Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] March 2008

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

The article was not promoted 20:27, 31 March 2008.

[edit] Channel Tunnel

Self-nominator. An article about an undersea railway tunnel. Commander Keane (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose—While it has a lot of good information, I don't think it's quite at FA readiness yet. Some of the writing is choppy (especially in the lead section), lacks flow and it needs some copyediting. Large stretches of the content lack citations. The sentence-breaking dashes flip-flop between a hyphen and an em-dash. There are multiple paragraphs that seem too brief at 1-2 sentences. The first use of units is not wikilinked. &c.—RJH (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Good points. Although the article probably still needs a copyedit I have tried to fix up the choppiness in the lead, added more citations to make it clear where info came from (the main lead and history/engineering leads are not sourced since they use info already sourced later in the article, but I could source them if felt it is helpful), I have written out many of the dashes and joined smaller paragraphs, and wikilinked the first use of units (as far as I can tell).--Commander Keane (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for addressing my concerns.—RJH (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Unfortunately I don't have the time to contribute fully to this FAC at the minute, but the article is vastly improved in a short time - esp. in terms of referencing and graphics Image:Channel Tunnel geological profile 1.svg is particularly good. Mark83 (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Some measurements are missing conversions, eg. "2.13 m diameter Beumont-English boring machine"
    • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence. Eg, this isn't a complete sentence: "Opening of the Channel Tunnel by Queen Elizabeth II and French President François Mitterrand in Calais on 6 May 1994."
    • Some date in the footnotes need linking.
    • The ref page numbers are inconsistently formatted; some include "p.", while others don't.
    • Numbers under 10 should generally be spelled out, eg., "British Rail ordered 7 more".
    • There are one or two dead links. Epbr123 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply:I have added more conversions, fixed the incomplete caption, I couldn't find the dates in the footnotes that need linking (can you point it out?), ref "p"s have been conformed, I left the "7" in "British Rail ordered 7 more" as throughout the paragraph there are numbers like "46" and "12", but the "7" could be changed. Oh yeah, the dead link is fixed now.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Can we fix up the references so they are in alphabetical order and the ones that lack authors have something besides the (date) in the front part?
Otherwise sources and sites look fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply: I have put the sources in alphabetical order (where there was no author I used the name of the book). I agree having the date first looks weird, I have asked a Talk:Cite book why that is, maybe someone reading this knows the solution?--Commander Keane (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Ok I fixed up the references into alphabetical order, putting in the institution as the author works.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The overlinking was significant—I've weeded some out at the top, but more needs to be done further down. Why on earth are the units linked every time (why even the first time)?
  • "A UK/France government backed scheme"—two MOS breaches: en dash "UK–France" and a hyphen (you tell me where).
  • "a high speed rail line"—no, "high-speed"; there are several of these.
  • "Over a dozen refugees died in various crossing attempts." Pick the redundant word.TONY (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply:I couldn't find the other area of overlinking, could you help to point it out? The units are not linked every time on my screen, they are linked the first time because someone asked for that above, does anyone know if the Manual of Style says anything about linking units? I think I fixed the hyphen/dash problem, the high-speed hyphen issue, and I fixed the redundant word in the refugee sentence.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 10 workers died during construction; details? Were these workplace accidents? Or coincidental deaths to be expected given the number of man-years invested in construction?
  • "there was no campaign"; I have no idea what this phrase is intended to mean.
  • Many references appearing as "Flyvbjerg": are all of these references to Flyvbjerg, B. Buzelius, N. Rothengatter, W. (2003) in the bibliography? Or to some other source?
When using both inline references and a bibliography, I think it works better to treat the two sections as independent of each other, ignoring the fact that a source can appear in both. So, give the Flyvbjerg et al in full in the references section.
  • I think the "Tunnels" PBS television show in David Macaulay's Building Big series is worth a mention. It has a lot of film footage of the Eurotunnel construction and is very well done. --Una Smith (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless there is a web page about the documentary, how about mentioning it in the text? Surely there are other documentaries? --Una Smith (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The article structure is awkward. Several times it introduces a topic then leaves the reader hanging while it goes on to introduce something else. I think some reorganizing is needed, but also the article generally lacks "connecting" prose that helps the reader follow from one topic to another.
I like Rotavirus; I will try to demonstrate in this article what I mean. --Una Smith (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Channel Tunnel#History (at FAC). --Una Smith (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: I will look into the deaths. I have explained the campaign. "Flyvbjerg" does relate to the item in the bibliogprahy, I have added "et al." - does that help clear up the situation? Do you mean for the PBS television show to appear in a "Recommended sources" section or in an "Appearances in film/literature section? Is some of the awkwardness in the article structure due the "History" and "Engineering" sections having their own summary? Also, if you could provide an example of an article with connecting prose that would be helpful. Regards, --Commander Keane (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Now oppose because on second reading I think the article needs significant reorganization. --Una Smith (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - disposition of the section very casual: the usage in the history? MOJSKA 666 (msg) 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:27, 31 March 2008.

[edit] Eva Cassidy

Self-nominator. Passed GA on March 5th. Had a peer review that ran two weeks. Addressed the one review. Onesixfivedottwoone (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It shows the reader what the article is talking about when it speaks about the low quality black and white video being played on a music television program. Would that rationale fit WP:NFCC#8? I fixed the other two issue(hopefully). --165.21.154.92 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The image isn't even in black and white. Why do we need to see an image to understand that there was a music video (do we think that little of the reader's intelligence)? How is our understanding significantly enhanced? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
A black and white video got played on a pop music tv program. Despite the low video quality, it was very popular and contributed significantly to her commercial success. You don't think a picture illustrating the quality of the video we are talking about adds to the reader's understanding?--165.21.154.92 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Adding to the reader's understanding isn't the test. The test is significantly adding to the reader's understanding. The prose in your reply here is itself adequate to demonstrate that the video had an impact on her success. Seeing the video does, I would argue, nothing to assist our comprehension of this fact – at the very least nothing significant; it's usage here is decorative, which is not acceptable per WP:NFCC. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There is already a separate rationale below the first one. Apart from the purpose of use, all the other fields would have been the same. I filled in another rationale template just in case.--165.21.154.92 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
From the goole search here, you can access the "view as html" link. Not sure why the direct link is not working.
    • http://evacassidy.org/eva/harr96.htm is to an online backup of the Washington Post article that isn't hosted by the Post. It would be nice to have a link to the article as hosted by the Post or make it clear that the online link is to a non-Post site.
I can't find a Post link except for pay to view sites. Do I just add a "Hosted on evacassidy.org" after the retrieved date? Is there a recommended style for that?
I think there is a style, I just don't know it exactly. Hopefully an MOS-maven will step in here.... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article, it says that they are rebroadcasting the story on her, indicating that the emails are positive. Would that constitute OR? I don't mind removing it though as the album sales on Amazon and the repeat broadcast due to demand is already indicative of the reaction.
I lean towards considering it OR, personally. They don't specifically say that the emails were positive, just that they got a lot. Like you, I am pretty sure they were positive, but... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the site, but google news links to it. I think it is a reliable enough source for what we are citing. Google news also turns up this article from another site I know nothing about but backs up the first link.
All other links check out okay with the little link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments.
    • The lead does not adequately summarize the article. There is good information about her albums, but not about her life.
    • The second paragraph in the early years section seems a little off. First it talks about High School, then goes back to age 11. This should probably be reorganized.
    • Please make sure that in the citations, newspaper names are italicized. I fixed some of these for you, but there are more.
    • Are these reliable sources?
      • Washingtonian.com
      • broadwayworld.com
      • steve-smith.tv

Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 20:27, 31 March 2008.

[edit] Walter de Coventre

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's gone through review and is, I think, at the stage where it can come for a proper review here. I've set the time aside at least to deal with issues, so thank you in advance for your input. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose: it badly needs a copyedit, I'm afraid. Examples...
    • "Born perhaps in the early 14th century from a family near Abernethy, Scotland...": I don't like where "perhaps" is placed there; "born from a family" seems a bit strange, but not a major problem I suppose.
    • "Despite holding these, perhaps more than five Scottish benefices at one stage, he did not return to Scotland until the late 1350s, meaning that he had been absent from his home country for more than a quarter of a century.": The quarter of a century bit at the end seems unnecessary when you've given dates. The reader should be able to figure it out for themselves easily, and it doesn't seem to be of major significance.
      • Useful, I think, to point out to the reader a logical conclusion which they may well fail to draw from a bald list of dates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "When he did return to Scotland...": there's a redundancy in there.
      Removed to Scotland. If you meant the did, I presume you didn't, there is actual a slight difference in tense between returned and did return, so that wouldn't be redundant. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "...both with the Scottish church and with the Earl of Mar.": there's a word repeated that doesn't need to be.
    • "He died either in 1371 or in 1372.": try "He died in either 1371 or 1372", avoiding the repetition of "in".
      • I considered that. Either in 1371 or 1372 is unbalanced; I find in 1371 or 1372 slightly misleading: it's not a question of an illegible digit. We know he was alive at a specific date in 1371: we know his successor was appointed in 1372. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The image captions have incorrect punctuation; see the MOS.
      • MOScruft; another instance where MOS forbids idiomatic English because of the prejudice of a couple of editors. Many writers feel sentences in captions should have periods. So also with sentence fragments.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

      • And this may be an error. The actual rule from MOS is that a fragment accompanied by complete sentences, like 19th century map of the diocese of Dunblane and its surrounding dioceses. Note that Abernethy, although physically separate from most of the rest of the diocese, was part of the Dunblane diocese. should have periods. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, you're right about that one. I should have made it clear that it was some that were incorrect. Chwech 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure lots of work has gone into this—it's worth persevering; take it to WP:LoCE for a copyedit. Chwech 21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

      • The remainder of these consist largely of minor redundancies which clarify the structure of the complex sentences in which they fall. I am happy to consider them again, but I would have made all of them (although my connection with this article is slight, I did make one of them); and I do not consider they are the difference between promotion and non-promotion. We have multiple writers; our style ought not be uniform. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I still have problems, having read the article further. "Precided" (in the lead) is certainly not a stylistic choice, it's a typo. Again "14th century" should be "14th-century": there are two instances of this in the first section after the lead. "...would remain in captivity until ransomed in 1357.": why not simply "remained in captivity". Chwech 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I have fixed presided, as Chwech could have done; but finding typoes is one of the things this process is for. 14th century university education is sound American, and I suspect it is sound Scottish; putting in hyphens not required for clarity is an Anglicism. See WP:ENGVAR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I would leave would remain; it covers a different span of time than the remained earlier in the same paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
          • @ Ghwe, I'll go over it for another copy-edit. I don't think the hyphens is either US or British English or what not, or that there is any more reason to put one at 14th= rather than 14th. The article 14th century is at 14th century so I'd just leave it there. If it makes a difference between, I guess I can change them, but it doesn't seem either helpful or unhelpful. If I were to use the dashes, I'd have to change "12th and 13th century England" to "12th- and 13th-century England", which I'm sure would irritate some people as ugly. Thanks for your help and thanks very much to PMAnderson for doing my job for me. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Fair enough, message me when you're done. Thanks for responding. Chwech 15:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
              • OK, went over it and gave it another copyedit. I am of course the least likely to have problems with the idiosyncrasies of my own prose, but I tried! Anyways, say what you think. Thanks again for the help. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Oppose struck, just two minor issues I can see:

  • "badly-paid" (in Benefices) - no need for a hyphen here, I think. It's unlikely that someone will mistake the wording for "badly performed by paid vicars".
  • "...the abbey have given some lands..." - should this be "had"?

Thanks for having a go, I know how difficult it can be to copyedit something you wrote yourself. Chwech 19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Yes, two new things introduced from the last copy-edit. Woe is me. Fixed. Anything else? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Sorry, forgot to :) The wording isn't perfect yet, I think, but that's not my forte and the LoCE copyedit should sort it out. Good luck. Chwech 19:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support provided Deacon responds to this comment. I don't see anything that would embarass us to put on the front page, but would like to discuss the infobox.
    • Can we replace the ×'s in the info-box too? Perhaps 1361-71 or 1372 although this is where the '×' pays for itself in condensing a complex situation into standard symbols, even if it is hard on the general reader.
    • Do you really mean Consecration September 4 × August 23, 1361 or is Sept. an error? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I first met this article at PR and copy-edited it there; beyond that I have no connection with the article and little with its subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed the xes. Just about manageable there. Sept. was a mistake. There's a pencil mark on the version of my source which caused this. Anything I missed? Thanks! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Some dates need linking, eg. "On December 7, 1345, Walter was appointed"
    • Some compound adjectives need hyphens, eg. "14th century Scottish ecclesiastic"
    • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
    • Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "40 marks"
    • There is some incorrect dash usage in the footnotes and timeline boxes. Epbr123 (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Changed all accordingly except the last point There is some incorrect dash usage in the footnotes and timeline boxes. My keyboard only has one dash on it, but if you can explain and direct me to the dash appropriate, I shall fix. Thanks for your comments. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Date and page ranges need en dashes, as per WP:DASH. En dashes can be placed by either typing "–" or using the first dash icon next to "Insert" under the edit summary box when in edit mode. Epbr123 (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments

All other links check out fine. I'll try to get back later and review more in depth. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

      • Thanks Ealdgyth. I just drag such refs from a larger ref dump. I think I fixed them. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Slight support with some concerns over wordy prose. I've listed the ones I found most jarring below.

