metric countries they use PHEV32km for the same car. Why is that not clear? BenB4 00:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        Well, for one, I simply asked a question, which you answered in the negative. You then clarified it: The basic terminology is the same, but with a dash when being used with miles and "km" tacked onto the end to denote kilometers, but the terms are interchangeable. This might have been clear to you, but you need to consider your audience and understand that it may not be as clear to your readers. It was simply a question. Don't be so defensive. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        I'm sorry, when I said "Why is that not clear?" I did not mean to be rude. I understand that particular question is often used in a rude manner, but I meant it only as the question asks. I was asking about how you would improve it if you were to make it clearer, or more succinctly, what the difference would be, on the assumption that the difference would be at least suggestive of the reason it wasn't clear. Why are we cursed with a language that has terms such as questions that give offense. BenB4 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        Ah. My bad then. I would suggest including it with the basic history of the vehicles or maybe in a simple chart. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
        
        Y Done added a "Terminology" section before history as some other FAs have (e.g. global warming) BenB4 23:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  - The sentences you call short and stubby don't seem to be short or unclear to me. Can you recommend or describe the kind of copyediting you want? I'm working on as many of the other issues as I can. BenB4 05:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Y Done addressed all those issues except for the short/stubby sentences which I don't understand. BenB4 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Just for clarification, do you not understand "stubby" or do you not understand which sentences we are talking about? — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      - I do not understand "stubby" and I think the sentences are those about the worm gear and trans-axle. Should those terms be clarified? Frankly, I'm not sure I know what they mean without looking them up. On the other hand, sentence length is a function of the sentences' grade-level, and if the meaning isn't clear, I'd think that the sentence length should be shorter instead of longer. BenB4 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      - I have removed the sentence about the transverse-mounted axel and the worm drive. BenB4 05:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, the paragraph sounds choppy, and the sentences don't flow together as well as they could. In glancing at the article again, I notice other issues with the prose. I think it would help best to get someone else to do copyediting, with fresh eyes to notice things you might overlook from having worked on the article so much. Here are a few more examples:
- In the history section, there is a one-sentence paragraph that refers to General Motors. - "On November 29, 2006 GM announced plans to introduce a production plug-in hybrid version of Saturn's Greenline Vue SUV in 2009 with an all-electric range of 10 miles." The next paragraph is also about General Motors. Perhaps this sentence can be merged together with the next paragraph.
- The paragraph about the Volt could use copyediting. "On January 7, 2007, General Motors' Chevrolet Volt was unveiled at Detroit's North American International Auto Show.[17] The Volt is part of GM's E-Flex architecture, which is expected to initially feature a plug-in capable, battery-dominant series hybrid architecture. Future E-Flex plug-in hybrid vehicles may use gasoline, diesel, or hydrogen fuel cell power to supplement the vehicle's battery." The specific date and place of the launch may not matter to readers in the future. And the way it's written about E-Flex, it seems the reader should already know about it. I would probably just say "In January 2007, General Motors unveiled the Chevrolet Volt, which is expected to initially feature a plug-in capable, battery-dominant series E-Flex hybrid architecture." or something like that that makes it more concise.
- Also, take a look at User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a, specifically the sections on redundancy and improving flow. --Aude (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

- - Y Done I have incorporated all of the above suggestions that I understand. BenB4 05:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    - Except for getting more references in the powertrains section, which I am unqualified to do. My personal belief is that the reference included is sufficient to verify most of the section. I have asked for additional references there on the talk page.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] June 2007

[edit] Berlin

[edit] Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

[edit] William Shakespeare

[edit] To be done

[edit] Melodifestivalen

[edit] Gilbert and Sullivan

[edit] Idi Amin

[edit] Boy Scouts of America

[edit] Opera

[edit] Spider-Man 3

[edit] Vadodara

[edit] Liverpool F.C.

[edit] Northeastern United States tornado outbreak of 1989

[edit] iPod

[edit] No Diggity

[edit] La Toya Jackson

[edit] Gordon v. Gordon

[edit] 7:00AM-8:00AM (24 season 5)

[edit] St Michael's Mount

[edit] Birth certificate

[edit] 2006 FIFA World Cup

[edit] Rickey Henderson

[edit] Cantabria

[edit] J. R. Richard

[edit] Manhattan

[edit] Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident

[edit] Pentecostalism

[edit] The Amazing Race

[edit] Flag of Canada

[edit] United States

[edit] Bulk carrier

[edit] Tompkins Square Park Police Riot

[edit] Ronald Reagan

[edit] Federal Bureau of Investigation

[edit] Kraków

[edit] Grand Forks, North Dakota

[edit] Elk (Cervus canadensis)

[edit] National Safe Place

[edit] Economy of Mexico

[edit] Charizard

[edit] Flood (Halo)

[edit] Seung-Hui Cho

[edit] Xbox 360

[edit] David Rockefeller

[edit] 2008 UEFA European Football Championship

[edit] Providence, Rhode Island

[edit] University of Oklahoma

[edit] Maria Callas

[edit] Texas hold 'em

[edit] 1080° Snowboarding

[edit] Monte Ne

[edit] International Phonetic Alphabet

[edit] The Price Is Right (US game show)

[edit] Tropical cyclone

[edit] Amenhotep I

[edit] Casino Royale (2006 film)

[edit] Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta

[edit] State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)

[edit] Joe Sakic

[edit] Bionicle

[edit] University of California, Los Angeles

[edit] Mexico

[edit] GoldenEye

[edit] Michael Schumacher

[edit] Animal Liberation Front

[edit] Raëlian Church

[edit] Telecommunication

[edit] Harry Potter

[edit] L. Ron Hubbard

[edit] Sale, Greater Manchester

[edit] Harry Potter fandom

[edit] Plug-in hybrid

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search