  • In the lead, the first paragraph, the third fourth and fifth sentences all start with "He..." (as well as the second phrase in the second sentence) which gets really repetitive. Consider rewording one or two?
  • Same section and paragraph, the last sentence first phrase seems awkward to me. Perhaps "Despite holding perhaps as many as five Scottish benefices at one stage, he ..."
  • "senior official business"? I think I'd say "high level ecclesiastical and political affairs" but that is a personal choice. The current wording just seems off to me though.
  • General background section, first paragraph, last sentence is a bit convoluted. Maybe "This patronage gave access to the resources, either direct..."?
  • Same section, last paragraph, third sentence. Perhaps "In the 1330's civil war raged in Scotland as Edward Balliol and his English backers fought those loyal to young David." thus cutting out verbiage and avoiding the dreaded passive voice.
  • The next to last sentence of the paragraph is also a bit awkward to me. Perhaps reword?
  • Education section. Perhaps explain what the proctor of the Scottish Nation meant at a medieval university?
  • Those were the big awkward wordings I noticed. It might not hurt to find someone to do a very thorough copyedit as there are lots of places that have wordy sections.
A very nice article on someone who doesn't give you much information to work with. I'm very impressed with how you managed to tweak out the most from the meager sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the lead, the first paragraph, the third fourth and fifth sentences all start with "He..." (as well as the second phrase in the second sentence) which gets really repetitive. Consider rewording one or two?
    • Done:
  • Same section and paragraph, the last sentence first phrase seems awkward to me. Perhaps "Despite holding perhaps as many as five Scottish benefices at one stage, he ..."
    • Reworded.
  • "senior official business"? I think I'd say "high level ecclesiastical and political affairs" but that is a personal choice. The current wording just seems off to me though.
    • Reworded.
  • General background section, first paragraph, last sentence is a bit convoluted. Maybe "This patronage gave access to the resources, either direct..."?
    • Reworded.
  • Same section, last paragraph, third sentence. Perhaps "In the 1330's civil war raged in Scotland as Edward Balliol and his English backers fought those loyal to young David." thus cutting out verbiage and avoiding the dreaded passive voice.
    • replaced with "In the 1330s civil war raged in Scotland as Edward Balliol and his English backers fought those loyal to the young David"
  • The next to last sentence of the paragraph is also a bit awkward to me. Perhaps reword?
    • Attempted a rewording here.
  • Education section. Perhaps explain what the proctor of the Scottish Nation meant at a medieval university?
  • Those were the big awkward wordings I noticed. It might not hurt to find someone to do a very thorough copyedit as there are lots of places that have wordy sections.
    • I did list it on the LoC page, to no avail so far. Maybe I can bug someone, though one hates to stretch friendships by pressuring them to copyedit. :)
  • A very nice article on someone who doesn't give you much information to work with. I'm very impressed with how you managed to tweak out the most from the meager sources.
    • Thanks! The guy is very interesting, I must say. Was a bit of a squeeze, but there we are, sometimes the momentum just carries you. Thanks for the helful comments. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Oppose sorry, the prose is poor. Here are some examples:

  • There is no direct evidence on his birthdate, his family, or their origin; he may well have come from Abernethy, Scotland, - on his birthdate? may well have ?
  • Scotland until the late 1350s, meaning that he had been absent from his home country - meaning that?
  • When he did return, he returned  ?
  • After the completion of university education, some Scottish graduates of the period would stay abroad and teach at a foreign university, or sometimes they would take service with the papacy, but most often they would return to Scotland and offer their services to the king, to a magnate or to an ecclesiastical institution - One sentence.
  • No modern historian has written any monograph about him ?

The article needs a good copy edit; it's been presented here too soon.--GrahamColmTalk 16:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • There is no direct evidence on his birthdate, his family, or their origin; he may well have come from Abernethy, Scotland, - on his birthdate? may well have ?
    • Call me mad, but I don't see anything wrong mit that.
  • Scotland until the late 1350s, meaning that he had been absent from his home country - meaning that?
    • I don't follow, but it has been changed anyways. :)
  • When he did return, he returned  ?
    •  ?
  • No modern historian has written any monograph about him ?
    • What's the problem? :)
  • After the completion of university education, some Scottish graduates of the period would stay abroad and teach at a foreign university, or sometimes they would take service with the papacy, but most often they would return to Scotland and offer their services to the king, to a magnate or to an ecclesiastical institution
    • Again, I don't have a problem here.
  • The article needs a good copy edit; it's been presented here too soon.
    • Not sure about that. Been around for a while (including a long gestation period in my userspace), FA review probably is the only place where such a topic would receive any attention. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose based primarily on prose issues. The prose is overly verbose, and should be tightened. I've listed a few examples below, but I see that more are above. Overall, though, the topic is interesting and the article appears comprehensive.
    • He should be referred to by his surname instead of his first name unless there would be confusion. In the lead, he is always referred to as "Walter", and in the body he is referred to as either de Coventre, Walter de Coventre, or Walter. (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Names). I've fixed much of this in the body of the article
    • There appears to be a problem with this sentence: This patronage gave access to the resources needed to finance the considerable expenses of a 14th-century university education, particularly direct financial indirect financial patronage through presentation to benefices
    • The tables in the Education and Benefices sections are not very well formatted. These should probably have two columns - one for date range, one for event.
    • I think the article should explain what a benefice, canonry and prebend are briefly, rather than expect readers to leave the article to go find this information (but keep the wikilink so those interested can get more detailed information). Terms like this that are basic to the understanding of the article should be very briefly defined.
    • Here are just a few examples of why a thorough copyedit is needed.
      • All of the paragraphs in Education section begin with "He" or "de Coventre". These need to be varied a bit.
      • To modern historians, Walter is only the second known canon of Abernethy Collegiate Church -> "to modern historians" is redundant
      • but nevertheless agreed to appoint (provide) Walter to the bishopric - why have (provide)? Most people understand the meaning of appoint, and it's not necessary to include the official/archaic term as well
      • The Benefices section reads a lot like proseline
    • I'm confused as to why there is such detail about King David? I assumed on reading that section that de Coventre's life would have some connection to the difficulties in Scotland, but is appears that he spent the whole time in France. If the length of stay in France was connected to the difficulties, then that should be made explicit. If not, then I think most of that information about King David does not belong in this article. A very brief explanation of the troubles could be added into the later years section, when it discusses the truce, but I don't think it needs to be at the beginning of the article.
    • The sources are not cited consistently. For example, Please be consistent and used named refs when possible.
      • Watt, "Coventre, Walter de", Dictionary, pp. 114-5.
      • Watt, Dictionary, pp. 114-5.

Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. I believe that most, if not all, of the significant prose issues raised to date have been dealt with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The comment above was entered after this FAC was archived.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:27, 31 March 2008.

[edit] Metroid (series)

This article should be featured, it is comprehensive, has good images, lots of out-of-universe content, and just needs a brass star :) Please comment! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In Ealdgyth's absence, I see at least one blog and at least one missing publisher; pls check sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I wikilinked a bunch of publishers, I didn't find the blog, which one was it? Also, which publishers are needed? They look like they are all there. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
ah, ha could be in the formatting (publisher not listed after title, and for some reason, EGM italicized and listed before)??
  • EGM staff (2001). Electronic Gaming Monthly's 100 Best Games of All Time. Retrieved on November 17, 2006.
And, http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2007/09/26/retro-studios-answers-the-dreaded-metroid-dread-question-and-other-prime-exclusives/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I formatted the one reference. Do you think that MTV isn't a reliable source? It looks like a legitimate interview, and they are a big American television network. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment:
    • I feel History should really have a sentence or two on the development of each game in the series.
    • Any other notable figure work on the subsequent games aside from Yokoi? If yes can Creation and design be expanded in that regard?
    • Audio section lacks any information about most of the games in the series.
    • Second paragraph of reception is lacking. I was hoping to a briefing on the reviewer and financial (sales) reactions to each game in the series.

All for now, thanks. 76.10.141.186 (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comment! Here are some responses;
    • The history section is about the development of the whole series, and the section on the games covers individual games.
    • Yokoi is far and away the most importance originator of Metroid, but many others helped out and they are mentioned.
    • I'm not sure that there is such information for every one of them, or that that is needed, but I will beef it up.
    • Again, this is a series article, so reviews and sales data for every game is not necessary, but I will try to add some more. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I added two sentences to the audio section, one to the Development section, a sentence to the music reception section, and sales figures on 4 of the 10 games with 4 references. So, added 8 more references. Let me know if you have any other concerns, or responses to my comments! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Further comments:

  • In the Aggregate review scores table how come the original metroid row mentions a "gba remake" (in brackets) which oddly isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, even the games section.
  • The history section of development in my mind should give a mention to all/most games in the series. After all it's the history of the series. As of now it only loosely mentions Metroid, Super Metroid, Prime and Corruption. The second problem is the section is suffering from flow and comprehensive issues. By flow I mean that the transition from game to game/point to point is very awkward (prose wise) and in places very sudden. The comprehensive issues is that the section doesn't really answer 2 concrete question I wanted answered about each game: Why was it developed? What changes were made gameplay/graphic wise or basically which overall direction the developers went?
  • Continuing from the above point Creation and design should probably be merged with History. I don't see how the two areas have any fundamental difference.
  • The problem with the audio section is the same I had before, Tanaka is the only composer mentioned and he only worked on the original game. Most games aren't mentioned while the Metroid Prime series sentences don't really talk about the music/sound effects themselves but rather the technical aspect. As of now I don't really see anything to back up the first sentence "The Metroid series has been especially noted for its music" just from this section alone.
  • For some reason the Reception section has a lot more information on the audio than the audio section. I propose all that information be transfered to the audio section. When it comes to the reception section I would think that reviewers and people reading reviews would be more concerned with the gameplay/story rather than audio (although not to say it's not important). I'm not sure why the reception section doesn't reflect this assumption and concentrates on the audio aspect (unless I'm wrong of course). :)
  • In regards to your point about summary form and not mentioning every game in the series I don't want a paragraph on each but rather if the game was mediocre and received average reviews then that's enough to mention, no need to go into he said/she said (critics) this and that. I think going on that principal everything would work fine.

Thanks, 76.10.165.152 (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Here we go!
    • I added a reference to the Game Boy Advance release of the game.
    • I've worked on the prose and added a few sentences, but as I said before, the history section is about the games generally and most of the specifics on the games is in the games section. The creators section is about who made the games, and would probably not fit well into the history section if we have to keep repeating who made each game and so on. It flows better after the copyedit.
    • Also, the reason the reception section has more audio is because that is all reaction to the audio and music, and the Audio Section is about how they made Metroid music and why. I changed the opening statement of that section. I did add the composer of the Prime trilogy and Super Metroid, and another sentence or two.
    • Not every game needs to be mentioned for exactly the reason you say, non of them have ever gotten mediocre reviews overall, they have all been highly praised.
) Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why is it that there's an image of Ridley, and not of central character Samus Aran? What's the rationale behind that? - hahnchen 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. Do you think it should be Samus instead? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If you need a character picture at all, it should be Samus or the eponymous Metroid. - hahnchen 03:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I replace Ridley with Samus :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like a good amount of effort has been put into improving this article, and I can suggest nothing more to do to it myself. Therefore, I give the nomination my full support. -- Comandante {Talk} 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Good effort! Looks like a lot of work was put into this article. Gary King (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, due to grammar concerns. I'll post them as I find them. Examples:
    • "From Mario, the game had extensive areas of platform jumping, and from Zelda, non-linear exploration, but Metroid decidedly differs from those games in its atmosphere of solitude and foreboding." Doesn't flow correctly, should clarify "the game".
    • The lead doesn't really summarize the entire article, and is rather short. What about the adaptations? And is there anything on the cultural impact of the series?
    • In terms of sources about the games, the Metroid retrospective could provide some more info.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I know you are a featured article creator extrordinare these days, but are you sure Gametrailers is a reliable source? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It is when I say it is! :P No, if it's the work of GT staff it is, I believe (like the Metroid, LoZ, Final Fantasy retrospectives, et al)- but user videos are definitely not included. Still, a fair question; perhaps we should ask at VT:VG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "The Metroid series currently consists of ten games across different video game platforms" - why not mention them, i.e. "The Metroid series consists of ten games spanning Nintendo platforms from the [etc]"
    • "...that had no distinction between music and sound effects" - this last clause is tacked on, rephrase so it's clear that "score" is the subject/noun in question.
    • "The Metroid series has been noted and praised for its unique style of video game music." this should have multiple citations to back it up.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, 1a. The article is thorough, but lacks fit and finish and a professional standard of prose. I note that you have not gotten a peer review, which should have been done before coming here. The article needs a thorough copyedit by an uninvolved editor. Some examples follow:
    • The hatnote/disambig link and all the SR stuff needs addressing. I'm guessing the actual name of the planet is "SR338" (although you write it different ways within the article) but "SR338" redirects to List of highways numbered 338. So you took the leftovers and redirected them here? The better solution would be to have all variants redirect to a disambiguation page that points them to the highway article or here. You can't guess if someone typing those in would be looking for a Metroid article or a highway article.
    • In the lead you are mixing verb tenses: "Metroid combined..." and "The series features..." They should probably all be present tense.
    • "The Metroid series consists of ten games spanning Nintendo platforms from the [etc]" Looks like a remnant of the first sentence in the next paragraph.
    • "The Metroid series currently consists of ten games spanning Nintendo Platforms from the Nintendo Entertainment System, Super Nintendo, Game Boy, Game Boy Advance, GameCube, and Wii." Grammar.. a "from" without a "to".
    • "Samus Aran has also been featured in many other Nintendo produced games..." Second "also" in a row. "Nintendo-produced" should be hyphenated.
    • "Metroid has had several games adapted into manga comics and a live-action movie was at one point in development." Metroid had the games adapted, or Nintendo did? The live-action clause needs a rewrite.
This is just the lead, but is indicative of problems throughout. --Laser brain (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Lately, peer reviews are an exercise in futility, and I wont be blamed for not utilizing them until they start being useful. As for the rest copyediting, I will get on it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a new list of PR volunteers that you can tap once listed at PR: also see WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 for helpful tips on how to get PR to work more effectively (you've got to recruit :-). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I meant to mention that. Since putting my name on the list a couple weeks ago I've already been tapped for 3-4 peer reviews that I would not have sought on my own. I got a peer review on one of my own articles by asking at a WikiProject and offering help in return. The benefit of a peer review is that you get your own tired eyes off the article and some fresh ones on, which this article needs. --Laser brain (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:05, 31 March 2008.

[edit] Ozzie Smith

Self-nominator; I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I've worked on it since September 2007 and believe that it now meets the Featured Article requirements. Monowi (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - please delete the underlining in the references, for the respect to the manual of style. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comment; the issue has now been resolved. Monowi (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the link you're looking for is located here: [3]. This is another website that editors of WikiProject Baseball encourage the utilization of. In the Featured Article Lee Smith (baseball), pages on this website are cited as references on more than five separate occasions. Technically, the publisher of this reference website is Sports Reference, LLC, so I will amend the references in Ozzie's article to reflect this right away. Monowi (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Baseball almanac is an resource that is suggested for use by WikiProject Baseball under their "Resources" section. The website has been utilized in a similar article, the Featured Article Lee Smith (baseball) (references #37 & #38 on that particular article). Monowi (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The Baseball Cube is another resource recommended by WikiProject Baseball editors in their "Resources" section. Information about the site, the data it uses, and its history can be found here: [4]. If you still have concerns about the reliability of the Baseball Cube, please comment here again, & I will gladly use info from an alternative site, like Baseball-reference.com, in it's place. Monowi (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
All other links checked out fine. I'm sure some/most of the sites I'm questioning above are fine, I am not exactly clued into baseball websites. Better to ask! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments; they have been extremely helpful in polishing the References section! Monowi (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments

Not really time to do a full review so I'm just going to look at the lead for now.

  • Long and yet only two paragraphs.
  • Mentions that he became a HoF in 2002 twice.
  • "Over the course of his 19-year career Smith accumulated some impressive offensive statistics as well" "impressive" is POV and what does "as well" mean?
Changed the wording of that sentence to remove POV material and the words "as well." Monowi (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Major League Baseball shortstop" something like "player who primarily played shortstop" would be better.
According to Ozzie's fielding statistics I found here, Ozzie never appeared in a Major League game at any other defensive position aside from shortstop. Therefore, I feel the change in the wording you are proposing would be less accurate than what is currently included in the article. Monowi (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "won 13 consecutive Gold Glove Awards" a non-exspert will not understand the significance of this.
Explained the significance of the Gold Glove by changing the second sentence of the intro to read,"Nicknamed "The Wizard of Oz", he is widely recognized as one of the greatest defensive players in baseball history, winning the Gold Glove Award for defensive excellence at shortstop for a span of 13 consecutive seasons." Do you think this is adequate explanation? Monowi (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A lot of stuff not really notable enough for the lead.
Is there anything in particular you could point out? Monowi (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And yet no mention of some thing with I think are lead worthy, such as his number being retired, hosting TWIB and his base sealing ability.
I have now added both of these info bits into the introduction. Monowi (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Buc (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, tentatively. I'll go take another look through and let you know what I find, I just snow these fail within two weeks without at least one person supporting. Wizardman 17:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:05, 31 March 2008.

[edit] Sheffield Rules

Self nom. I've been reasearching/editing this article and recently published books as well as a peer review have got it up to what I hope is FA standard. josh (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 02:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Sheffield F. C. - The Club" reference has no publisher information at the very least. I'm not sure the club itself is necessarily the best source for the information that they introduced a bunch of concepts into the game. You also repeat this reference later in the article, it could be combined. (current refs 2 and 52)
  • The Alcock Football: Our Winter Game reference needs a page number.
  • The History of English Football reference needs publisher information at the very least. It looks like it is self-published, at least I couldn't find any information on who puts the page out.
    • Okay, now that it has a publisher, I'm still not sure it's a reliable source. The home page of the site doesn't list a staff, or editorial policies. The page itself doesn't list any sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 19 "Minutes of the Meeting" is lacking author and publisher information. Ideally it would be a published source so others can verify information, not in an archive.
    • Did you replace this reference? Or am I going blind from reading so many footnotes? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The A. Drake "Sheffield Early Matches" ref lacks publisher information.
    • Did you delete this reference?
  • "New' I just noticed that you have Hutton, Steve History of Sheffield Football Club and Hutton, Steve, Graham Curry, Peter Goodman History of Sheffield Football Club 150 Years of Football . Are these the same? If so, the first reference needs to be expanded to match the second. If they are different, the first reference should have a publishing year on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
All links checked out okay with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I've sorted out most of the references and the majority now have page numbers. The only exception is Football: Our Winter Game that is difficult to get hold of so I won't be able to get a page number until I make a trip to one of the libraries that have it. I've replaced the club source with an independant article. Upon rechecking the sparticus ref I found that it was flawed so the sentance has been removed. josh (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The club ref has now been replaced with a bbc article (ref 2). I have removed the alcock reference as I can't get hold of a specific page. In the lead i've replaced it with positional innovations instead. I've replaced 'History of English Football' with a book reference (ref 19). 'Minutes of meeting' and A. Drake have been replaced with similar refs found within 'From Sheffield with Love' (refs 20 and 69). The confusion of the title with the Hutton book was down to varing titles on the cover and inside. I looked it up on amazon et al and they actually have the title as 'Sheffield F.C.' so i'm now using that (refs 25 and 46). josh (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Very informative, well written, well referenced and supported by some nice images. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments from The Rambling Man
  • Images shouldn't have specific thumbnail sizes, use WP:MOS#Images to find a suitable modifier.
  • "that lasted three days " unusual, could use explanation.
  • "Several sporting clubs had arisen " clumsy prose.
  • Expand (and maybe link) AGM before using it.
  • "Team photo of Sheffield " - photograph.
  • "In 1861 Rouges " - why capitalise rouge?
  • "An incident occurred when Nathaniel Creswick was being held by Shaw and Waterfall. Accounts differ over subsequent events. The original report stated that Creswick was accidentally punched by Waterfall. This was contested in a letter from the Hallam players that claimed that it was in retaliation for a blow thrown by Nathaniel Creswick. Whatever the cause the result was a general riot, which also involved a number of spectators, after which Waterfall was sent to guard the goal as punishment." needs citation.
  • Place (FA) after the first mention of the Football Association.
  • Birth of competition section has too many really short paragraphs, merge some to improve flow.
  • Put (IFAB) after first mention of expanded version.
  • "While causing much amusement when the side visited London in 1866, the header would become an important feature of the national game." citation needed.

That's about it, some work needed before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented all the changes you recomended. The two cite problems actually had cites at the end of the previous sentence. I have moved them to the end of the paragraphs to make it a bit clearer. I've updated the images as per MOS. josh (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:05, 31 March 2008.

[edit] Max Mosley

Self-nominator as one of several major contributors to this article I'm nominating it for featured article status. The article is currently listed as a good article and has under gone a peer review. I feel that meets all the criteria of a Featured article, it is a comprehensive insight into Max Mosley and his intresting background. It is (as far as i can judge) well written, neutral and stable. I think this article is of intrest to a wide range of people. Looking forward to your comments. Tommy turrell (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Object - The article is very recentist - that's the first thing that I can see. I am also a bit surprised that there isn't much in there about Moseley being criticised for being pro-Ferrari and pro-MS. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it's not madly recentist: the lengths of sections are broadly in line with length of time covered and the importance of what happened. About two-thirds of the article covers the period before 1990, for example. However, I agree that far too much space is given to the 2005 USGP and particularly to the 2007 season. I'll take my word-smithing machete to them. Is there anything other than those two sections that you felt was disproportionately long?
  • OK, they're shorter now. Does that do the trick, Blnguyen? 4u1e (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Re Ferrari and Schumacher, I agree in principle. In practice, we need sourced opinions to that effect (which I will try to find), and we need to be careful not to conflate Mosley the man with the FIA; it's not always him that makes these decisions. Since we're really talking about the period 1999 - 2006 (The FIA were perceived to be decidedly anti-Schumacher in 1994, for example), we also need to add this without adding to the perceived problem of recentism ;-). If I can find reliable sources, I'll add the comments you suggest. 4u1e (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet some people (http://www.grandprixgames.org/read.php?3,41044) suggesting that Max Mosley "'fixed' the outcome of an FIA World Council disciplinary hearing" to ensure that Benetton and MS weren't excluded when Benetton were found with an illegal fuel rig in 1994. Only bring it up too illistrate 4u1e's point about how tricky this would be to add comment from reliable sources.
However I too agree in principle about the perception that Mosley was/is pro-Ferrari and pro-MS. There is always paul Stoddart's Ferrari international assistance (FIA) quote (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=32733) but I worry about to much criticism becasue it might start getting disproportionate to the rest of the text.Tommy turrell (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, this is perhaps a bit random, but I've added a sentence on the supposed Ferrari bias, and ref'd it using three different news stories from three different news organisations over an 8 year period. Does that do the trick? I'm a bit worried we're leading the witness with this one. 4u1e (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Note to FAC director, Blnguyen struck his comment above, so is presumably content. I've had no more specific contact from him. 4u1e (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments All sources look good now.
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Neutral: I have no time to further review this article
  • "Molsey was accused of being motivated by an anti-McLaren agenda, with his historically difficult relationship with Ron Dennis, his warning that continued success for Lewis Hamilton may eventually be negative for Formula One[63] and by saying that he was relieved that Ferrari's Kimi Räikkönen won the 2007 driver’s championship[64] being mentioned as evidence of this."
  • "At the Euro NCAP 10th Anniversary Conference in November 2005, Mosley suggested that "the moment has come where the emphasis really has to move from the improvement of the performance of the car in a crash, to the avoidance of the crash entirely." by much wider use of 'eSafety' technologies such as Electronic Stability Control (ESC)."
  • "Mosley has announced a 10-year freeze on the development of engines, which would allow manufacturers to spend more of their budgets on environmentally friendly technology such as Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS),[46] which were first introduced into Formula One by the McLaren team but are currently banned by the FIA.[47]"
  • These are single sentences! Please rewrite as simplified/shorter sentences, and get a copy-edit of the entire article done. indopug (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • OK - I'll ce myself and try and round up a couple of non-contributors to do a final check. The lead time at LoCE is unfortunately far too long to be helpful here. Did you notice any other generic problems with prose other than over-long sentences? 4u1e (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I and a few others have gone through it. I've requested copyedits from WP:LoCE (but the backlog goes back to last year) and from WP:PRV to get a truly fresh pair of eyes. Comment from original reviewer on current state of article would be appreciated. 4u1e (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Image:March240.jpg‎ contains contradictory copyright information. Summary implies copyright is held by www.greatracingcars.co.uk, yet license says User:Lebkuchenteile has released to PD. Copyright would seem to be owned by 1) the website or 2) the manufacturer/designer of the 3D piece. Please resolve if image is to be utilized. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Good catch, thank you. Replaced with a pic of the full-sized car, which does not seem to have the same licensing issues. 4u1e (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Good deal. Better image, too. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, in a way, I'd prefer a pic of the toy, because that's really the point we're making, but the car itself is an adequate representation. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I peer reviewed the article after it attained GA and all of my concerns were addressed. Despite my obvious interest in motorsport, I am not a Formula One fan and I had never heard of him before I reviewed the article. Royalbroil 13:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As a reader who is not an avid fan of motor sports, I found this article informative, well-written, and well referenced. I did encounter an awkward sentence here and there. An example: "However, the association of his surname with Fascism has stopped him from developing his interest in politics further." Why not write, "However, his father's widely publicized links to Fascism prevented Mosley from pursuing a political career"? Although the article devotes a good deal of space to Mosley's family background (a detail that can hardly be ignored), it doesn't allow this issue to overshadow the subject's involvement in international motor sports. I found this to be an engaging introduction to a figure I had known nothing about. -- twelsht (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I personally don't approve of the man but that's not what's we're discussing ;-). I was very impressed with the article and I think the authors did a very good job. I'll be putting in my support for this article to become FA.--Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 10:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • V. minor: "Mosley is the son of Sir Oswald Mosley." Starting the main body with an 8 word sentence isn't perfect. It should be integrated with the succeeding sentence (they are related after all)
      • Done.4u1e (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Diana > Lady Diana?
      • Done, Apart from pre Marrage Tommy turrell (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Just a thought, I was worried that Lady Diana would sound too much like the Daily Mail's favourite dead royal. Shouldn't be any chance of confusion, though. 4u1e (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Oswald > Sir Oswald?
      • Done, apart from when quoting Tommy turrell (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "Their children were refused entry to several schools, due to a combination of their wildness and their parents' reputation, and were initially tutored at home instead." needs cite?
      • Done - This was also brought up at peer review, it was rejected at the time becasue it is covered in other ref but seeing as this has come up twice now its possibly best to have a direct ref.Tommy turrell (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • End sentence of the same paragraph clumbsy and overlong.
      • Sentence now split. 4u1e (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Stein an der Traun - red link. Any alternative?
      • Only on the German wikipeida, is this acceptable? in the mean time i have linked to Traunreut of which is Stein an der Traun is a district.Tommy turrell (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In politics section: "Trevor Grundy, a central figure in the Union's Youth Movement, writes of the 16-year-old Mosley painting the 'circle and flash' symbol on walls in London on the night of the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary (4 November 1956), describing him as "a tall slim boy, with golden hair...He had a lovely face." -- I fail to see what his physical description has to do with either the section in general or the Soviet invasion of Hungary in particular.
      • Agreed, removed for now but added to discussion page to find a home for later, early physical description is quite interesting. Tommy turrell (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
        • You're right, it doesn't. Frankly I included it because I found it so striking! That aside it's interesting to have an early physical description, particularly since we have no photos, but I'm happy for it to be left out. 4u1e (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't see a problem of keeping the physical description bit - just not with the Soviet Union/Hungary bit. Mark83 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
            • But then where? It was where it was (Hungarian invasion and all) because it was part of the same quote. Agreeing that this is not a great place for it, I'm not sure where to put it now. It feels like it should go somewhere early on (i.e. early life), but I can't see anything it can be seamlessly joined with! 4u1e (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I don't understand, why not just use the ref without the Hungary bit? Trevor Grundy, a central figure in the Union's Youth Movement, writes of the 16-year-old Mosley painting the 'circle and flash' symbol on walls in London on the night of the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary (4 November 1956), describing him as "a tall slim boy, with golden hair...He had a lovely face."[10] Mark83 (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
                • No, I get that bit! ;-) Whereabouts in the article is it appropriate to mention it? 4u1e (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, gotcha! Family and early life seem fine
    • WP has a Flash and Circle article which should be linked.
    • It doesn't look overlong, but just consider if any of the March Engineering section is more March-specific than Mosley-specific.
      • I can see the danger here but from my pov it seems ok, some of this section is there to give context to other events. 4u1e any thoughts?
        • I've reviewed today: it's mostly OK, but the third to last para probably is more about March than Mosley. I've revise it. 4u1e (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "Mosley left his role at FOCA, and Formula One, soon after this." Did he really leave? Totally?
      • According to Lovell, when Mosley became president of the Manufacturer's Commission in 1986 "he had been out of motor sport since the end of 1982 to try his hand at politics..." We've been looking for something on this for a while, so I've also added something to the 'Politics' section. 4u1e (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Is it fair to say HANS devices were introduced as a result San Marino '94? It was about 15 years later wasn't it?
      • I have found a source that says HANS was introduced as a result of an accident in 95 (apparently took a long time to develop), I have updated the article and referenced it. Tommy turrell (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Re. engines: "which some say have little applicability to road cars" -- 'some say' is weasel words. Also a bit of a throw away line for a complicated point; It would seem obvious that ~700bhp engine technology is not applicable to road car technology. However there could be a space-shuttle phenomenon here, i.e. technology designed for the most extreme applications having benefits for everyday applications. Perhaps better to take this out for the minute & focus on the cost savings achieved by engine homolgation.
    • Large section about his lobbying British Labour Party about tobacco advertising all uncited. Particularly worrying considering the wider impact - the first major scandal of the young Labour government. Perhaps a mention of the withdrawal of tobacco advertising following the EU directive (with expection of Altria Group/SF)
      • Found some refs, haven't gone into the wider impact (i.e. the cash for fags scandle) as that is a bit off topic, but I have added a mention of Bernie Ecclestone who attended the same meeting.Tommy turrell (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The previous version of that section all came from the single ref at the end of the para (47, I think). As it contained no direct quotes, that met the referencing requirements. Is the new version too long? 4u1e (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "Following the racist abuse aimed at McLaren's mixed-race driver Lewis Hamilton during testing ahead of the 2008 season, Mosley has said he will impose immediate sanctions if there is a repeat.[60]" -- nothing to do with the section it's in. Not noteworthy for any other section either IMO. Mark83 (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Tricky, This used to have a section of it's own but I agree is does not warrant one. And you are right it has very little to do with 2007 criticism. However I believe it is an interesting comparison to Mosley’s early involvement in the Union Movement. It’s the only comment from Mosley that I know of that gives and insight in to his current thoughts regarding racism. We don’t know what his views on racism where when he was a member of the Union Moment but we know what his current views are. It may also help avoid edit warring in the future as there used to be much speculation in this article on his attitude towards Lewis Hamilton. Views? Tommy turrell (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree it's notable in contrast to Mosley's earlier involvement with the UM (although one could argue there is little else he could do: in today's (much improved) climate you simply can't be seen to condone such things). We're veering towards original research here if we make the connection too obvious, though, unless we can find someone else who has already made it. 4u1e (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, pending changes:
    • Could we possibly have an image of Mosley in the infobox?
      • Only if you can find a free one. I've tried and failed. While I agree it would be great to have one, strictly speaking I believe a photo of the subject is not an FA requirement. 4u1e (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. D.M.N. (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Family and early life - "In addition to his brother, Mosley has five older half-siblings. On his father's side they are Vivien Mosley, the novelist Nicholas Mosley, 3rd Baron Ravensdale and Michael Mosley. On his mother's side they are the Irish preservationist, Desmond Guinness, and the writer, Jonathan Guinness, 3rd Baron Moyne." - unsourced.
      • Also uncontroversial ;-) Easily sourced, so since you ask, it shall be done. 4u1e (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. 4u1e (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • 2nd paragraph of "Racing career" - maybe have it in quote so it would be:
“ Insert quote here. ”

—Insert brief description with reference.
      • Please see WP:MOS#Quotations, cquote is discouraged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, well in that case, I guess not. I've no personal objection, though. 4u1e (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Sandy, would using just the Quote template be OK? D.M.N. (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Seems to be alright per the MoS. I'll put them in. 4u1e (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Done 4u1e (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "Mosley also negotiated sponsorship from tyre maker Firestone and oil additive manufacturer STP." - 2nd para of March Engineering - source?
      • Will do. 4u1e (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. 4u1e (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "March-BMWs won five of the next 11 European Formula Two championships." and "March continued as a competitive manufacturer of customer racing cars until the early 1990s." needs sourcing.
      • First one, will do. Second one, I'm not so sure. It's uncontroversial, but not the sort of thing you'll necessarily find easily wrapped up in a quote. I could be facetious and give the second half of Mike Lawrence's book as the ref, but I'll try and find something a little shorter. 4u1e (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Done the first one. Ended up just deleting the second one. Although true and uncontroversial, it's not easy to find a simple reference to stick in there and it's not directly relevant to Mosley. 4u1e (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • 3rd & 4th paragraphs of Formula One Constructors Assosiation - merge together into one paragraph.
      • Good catch. 4u1e (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Last bit of last paragraph in Formula One Constructors Assosiation section unsourced.
      • OK. 4u1e (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "FISA immediately re-elected him for a four-year term. Balestre remained as FIA president until 1993, when a restructuring of the FIA led to the demise of FISA." - needs sourcing.
      • OK. 4u1e (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "...the introduction of the HANS device to protect drivers' necks in accidents[47], circuit re-design and greatly increased requirements for crash testing of chassis." ref after comma, and needs to be fully completed.
      • Understand first bit, don't understand second bit: what needs to be fully completed? 4u1e (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, I didn't think being half-a-sleep reviewing an article was a good thing! :) Anyway, I mean it needs to be referenced the last bit. D.M.N. (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
          • OK, undrstand both bits now. 4u1e (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Added a ref. Has lots more info on about seat belts, foam etc, etc. Tommy turrell (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Motor racing was a world class industry which put Britain at the hi-tech edge. Deprived of tobacco money, Formula One would move abroad at the loss of 50,000 jobs, 150,000 part-time jobs and £900 million of exports.[51] - put into quote as with earlier.
      • A no-no, according to Sandy. And she should know what she's talking about. 4u1e (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • See above comment I made directed to her. D.M.N. (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Done. 4u1e (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • References need to be as full as possible, with every single little mint of detail. They also need to be consistent in the way it looks to the reader.
      • They can't be fully consistent, about half are web and half are books. They're inherently different. Which detail is missing (I'm not saying there isn't any, I'd just like some help! :))
        • OK. I'm going to change some of them myself so they are consistent. :) D.M.N. (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I have placed three requests at flickr asking the photographer to consider relicensing their image from "All Rights Reserved" to a suitable Creative Commons. I average around a 50% acceptance rate, so cross your fingers. Royalbroil 16:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the FAC to see if progress is made. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Side Comment - is anything going to be done with the things that are hidden within the article, or isn't there enough information to have suitable sections for them? D.M.N. (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • At this point, when the article seems to be at or close to FA standard, it's probably better to remove them and put them on the talk page. From memory it's stuff that either doesn't fit very well, or is true but we can't reference. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Mosley/Ron Dennis relationship isn't mentioned. It's common knowledge that the two dislike each other at the very least and it is significant for a man in Mosley's position to [possibly] let personal relationships enter into decision making. -- I realise there's an original research danger, but a summary news articles without editoralising would be beneficial. I'll have more time after Monday to look into it. Mark83 (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now on 1a. A copyedit and quite a bit of polish needed. This should have been posted at Peer Review before coming here. Many examples follow, but these are not all. As these took me almost an hour, I suspect no one has had the constitution to thoroughly review the entire article.
    • Check the MoS for how to do quotations. A lot of times your quotes are full sentences but you omit the leading comma, begin them with a lower-case letter, and fail to place the ending punctuation inside the quote.
    • The first sentence reads like the FIA represents all motoring organizations.. that's not true, is it?
    • I don't think "Fascism" is supposed to be capitalized in the middle of the sentence.
    • There seems a bit too much about Mosley's early life in the lead. You should leave it out unless it's a key point of the article; as is, the article seems to be mostly about his racing career.
    • You mention in both the lead and the Retirement heading that people have speculated about Mosley's retirement since his announcement and retraction in 2004. I don't see that backed up in the citation for that passage. Since the lead isn't cited, you need to cite that statement where it is made in the Retirement heading. You also need to cite a source that backs up the statement that the controversy has led to the speculations.
    • "As a result, Mosley and his older brother, Alexander, grew up separated from their parents for the first few years of their lives." Bad prose.. if you take out the phrase "separated from their parents" look what you have.
    • This may be a yankee's ignorance of British terminology, but why do you say "Sir Oswald Mosley" on first mention but only "Diana Mitford", later called her Lady Diana?
    • "Their children were refused entry to several schools, due to a combination of their wildness..." Suggest a better term than "wildness". Perhaps "wild behavior" or such, as I'm sure the children were domesticated.
    • "Mosley, like many people involved in Formula One, lives in Monaco." Really? I looked up three random Formula One drivers that I could think of and none of them live in Monaco. Needs a citation.
    • "Trevor Grundy, a central figure in the UM's Youth Movement, writes of the 16-year-old Mosley painting the 'flash and circle' symbol" Why the single quotes? Also, why do you call it "circle and flash" after that?
    • "As a result of his involvement in this fracas, Mosley junior..." No junior. You have consistently been calling him "Mosley" and his father "Sir Oswald".
    • "Mosley was a member of the Territorial Army during the early 1960s, training as a parachutist. This training led some national English newspapers to link him to the French right wing Organisation de l'armée secrète (OAS), which was involved in the Algerian War at that time." I don't follow why training as a British parachutist would link someone to the OAS.
    • Is he related to Alf Mosley?
    • "His father told him that the company 'would certainly go bankrupt, but it would be good experience for a later career.'" Check your quoting.. if the word "would" replaces "will" in the quote, you need to place parens around it.
    • "Two of these were run by March's own in-house 'works' team and the rest by customer teams." Single quotes again?
    • "The March works team's contract with their lead driver..." I don't get why "works" is in there.. leftover from something else?
    • "Motorsports author Mike Lawrence has suggested that the shortfall forced him into short-term deals, which maintained cashflow, but were not in the best long-term interests of the company." Motorsports has been two words, now it is one? No commas, use that instead of which.
    • 'spend to succeed', more single quotes.
    • "March-BMWs won five of the next 11 European Formula Two championships." Why hyphenated?
    • "During the 1977 season, Herd was pressurised by BMW" Surely "pressured".
More later. --Laser brain (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Oppose—1a. For example:
    • Remove "currently" from the first sentence.
  • "motoring organisations and motor car users worldwide"—why repeat "motor" by using the archaic "motor car"? Just "car", and then we avoid the neglect of the hyphen, too.
  • "separated from his parents while they were interned in Britain during the Second World War."—um ... they were German-born? If so, say so, or the readers will wonder why they were gaoled.
  • "before going on to attend"—no, "before attending". The chronology is already obvious.
  • Why is "Formula One" linked twice in two paragraphs? And there's a related link in the next para, which is fine. But not the straight repetition, please.
  • "He became president of the FIA, FISA's parent body, in 1993."—No comma, please. In reverse, a comma after 1993 if at the start of the sentence, yes.
  • "... which has led to speculation on his retirement." Vague. Do you mean "on when he will retire", or what?

These issues are representative of problems throughout the text. TONY (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose 1e, currently protected due to edit warring and I suspect it won't be stable until the allegations have finished having their day in the press. -- Naerii 19:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:05, 31 March 2008.

[edit] Crown Fountain

previous FAC (18:32, 1 January 2008)

I still fail to understand why it was failed the first time. The commentator at Architecture Peer Review seems to agree. I think it is ready.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please close and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not a regular peer review, it is a project peer review. I am not a member.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In any case, please close it or have it closed per WP:FAC instructions: An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I have posted a closure request.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Done --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Still have concerns about this one. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (confl) Oppose - the section artisty is composed only to graphical and numerical dates, there is a few of information. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC) closed votation. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Restarted nomination, I can vote now. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I do not understand your point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • In the artisty section there are only numerical dates. About the istory there are very few information. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • In the Artistry (not artisty) section there are three paragraphs. Although the first does not explain much about the sculpture, the second describes the animation fairly well. Do you feel the second paragraph in this section is lacking. Remaining details about the architecture of the sculpture are saved for later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think some of the writing requires a copy-edit, so I will go through it over the next couple of days. Also, I think the image in the infobox should be switched to one that shows the fountain better. The current one is dark, and I can barely make out the outline of a tower. --maclean 06:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: In "Artistry", does that one reference cover the entire paragraph on attempting to catch glimpses of themselves? The ref-link gives a 404. [5] [6] --maclean 02:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply I don't know any other way to find it than to go to the subscription system. So I linked the find articles ref directly to the Sun-Times fee based ref.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply to the best of my recollection, the ref covers the part of the paragraph preceding it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Found this but not sure if it could be worked in: Chicago's stunning Crown Fountain uses LED lights and displays. LEDs Magazine (May 2005). Retrieved on 2008-03-18. --maclean 04:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That was some great electronics detail. I have incorporated it and it helped to broaden the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I made some edits to make myself happy with it. However, as a comment, I question the relevance of the "Millennium Park was conceived in 1998" sentence to the fountain (this may be going too far in trying to establish context) and I will say that it may be beneficial to move a generalized description of the fountain to the top of the "Artistry" section, and move some of the technical/measurement details down to the "Architecture" section. --maclean 02:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I share Tony's perplexion as to why this failed last time, although undeniably the recent burnishes have made an excellent article, truly one of out best. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Strong oppose—Subprofessional formatting.

  • Not sure what this means, but I moved some images around.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Way overlinked: "cascade", "nozzle", "architect" (twice? ...), "United States", "accessibility"??? I've weeded the silly ones out of the first para; the whole text needs auditing for this. Why is "feet" linked?
    You delinked six terms each of which I think should be linked in the context of this article.
    1. United States - linked as first usage for international readers as has been standard in my experience on wikipedia. First usage generally to establish location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    2. United States dollar - linked with first usage of the "$" as has been standard in my experience on wikipedia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    3. architect - linked as a relevant field of work or study for this article. Commonly linked for this purpose in my experience on WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) That is a non-reason; I see "structure", "design" and "sculpture" unlinke in the lead—oh dear, splash more blue please.
    4. cascade - in this article cascade is an extremely important term.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) It might be extremely important for the article, but so is the word "the". You could equally link "the". The cascade article is quite unnecessary for the reader to understand the topic. Tony (talk)
      I disagree.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    5. nozzle - in this article the architectural and technical importance of a nozzle is quite relevant. Read the article and see.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) I DID read the article quickly, and see no reason beyond the dictionary function, which is inadmissable.Tony (talk)
      I disagree.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    6. accessibility - there needs to be a term that the international reader can look up to indicate that special considerations were made for equal access of this fountain. That link serves the purpose.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Why not pipe to "Universal design"? Tony (talk)
    I read the universal design and reread the reference. I am not sure if changing the term is better, but will go with it out of ignorance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    You ask why feet is linked. Each unit of measure is linked on its first usage as is customary in my experience on WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    In general, except for the first paragraph in Artistry, the article is not highly linked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just why you insist on this dreadful conversion template I cannot fathom. Do we need "feet ... feet ... feet" (m ... m ... m) rather than just one of each? Tony (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Is there an alternative for three dimensional unit conversion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC) No, do it manually, for heaven's sake; it's quicker and produces a satisfactory result.
    • Americans are the only ones to insist on these archaic units; no one else needs a link, and why wouldn't all Americans know what a foot is? Hello? Your attitude to linking is far too liberal—rather, links need to be rationed to the high-value ones, and the appearance of the page made a little less chaotic and easier to read. I will continue to oppose while these links remain. None of your arguments above convinces me in the least. Tony (talk)
      • If you want to pick a fight about whether Americans using the English system of measurement on English WP, that is a something I don't feel is worth my while. I too wish the world used one set of measurements. However, the point of the link is that the first usage of each unit of measurement is linked. It is simple. That is what is going on. The constructive responses could range from a.)I do not believe any other 3-D templates exist and it would be great if you could get this one spruced up, b.)Template:Foo is a good one, c.)Oh I didn't think about the 3-D conversion issue don't worry I see what the problem is and it is tolerable. A diatribe about whether Americans will continue to forever measure things in silly units is malplaced here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I have not read WP:OVERLINK in a while and I see the first thing that should not be linked is common units of measurement. Why does every template for unit conversion have a linkability feature? I believe I have attempted to link units of measure in my 80+ WP:FAs, WP:FLs and WP:GAs and never been discouraged. Is this a new thing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 1a—not nearly good enough. For example, just from the lead:

    • "The fountain and the entire park in general are reputed for their accessibility." This is just odd.
    • Causality unexplained: "The fondness of the public for the aesthetics of the fountain caused several elements of Chicago's society to voice a unified public opinion against the controversial use of surveillance cameras".
    • Clumsy previous sentence: "of ... of ... of ... of". And the one before that: "to ... to ... to ... to ... to".
    • Anyone who's not an architect is "ordinary", are they?
    • The tired wording "not only ... but also" seems to be like a bodily twitch. Tony (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • With the above you are finally saying things that are actionable and sensible. I can see why you oppose. Thank you for your honest opinion, time and consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose on 1a grounds. It was a struggle to make it through some of the sentences; the article needs a copyedit from an uninvolved editor. Some examples of awkward sentences:
    • "It sits with a northward backdrop that not only includes some of the tallest buildings in Chicago, but also includes some of the tallest buildings in the world, especially the skyscrapers along Randolph Street: Aon Center, One Prudential Plaza, Two Prudential Plaza, and Smurfit-Stone Building." Rewrite.
    • "Skyward viewers also see the eastern backdrop of Lake Michigan." The viewers are not skyward... I hope.
    • "The $17 million construction and design cost was largely funded by the Crown family, who donated $10 million and for whom the fountain is named." Costs are not funded.
    • "The fountain is animated through a continuous dynamic exhibit of lights and electronic images." No, the images on the fountain might be animated but I'm certain the fountain is not animated.
    • "There are sometimes clips of landscapes or natural waterfalls, but the towers are best known for their display of Chicago residents." What towers? This is the first mention of towers.
    • "The two towers each are illuminated from within on three sides..." Rewrite.
    • "The glass is white glass rather than the usual green glass that results from iron impurities." Why state this? I don't think green glass is "usual" anyway. Most readers will assume "glass" is "white glass" unless you specify otherwise.
These are just examples; please have the whole article copyedited. --Laser brain (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Continuing strong oppose—fails the requirement for professional formatting (trivial links). Now if you're going to be so dogged in your refusal to see that ordinary words such as "accessibility" and "nozzle" should not be linked, please explain how they comply with MOS: "Links should add to the user's experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is the equivalent of a footnote in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by "(see: ...)". Hence, links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read." Just how? And your falling back on this lazy defence that "it's standard practice on WP" to link this or that is most unconvincing. Poor prose is standard practice on WP; we know that only too well, and it doesn't mean that poor prose is acceptable here. TONY (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

1a and MOS fail. More random examples of why the article is not written to the required professional standard.

  • "mid-spring through mid-fall"—that's ... October to May, yes? See MOS on seasons.
  • "50 feet (15.2 m) walls"—MOS breach; hyphen required after "50".
  • "The frame holds all the glass blocks, but it transfers the load to the base in a zigzag pattern."—Logic problem; why "but"?
  • More ludicrous and distracting links: "pump", "zigzag", "nature". Hello? Why not link EVERYTHING? The whole article needs weeding of these messy blue splashes that detract from the high-value links. TONY (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 14:39, 30 March 2008.

[edit] Super Bowl XXXIV

Withdraw - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Self-nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because it clearly meets all criteria. It is well written, broad in the topic, nicely cited/referenced. It was recently promoted a GA, and after expanding the article, adding for references, and more citations, I believe it's ready for FA. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See also section needs to go before the notes section.
All links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok - finished with everything mentioned above. I replaced the references, and added publisher information to the missing ones. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • Incorrect dashes. Scores use –, not -.
    • Poorly chosen references: Kurt Warner and the St. Louis Rams: Super Bowl XXXIV and The History of the Tennessee Titans are juvenile non-fiction books (20-odd pages long).
    • Needs more references: starting lineup does not have a source; not all officials listed are covered by the NYT source; no sources for statistics or game summary
    • "Overview" could probably be fleshed out into a general "Aftermath" section. Super Bowl XXXIV was largely responsible for bringing Kurt Warner and the Rams to the public eye. Warner's performance essentially made his career.
    • Super Bowl XL has an entire section on "Broadcasting". Would such a section also be appropriate for this article?
    • Some of the recent Super Bowl articles also have sections entitled "Gambling". This may be appropriate for this article, as well.
    • Are the contents of "Commercials" all covered by ref #28?
    • I advise you to follow the format of Super Bowl XLI. From a quick glance, this article seems to be fairly comprehensive, so you should follow its model when reworking this article.
    • Inconsistent referencing:
      • First ref's author is "Michael Sandler". His last, not his first, name should be used in subsequent referencing.
      • You use "page", "pg." and "p.". Stick with one.
      • With multiple page numbers, use "pp.", "pages" or "pgs.".
      • What's the difference between ref #1 and ref #8? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 00:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, I don't see how this article even passed the GA criteria. The GA evaluator should have picked up on the fact that a juvenile book was used as a reference for the entire article. See [7]. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per multiple criteria, particularly 1a. Also per above; failed to satisfy GA criteria and followed through to fail the relevant FA criteria. To the nominator: please have the article peer-reviewed prior to bringing it as a FAC in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not an actionable oppose; it fails to demonstrate where the article fails WP:WIAFA and what can be done to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well ordinarily I would've added more in reply to that...but this article has been withdrawn. Probably be better to just move all this to the talk page and delete this nom? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

[edit] PlayStation Portable

Self-nominator If you are a fan of portable gaming, multimedia devices, or just electronics in general, this is the article for you to review. Also, unlike the many hackers and homebrew developers that have made this device one of the most hacked electronic devices in history, you don't even have to know how to do computer programming! All you have to do is review the FA criteria (of course you already knew them, right? ;) ) read the article, (I mean THE Article), decide whether it meets the criteria, and post your (innumerable) issues here. Though hopefully there won't be too many issues because I have been working on this article for about a week and I'm pretty sure it meets all of the criteria for FAs. Thank you, good night, and God Bless Amer...wrong speech... Ahh, here it is.. *clears throat* Thanks for taking the time to review this article. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: the HTTP 404 link that shows up in the external links checker is a result of that program adding a slash ("/") after the link. If the slash is removed, the link is fine. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment One issue I see right off the bat is that the tense arbitrarily changes, e.g. "However the player was only version 6, three iterations behind the current desktop version 9,[101] making some websites difficult to view.[94] The browser also has limited tabbed browsing support"- in this case, it would be fine if the issue was fixed, but no mention is made of that being the case. This is prevalent throughout the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I fixed the areas I saw. Thanks for the comment. Thingg⊕⊗ 23:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I'll detail all my objections as I continue to review, but here's my concerns so far:
    • "Controversial advertising campaigns" seems like a trivia list, and should be integrated with a marketing section. The following "safety issues" section should be removed if that's all the content that is in it.
    • Where's the reception of the game system?
    • PS3 connectivity is often mentioned, but there's nothing about it in detail as far as I can see. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I removed the unnecessary "safety issues" section (I had been considering removing it before, but I wanted to wait see what was said here) and added info about remote play. Hopefully, I will be able to work on the "trivia" list and add a reception section later today. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • Title case should be used in ref titles, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps
    • "Prior to" is overly formal. "Before" is better.
    • Some citations aren't immediately after punctuation.
    • An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
    • Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "with 2 MB onboard"
    • Some compound adjectives are missing hyphens, "first day sales record"
    • English speaking countries generally don't require linking.
    • There are some stubby sections which would be better expanded upon or merged.
    • Ref authors are inconsistently formatted.
    • External links only belong in the External links section.
    • Common words such as "white" and "black" do not need linking. Epbr123 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Thanks much for the review and your comments. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
        • All fixed, except the "Controversial advertising campaigns" section still has an external link. Epbr123 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
All other links checked out with the link checking tool.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:07, 30 March 2008.

[edit] Uncyclopedia

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because of the Uncylopedia forum, please note that this process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be. We welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion.
Remember: This is not a vote. It is an attempt to reach consensus.

(However, please note that in discussions of Wikipedia-related matters (such as policies and guidelines), the opinions of newer contributors may be weighted less than the opinions of established editors.)

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


  • Oppose - 1c. Some of my comments from the previous nom were addressed, but a major concern remains that many of the statements in the article use primary or unreliable sources. Uncyclopedia, its variants, Wikia, and any other wiki should not be used as reliable sources. --Laser brain (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • We use corporate literature and web page to describe companies; we use Wikipedia a source to describe Wikipedia; I don't see why we cannot consider Uncyclopedia a reliable source for describing itself. Raul654 (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • In addition, please see WP:SELFPUB. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I must respectfully disagree. Looking at WP:SELFPUB, at the very least we have problems with the last two bullets. Since all of these sources are wikis we haven't the faintest clue who authored them, if the content is a gag, or if the content will even be there an hour from now. Additionally, around 2/3 of the total sources on this page are primary. I would consider that fact a full violation of the last bullet of WP:SELFPUB. I don't consider wikis, community forums, blogs, and other self-published sources to be reliable in the slightest except for extremely basic facts. However, this article relies on these sources for the majority of its content. --Laser brain (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Normally, I’d entirely agree with Raul and Nishkid, but I think the “appropriateness of any source always depends on the context” phrasing of WP:V is important here. Unlike “normal” organizations or companies, which release information that can’t be altered by the public and even may be subject to federal scrutiny (e.g. SEC filings), this article is relying heavily on wikis, which hold little to no water. Exacerbating the problem is the parody focus, which casts substantial doubt on the earnestness of the information. The print version of The Onion, for example, lists “Herman Ulysses Zweibel” (Zwiebel being German for onion) as the founder. How do we know that something similar isn’t happening here? There’s nothing wrong with parody and humor, but, for serious critical commentary, we need to find sources of information for which we can be reasonably certain the comedy shtick has been put aside. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. As said in the previous nom, I've watched it grow for some time now, and would very much like to see it featured. - TLB (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but watching it grow and wanting it to be featured don't seem to match any of the criteria. This is not a valid declaration of support. Tony (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fixes still needed: I fixed some of this myself, but there are 1a, prose issues. I haven't taken a close look yet to re-evaluate progress, but I still see WP:MOSNUM issues (in the lead and elsewhere, spelling out numbers vs. use of digits), endashes needed in place of WP:HYPHENs, and the Other languages section still contains a collection of external jumps. External jumps go in External links or citations; Wiki isn't a MySpace or Blog page or an indiscriminate collection of links (WP:NOT). That's just a quick look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Another quick sample: ref 37, about The Lake District, doesn't verify the text supported. This is an important 1c, factual accuracy issue. Linking to a current article page on Uncyclopedia isn't the correct way to source that cited text; perhaps linking to the main page of that date would solve the problem. Other statments need to be analyzed to make sure the source supplied actually verifies the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Will it do? Nomination of The Lake District? --Drhlajos (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Since I can't figure out what this is trying to say, I can't figure out how to fix it.
          • One feature of Uncyclopedia's articles is the presence of quotes, which are often attributed to a person or other entity. Some of these individuals have gained an in-joke status with a reference to at least one of them on almost every page.[20]
        • That entire paragraph may be understandable to Uncyclopedia regulars, but I'm getting nothing from it. The prose needs to be tightened up, the concept better explained, and perhaps an example would help. And why (weeks after first commenting) am I still finding basic textual redundancies like "of Uncyclopedia face is the constant steady flow"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Another example of where the article fails to be brilliant, comprehensive and compelling:
          • In 2005, the Flying Spaghetti Monster entry from Uncyclopedia was mentioned in a New York Times column reporting the spread of so-called "Pastafarianism".[1]
        • This may be interesting to Uncyclopedia insiders, but I have no idea what pastafarisanism is, and I shouldn't have to click on the link to get the context of why this is interesting or funny or why it's mentioned; it should be explained to me here, the context should be developed. The article fails to engage the uninitiated or explain the humor, concepts and basic terms. I've made several corrections as I've read; that's as far as I'm going for now. In addition to reducing the MOSNUM, textual redundancy and other issues, please work on explaining terms and concepts to the uninitiated and adding content that will engage the reader's interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
        • One more piece of "so what?" content, which isn't compelling, doesn't provide context, doesn't tell me why I care:
          • In addition to articles about specific entries on the wiki, several papers speak of the website in general—usually in a section devoted to technology or the Internet. This was the case when Uncyclopedia was referenced in the Boston Herald and The Guardian.[28][29]
        • Do I have to go read the Boston Herald or Guardian article to find out why I care about this, or is this article going to tell me something compelling? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Ack, it keeps going. I will wait a few days for these issues to be addressed, otherwise I'll be an Oppose. A choppy, two-sentence paragraph that is a snake for chopping (see the text exercises on Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s userpage.
          • The Spanish language version, Inciclopedia was set up in February 2006[54] after a sudden increase in the number of incoming articles in Spanish at the English Uncyclopedia, following the closure of the Spanish humor wiki Frikipedia due to legal issues with the Sociedad General de Autores y Editores,[55] a Spanish organization for the rights of authors, who were angered by Frikipedia's entry on them.[54] Frikipedia was eventually relaunched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Switched to oppose, in spite of three weeks to work on the article, and lots of tips given for how to bring it to featured status, no improvement in the deficiencies mentioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as per previous nom and as the person who promoted the article to GA. ISD (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: still, i think its a good one to feature. I agree with TLB. --Drhlajos (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: people says, there are bad external links, and stuff. Why don't you remove them on sight, if you see any of it? If it's really link to blogs and so on, it will only help WP. --Drhlajos (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Because to "remove them on sight", it helps to know what to replace them with, and that is best left to the nominators and other editors who know the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous nom. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The previous nom is wiped out on a restart; you need to provide a specific actionable objection, per the instructions at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict) What she said. Raul654 (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, sorry. The sourcing and flow is good but the content is very fanlike and it is lacking something that I can't quite tell. I think it is because it is very short compared to other articles on websites. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've read through, this oppose seems valid; context is just not developed for a lot of the text, as in the examples I gave above. Hopefully this will be addressed by the regular editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I was the original nominator and feel that everything falls into place. For those who have been addressing the external links, I saw we ignore those regulations. Having those links gives users easy access to the projects, and to remove them would decrease the value. Teh Rote (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Then what stops every other Wiki article from making the same argument, rendering Wiki a blogspace and collection of links to other sites? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that what you seriously believe will happen? I'm saying this rule should be ignored because having instant access to the projects improves flexibility. Without those links, the table would only take up space. Besides, I'm not saying that should happen to every article. I'm saying ignore the rule, not abolish it. Teh Rote (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not talking about the table; I'm talking about the text in the Other languages section. There's no need or reason to send Wiki readers out to non-English other sites, in any article. Further, we have inter-Wiki's for a reason. When people go to Uncyclopedia, they should be able to access the other languages from there. More importantly, WP:NOT: Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of links. There are reliable sources covering Uncyclopedia. Rather than filling up the article with indiscriminate links to other sites that aren't even in English, the article editors should focus on beefing up some meaningful, interesting and compelling prose and content from reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, that section. I was thinking of a different one. Those external links are still relevant to the content, and if you check, the links directly in the article have been removed. I see no reason to remove the references; they are still relevant. Teh Rote (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, they have at last been removed; I struck that above. While I was there, I noted that the basic WP:MOSNUM issues had not been addressed, there were still textual redundancies in the lead (different languages = languages), and there are still basic copyedit issues, like no spaces between sentences, and by the way is it Jonathan or Johnathan? More importantly, there is still a lack of any compelling, interesting, brilliant, punny or funny content, and this article is supposed to be about a site that is supposed to be funny. Why not get busy fixing the issues raised and adding something fun and interesting to the article? Again, there are reliable source mentions of Uncyclopedia that appear to be underutilized, and if y'all want this to be a candidate for the mainpage on April Fools, 1) it needs to meet WP:WIAFA and 2) it needs to be interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Must be my eyesight; those external jumps are still there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Who put those back? Well, they're gone now. Teh Rote (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 1A and 1C:
    • 1A: “In other languages” section is choppy and far from “brilliant prose”. Such detail for various versions seems to violate summary style. The information could easily be reworked into a concise paragraph or two discussing, for example, technical information (hosting, article count, etc.) and language-specific information (puns and icon changes). External links therein are unnecessary and their exclusion would not be a detriment to the article or our understanding.
    • 1C: Article relies substantially on wikis (not SELFPUB, but “ALLPUB”, so to speak). Article does not have sufficient support from reliable, third party publications, as required by WP:V/WP:RS. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I was the main writer of this article for a few months, so my vote would hardly be unbiased. I'd just like to point out that Uncyclopedia was proposed to Raul654 to be a featured article on 4/1/2007, April Fools' Day. He accepted, but only if the article was feature-quality by that time. It wasn't, and instead George Washington (inventor) was featured. It was earlier proposed that 4/1/2008 feature this article, as April Fools' day has traditionally featured odd articles.--Jedravent (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • So, please get busy fixing the issues raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I stand by my comment from last year - it would be acceptable to me featuring this on April Fools provided it's an FA by April Fools and it's the best hoax-ish article we have at that time. Raul654 (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • And hopefully there will be several choices, so aspiring mainpage editors should strive to bring articles to the best featured level—for example, on par with George Washington (inventor). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent article with great depth into the subject and related information. Hello32020 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - There are maany issues listed before the restart, but I will only remind a very obvious one: the lead does not summarize the article. Nergaal (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: i'd like to suggest, that we should make a seperate page, like Uncyclopedia/Things to do, to collect the problems, that prevent it from being featured, like a Subversion. It could log the corrected problems, and so on. Of course, its only concrete problems (I mean, no one disagrees with it). What do you think?--Drhlajos (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Uncyclopedia/Comments is already red-linked from the WikiProject Comedy banner, but you could just list problems on the talk page directly (which I think preferable). DrKiernan (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I don't find it amusing, so at that level it fails criterion 1a: "engaging". Apart from the press coverage and criticism sections (which should be combined into one section) the article is just a self-referential in-joke. BTW, I presume "Johnathan" should be "Jonathan". DrKiernan (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Since my comment not even the extremely simple typo that I mentioned has been fixed. Clearly, no-one can be bothered to work on or improve this article, and it will just decay even further from the criteria if promoted. I suspect that this is a joke nomination. DrKiernan (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In spite of the extremely clear roadmap that was left here, describing the work needed to bring the article to featured status, it does appear that neither the nominator nor any of the supporters are willing to do the bare minimum to have the article featured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with the other opposes on this page, but here are the details anyway.

The prose needs a lot of work, there are MOS issues, and too many of the citations are primary sources. Here are a few examples of issues:

    • Try to clean up repetitive text (for example, "the prefix un-, a prefix that negates ")
    • Watch for pronoun agreement " Four months after its initial creation, the Uncyclopedia database took up 90 megabytes out of the 100 megabytes of disk space alloted by the original webhost, leading Huang to search for a new one" - does one mean megabytes or webhost?
    • Per WP:MOSNUM, in a single sentence don't mix numbers that are spelled out and numbers as numerals. (for example, "After four month, ...90 megabyes is not correct).
    • The prose in the history section is very colloquial, and it does not flow well
    • Why compare the two uncyclopedia rules specifically to NPOV? Wikipedia has lots of policies, and it's not necessary to focus on one.
    • There should not be external links in the body of the article per WP:EL
    • The other languages section has many short paragraphs and does not flow well.
    • The article relies far too heavily on primary sources. It should not contain this many citations to Uncyclyopedia, its derivations, or to Wikia.

Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. As one of the users who helped to write this article, and as an abuser of Uncyclopedia, I admit that my opinion is just a wee bit biased. But hey, that's still allowed on Wikipedia right? -- Zombiebaron (shout) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Same reasons as stated above. --HungryJacks (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mainly because of the quality of the writing, in particular the In other languages section. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, it's as good as any article on websites. I wouldn't want to see this on the front page though, and does anyone see any issues with Raul "nominating" this article here when he is the one who decides whether to promote it in the end anyway? Why bother with the process at all? NTK (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • We're not assessing any other article on web sites, we're assessing this one. I don't think the writing is good enough, no matter if God himself nominated it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Raul didn't nominate it, and "good enough" isn't a measure of featured articles. Teh Rote, many suggestions have been made of issues that could be resolved, but few fixes have been attempted. Do you plan to work on the issues raised or not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Truth is, I haven't had very much time. Been busy with Real Life and all that, but I've been trying. In particular, I can't seem to find very much information on the other language editions that I can understand. That's a bit beyond my capabilities. I'll get to working on the lead section later today. Teh Rote (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Firm, Strong Oppose- Does not meet standards required for FAs. The article needs more work, in my opinion, in order to address the issues that have been raised by others (which I will not repeat here). Also, I believe if this article achieves FA status, it would technically violate the spirit of WP:DENY, as this website harbors Wikipedia vandals,, Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment- Regarding your last statement, subject matter is NOT something that can affect an articles's status. As you may recall, exploding whale, Trapped in the Closet, Xenu, crushing by elephant, truthiness, and Manos: The Hands of Fate have all achieved featured status, some on their first try. 96.10.48.117 (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In this case, it does matter. We cannot allow Wikipedia vandals be glorified and legitimatized from this article being granted FA status. It would ruin the work of thousands of Wikipedia editors who fight vandalism. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • So you're stating that every Wikipedia vandal who ever existed comes from Uncyclopedia and as their article gets better, they get stronger? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. A single article's promotion will not increase or decrease the levels of vandalism. Would you have been opposed to featuring the article on Intelligent Design simply because it is creationsim in disguise? I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from personal attacks on me and the thousands of other Uncyclopedia editors (I edit here more often)- do I look like a vandal to you? I have never vandalized a page in my life, and have done several reverts, reports, and warnings to vandals/vandalism, yet I am a prolific Uncyclopedia editor. Subject matter cannot, will not, and does not affect a page's status. It's just that simple. Teh Rote (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I have dealt with Uncyclopedia editors engaging in massive vandalism over the past four to five months, and they have created, in total, over 30 sockpuppet accounts, spread their vandalism efforts, in the form of inserting blatantly fake contents, across 15+ pages, and in the process, severely compromised the integrity of those pages. It took me a while to fully restore those pages and check their truthfulness. These Uncyclopedia editors have done nothing but creating damage and destruction on Wikipedia, and they are based in Uncyclopedia (I have found articles on Uncyclopedia on the same topic that were the same as those vandalized pages, verbatim), and Uncyclopedia gladly took them in and created a refuge for them. Glorifying this page as the paragon of Wikipedia's best is not a way to reward us vandal fighters, who spend a lot of time trying to keep the pages free of vandalism. It defeats what I did, and defeats my purpose of doing so. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
          • You haven't answered any of my comments. How would raising the status of their article reward them in any way? How does personal bias against an article's subject justify an oppose? How would your work be "ruined" simply by featuring a single article? Why are you launching a personal attack against Uncyclopedia editors, even though very few of them have actively vandalized Wikipedia (do I look like a vandal to you?)? Would you have been opposed to featuring Intelligent design simply because it is pseudoscience? Do you seriously believe what you are saying? This is sickening. Teh Rote (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose—1a. Let's mention a few random glitches as representative of the whole:
    • English-language encyclopedia. Is it going to be hyphenated consistently?
    • "where Wikipedia's editors would catalog vandalism that they perceived as humorous"—Not wrong, but removing "that" would be nicer.
    • "resulted in it being voted"—Clumsy grammar. And again later in the same sentence: "despite it not actually being a Wikicity"—ouch. And what is a Wikicity?
    • "either as independent domains or as subdomains of Wikia"—No, I have to insist: "as either independent domains or subdomains of Wikia".
    • "It also has the most active users"—why not remove "also"?
    • a "neutral point of view," Uncyclopedia has ... [MOS breach and inconsistent with the other final dots, which are correct].
    • And lots more. Tony (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. All those errors have been fixed. Out of curiousity, if errors so minor are detected, why not remove them on sight? Teh Rote (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 1a again. Random pot-shots here indicate that the prose is not good enough for a FA.
  • "English language wiki" must be hyphenated to avoid ambiguity. Same for the many other analogous items further down. Pipe these links, please.
  • It's not hard to see other little glitches all over the place, such as "In fact" (everything should be facts, here); extremely poor sentence structure and punctuation "n a similar incident in November 2007, Uncyclopedia's article on Northern Ireland was criticised by Northern Irish politician James McCarry who branded the site "disgraceful" and vowed to, along with help from Moyle Council, "get it removed"." Redundancy: "Uncyclopedia has additional projects in over forty other languages.[8]" Remove "additional". Lots more. Tony (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Quick poke around, and I see things like: known as 'UnProjects'—See MOS about single quotes. This is all that's been done since my last entry here, five days ago. Tony (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This is my first ever comment on a FA candidate, so qualify that as you will. While there are many criteria for FA status, the foremost way to sum it up, in my mind at least, is asking if this is a representative article of the best WP has to offer, and wonder of we would want it featured on the main page. When looking at it in that way, I think that we should want people to see this article. Not only is it very well done by our standards, but it is possibly the best serious analysis of uncyclopedia available, on or offline. Random89 06:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Mega support squad. I was very much informed by this article. It's real good. --Savethemooses (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support great article... I believe it...Sabri76message 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment! This is a good article. I can't find any significant problems. It seems short. Is this really one of Wikipedia's best articles? Sure, its funny and all, and people will laugh at it, but is it truly good enough to be an FA? Meldshal42Comments and SuggestionsMy Contributions 18:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose:
    • "Uncyclopedias in languages other than English were created, with the project eventually spanning over 50 languages. This totalled over 90,000 pages of content." When? "Totalled" is not a word. What totaled?
      • Fixed--Syndrome (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I see you fixed it, but you also updated it. That is a problem. Everything in the article should up-to-date now, until that is done the article is not ready to be a FA. KnightLago (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Changing from "over 90,000" (that's just asking for vandalism) to "almost 100,000" isn't much of an update. The actual number is about 97,000. I'm not aware of any other time-sensitive numbers in the article, aside from "23,000 English articles", which is still accurate.--Syndrome (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned this below, but how about the 'As of November 2007, the English language Uncyclopedia contains nearly 23,000 articles" part. How many today? How has article creation progressed? KnightLago (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, according to the main page, there are 22,927 articles. I could add something evaluating Uncyclopedia's growth if I could verify that there were roughly the same number in November, but I don't know how to do that. If the number really is stagnant it's because of Uncyclopedia's deletion policies and raised standards compared to at the time of creation. If not, well there's not a lot to be said about a rate that doesn't change.--Syndrome (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The second paragraph of the lead could be fleshed out more.
    • Stillwaters in the lead should be in quotation marks.
    • Where was it originally hosted? More information on the sites intial creation should be added.
    • "As of November 2007, the English language Uncyclopedia contains nearly 23,000 articles, making it one of the largest Wikia-hosted wikis." Can we update the number of articles? And maybe discuss the growth?
    • Is the Press coverage section relevant? Why is it even included? So it has been mentioned in newspapers. This should be an encyclopedia article, not a list of press clippings.
    • These types of sections are usually included in articles to establish their notability, a similiar article section is also at YTMND#Media_exposure. But you are correct questioning the encyclopedic value of the section.--Otterathome (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, if you look at the article milestones, the article has been on AfD 7 times, more if you count the unlisted times that were denied per WP:SNOWBALL. One of the reasons is people doubting its notability. This section serves to put those doubts to rest. Also, when Uncyclopedia gets featured in the news, the event causes some change, whether it's a new policy or a parody. --Syndrome (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
These articles should simply be sources and don't require their own section. If the article results in a change then it should be mentioned, but a paragraph of articles is unnecessary. KnightLago (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I see it as a relic of the days when the article was on AfD all the time, but I suppose that section could use revising now that we're past that. (I apologize for whatever it is I did that ruined the formatting on this page.)--Syndrome (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I am of the school of thought that you should have a citation immediately after a quote. Such as after "were "cyber bullying menace[s]"."
    • The criticism section paragraphs all begin In May 2006, In June 2007, In January 2008.
    • The "In other languages" section has this same problem. The paragraphs being 'The German Language, Japanese Language, Hebrew, Spanish, etc."
    • The other languages section could be improved over all into a few fleshed out paragraphs, instead of a number of 2 sentence paragraphs.
    • Citation 6 is incorrect.
    • 23 incorrect.
    • 37 the paper should be in italics.
    • 36 out of 60 sources either cite to Uncyclopedia or Wikia.

I think overall you have made progress, but there is work to be done. Content and Interior projects sections should be expanded. In other languages is a mess. The article also seems to be focused too in-universe with information that people familiar with Wikipedia or Uncyclopedia would find interesting or relevant, but people from the outside would not. KnightLago (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the citation issues you listed to the best of my knowledge. I don't see how it matters that most of the sources are Unycylopedia or Wikia, though. There are still 24 3rd-party sources, but what could be a better source of information than the subject itself? --Syndrome (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverted Syndrome's edits, you are the second person to mistake the hindu article I added as the same as the one that is already in the article.--Otterathome (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The subject itself is the worst source of information. Please read Wikipedia's sourcing guideline. In a nutshell, articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. KnightLago (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This has already been mentioned by many users (including myself in the previous nom). Also take a look at my essay.--Otterathome (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, add my name to the list then. I didn't even consider the problems inherent with information on Uncyclopedia. I was just thinking in more general terms that relying on the subject itself is a bad thing. Thanks for the link. KnightLago (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, only part of the essay is relevant to your point.--Otterathome (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, please unrevert my edits now. First, I fixed more things than that particular one citation, and second, look and look. Different articles, same name. See? --Syndrome (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, in regard to your edit "reword over 90,000 pages", why would you do that? Either you have a strange fixation with reverting my edits or you don't understand that this is going to lead to repeated vandalism by a bunch of 12-year-olds. --Syndrome (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if that came off harsh. But I did state earlier that it would lead to vandalism. --Syndrome (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not just put the correct number? The 97K one. KnightLago (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Because it's not... round. And will need updating sooner than if we only use generalizations, and I'm not going pull out my calculator and add up the article totals of all the Uncyclopedias every time I think the number might have changed. --Syndrome (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If it weren't for the fact that it's a wiki, I wouldn't have too much of an issue using self-published sources for so much content, since it is about the source and they aren't necessarily being used for questionable statements, but the fact is it's hardly reliable. If the concerns raised above get addressed, I will refactor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, where else are we going to find a definite guide to Uncyclopedia's content other than Uncyclopedia? What is expected, is some other reliable source going to create a directory of Uncyclopedia content? Even if that did happen, they'd just reference Uncyclopedia anyway. Teh Rote (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Object per all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Voting support without attempting to address any the articles concerns will not affect the outcome.--Otterathome (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Uncyclopedia is by its own definition an unreliable source and this unreliable source is cited many times.--GrahamColmTalk 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • NOTE Just as an attempt to make this easier for Sandy and Raul, there are 11 supports and 16 opposes. Burningclean [speak] 21:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm coming late to this discussion, but after reading all the previous comments, and looking at the article in its present state, I would have to say that there are still several issues that have to be addressed before this article is anywhere near FA status. Some of these have been brought up above, but since they haven't yet been addressed in the article, I'll restate them here.
Criterion 1a) "Well-written": I really don't find the prose to be "engaging, even brilliant". I actually find it extremely dry. It is so detail-oriented and minutiae-filled that I found myself losing interest rather quickly. (This also ties into Criterion 4, see below)
Criterion 1c) "Factually Accurate": While all of the information in the article may be 100% factually accurate, the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline states very clearly: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Relying so heavily on Uncyclopedia itself as a reference, when Uncyclopedia is the very antithesis of that, completely undermines the sort of reliability and verifiability that we are trying to attain on Wikipedia.
Criterion 4: This article is definitely not written in summary style. There are so many details inluded that the article sort of collapses under its own weight. While I applaud the authors for trying to satisfy criterion 1b ("comphrehensive"), there is way too much detail here. Of particular note is the "In Other Languages" section. It seriously needs to be pared down to a much smaller size. In its current form, it pretty much reads like a "Trivia" section: just a long list of otherwise unrelated items. It is definitely not necessary to go into such detail about each one, as well. This section could certainly be split off as its own page, or simply pared down into a section of links to those articles.
So, those are my objections. I hope they can be fixed!--Aervanath (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, just not featured quality yet, the lead is too short, it uses Uncyclopedia as a reference way too much, it has formatting issues (like the dates in the refs) and nobody seems to be interested enough to fix any of this. The Dominator (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

<Discussion pertaining to April 1 suggestions moved to talk page; please keep discussion here germane to evaluation of the article against the FA criteria> ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 00:23, 30 March 2008.

[edit] Tel Aviv

previous FAC (00:19, 27 January 2008)
previous FAC (02:21, 12 February 2008)

Self-nominated by flymeoutofhere (talk · contribs)

Tel Aviv has had two previous failed FAC nominations. It had a copyedit in early February, and peer review in mid-January. The issues raised at the previous FAC's have been addressed and the article meets the FAC criterea. Namely:

  • It is well written - has been peer reviewed, copyedited etc
  • It is comprehensive covering all major aspects of the city
  • It is well cited
  • It has no neutrality issues
  • It is stable
  • It follows the style guidelines
  • It has images with no issues
  • It is of a comparable length to other FA city articles

Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The links to the jpost gave me a "no server available" message when I tried them.
    • I think theres a problem with their server at the moment but they are there
  • http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb57.html asks at the top of the page to refer to the published version of the paper?
    • Done
      • Could someone double check the formatting on this? I think something is off but I'm not sure what and I"m not an MOS expert on citation formatting. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Ive asked at MOS
  • http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={68314118-6D77-4E06-B4D5-282AF4285BC9} I'm a bit uncomfortable using this as a source for life under the Turks. I think I'd rather see a history book referenced for some of the details this is sourced to.
    • OK Done
      • The link you used doesn't cover all the information given in the body of the text. And if you're citing the book, you need to give page numbers. It also has some
  • http://www.emporis.com/en/ "allows users and companies from all over the world to participate in the completion of building information in their own cities" so what makes this a reliable source?
    • Changed - I thought emporis does have a reputation of reliability?
      • I don't know, I've never heard of them. Are there published reviews of the site that establish their reliability? Has the RS noticeboard decided it's a reliable site? I've never run across it used, and it says it accepts submissions, so I asked. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry - I misunderstood - they are pretty well known - I have asked at the noticeboard. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I had a reply to say "They make their living by providing accurate data, so we have to assume that they have an inbuilt sytem to check their facts. But it is not an academic source so how they collect data and how it is scrutinized for accuracy is not transparent for others to judge about unless someone else says so. Hence I will use it but attribute it to the website" - shall I put it back in. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes http://www.databaseOlympics.com/ a reliable source?
    • Different source done
      • You need to cite that as a book, since you are using google books to reference it. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • It is isn't it?
All other links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ive addressed these now -- Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've worked on your further comments. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - I think these are all addressed now. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments I'm disappointed to see that the issues I raised in the previous FAC, and continued discussing with you afterward, have not been addressed before renominating. Specifically, my concern was global claims (oldest port in the world, most Bauhaus buildings in the world, most museums per capita in the world) with inferior sourcing from travel sites and Israeli interest groups. I also want to hear a response to serious issues raised by User:Doc glasgow (posted at the same link as above), particularly related to 1b (comprehensive) and 1d (neutral) concerns. Can you explain why you have renominated without addressing significant issues remaining from the last FAC? Maralia (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maralia. That link is dead - I dont know where that's gone to. I didnt hear anything else about that - I added citations to some of those claims from international media sources - The Times of London. The Oldest Port claim and Museumes per capita were well sourced in my opinion - Israeli governmental sources as well as historical organisations. When I cahnged the oldest to one of the oldest I got told to change it back. With regards to the neutrality - I cant see the issue - the article is stable, has been peer reviewed, passed through gac, and copyedited. It has also been reviewed twice for fac - and this has never come up before. It always seems to me that with this article, whenever it gets closer someone finds something else wrong with it. Ive never had this issue with any other article. For example, noone has an issue NYC being the city which never sleeps based on the referencing there and its fac status but here it is a real issue. I wish you had actually got involved in editing the article to help to rectify these things because it has been very hard to get other users to help editing. I greatly appreciate your time given to helping me with this article but I cant see how issues of npov can be brought up when the article is well sourced and has reached this stage in development. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the link; Flymeoutofhere, pls ask me to correct archives in the future, as correcting that mess was very time consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually Maralia, I did address those points as I thought appropriate but there was no response from you to say whether they were satisfactory. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I first expressed my concern about the reliability of sources for exceptional claims in mid-February. I don't know how I can be any clearer: travel sites and Israeli sources are not remotely close to the high-quality, non-COI sources required to support exceptional claims. Adding multiple sources of the same sort does not make them any more reliable or non-COI. I repeated this concern above when you opened this FAC; you replied that you didn't know because I did not continue debating the point past 3 days after the previous FAC closed. Well, you've known for 10 days now, yet the sourcing for these claims has not been improved. Further, contacting people who had prior concerns about the article, such as Doc g, would be a much more responsible and productive endeavor than bemoaning the fact that there are concerns. Maralia (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Maralia, to be honest, I feel that the reasons for the oppose are more of a personal attack/application of double standards than anything else. You claim that all travel sources used are not high-quality enough, although they are generally supporting non-confrontational statements, and most are official organisations such as Israel Tourism Ministry, Tel Aviv Munipality, Fodors, etc. The verifiable source noticeboard, if you see below, has said that in general these travel sources are fine although not for the most perhaps potentially controversial claims. These have largely been removed, and the last couple which are remotely controversial are being resourced. Your comments above initally referred to problems which had been fixed by this time and Doc G was recontacted and has commented below. This article is not 'MY' article - Wikipedia is collaborative and other users have contributed to the article. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Thanks for your interest anyway. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I spent a great deal of time on this article with you; continued working on it after the previous fail; generously initiated posting in this renom with Comments rather than an oppose despite unresolved issues remaining from the previous FAC; and went to great lengths to repeatedly explain why the sourcing is inadequate for these claims. You have responded by wishing that I had done more of the work myself, and now accusing me of a personal attack and double standards. This is most decidedly an actionable oppose based strictly on WP:WIAFA. Three specific controversial, exceptional claims have inferior sourcing: agencies with a vested interest in promoting Israel. Further, I see no indication that User:doc glasgow has commented below or been recontacted since the renomination. Maralia (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I still dont really understand your points to be honest. I dont know what is a non-biased source in your opinion. The Israeli govt is democratic and wont post incorrect figures in its info. The NYC article has references from a consulate, this wasnt ok for the TA one, when you look at other FA cities articles, going through the category from A - the first one, Ahmedabad, has 40 citations, the second city, Alanya, has refs which arent acceptable here, the third, Ann Arbor, Michigan has a very short lead, and refs from travel and other sources which arent acceptable here. I havent looked further but I hope you can appreciate my frustration. Of course, in an ideal world, Id love for this article to have the best possible sources, although other FA city articles dont have any better, if not worse than this and compared to these, this article is more impressive and better sourced. Dont get me wrong, I do greatly appreciate you comments and help at all times, but I do find it unfair that this article is scrutinised so deeply whilst the models for it appear to be of a lower standard. I apologise for being hot-headed before, but Israel articles do come under overscrutilisation by many, and I have experienced it in the past. On reflection, I dont accuse you of this, but it doesnt seem right that this article should have to do more than others. I also made a mistake, I contacted Dr Cash, and not Doc Glasgow, I got confused between their usernames. Once again, thank you for all your time devoted to this FAC. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have never challenged using travel sites or Israeli sources in general in this article - I have specifically objected to their use to support global claims. None of the other FA city articles you mentioned seems to make an exceptional global claim supported by only self-interested sources. Maralia (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I changed all of the exceptional global claims to other sources though...Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • support - very good MOJSKA 666 (msg) 07:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I participated in the first FAC. A concern that has not been addressed is the use of an interview with a tour guide to reference the entire "Religion" section. Something more authoritative should be used. --maclean 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah - sorry I missed that - Ive referenced them now with different sites - hope thats better. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. --maclean 18:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support great article, and given how controversial Israel articles can be very well balanced --Hadseys ChatContribs 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments The article is very good and could probably pass WP:FAC this time around with a little work. A few things are still troubling, though:
"Although it is less than a century old, Tel Aviv is recognized as a candidate global city with strong evidence of world city formation." -- This sentence is uncited. What is a "candidate global city" and where is the "evidence of world city formation"?
The 'local government' section is good, although shouldn't the section be changed to 'government' as a whole, since Tel Aviv is recognized by many governments as the capital of Israel? Although maybe Jerusalem is the capital; I'm not certain here? I think a lot of national government headquarters are still in Tel Aviv, as well as many embassies? The government section could probably also be demoted in the order of sections, probably moved to closer to education & transportation, as I don't think it's nearly as important as the history, geography, demographics, or economy.
I would recommend promoting the 'culture' section and demoting 'education' in the order of sections.
Why does 'Terrorism' have its own main section? This seems to be providing more attention to one aspect of the city, and could be construed as a violation of WP:NPOV. The section mentions several historical events, and I think it would be best if the section was integrated into the 'history' section. I don't think I can support this FAC with it as-is, due to the NPOV issues.
Dr. Cash (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Dr. Cash. I think I've addressed them all - Ive moved those sections around, have incorporated the terrorism section as a sub-section of the history since 1948 section and have added a bit to the newly renamed 'government' section about its international role. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of the issues have been addressed, but the terrorism subsection in history still has WP:NPOV issues. And another user has tagged the section with {{npov}}, so I still cannot support. Please see my comments at Talk:Tel Aviv#Terrorism section. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that has now been addressed - the section has been merged into the history sub-section and all usage of the work terrorist/terrorism have been removed. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The user who placed the POV tag on the page has removed it and posted a comment on my talk page to say he is now pleased with the general balance of the article and this point in particular. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The sentence in the lead "Tel Aviv is recognized as a candidate global city with strong evidence of world city formation" is not understandable for the most readers. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that any better now. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Current version is "Although it is less than a century old, Tel Aviv is recognized as a candidate global city with many of the key characteristics of World Cities being present." Let's ask other editors what is their opinion about this sentence from the article lead? --Doopdoop (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Query Both Maralia and Maclean stated that issues raised in the previous FAC remain unaddressed; have they been asked to revisit? One of the concerns was reliable sources; I still see, for example, several travel guides. Sourcing needs improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes - are references to travel guides such as Fodors not good enough? The other ones are official - GoIsrael.com is an Israeli government site, and Visit-tlv.com is Tel Aviv municipality. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Very well written and organized, with a well balanced selection of information in the article. Hello32020 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Concerns:
    • I still don't like the post-1948 history section. According to this all that happened was bombings and killings. Neither the History, nor the Demographics indicate whether the population or city grew during this time. No one said history has to be interesting.
OK - most city articles dont have great depth in recent history as what is included there is just what isnt in other sections. For example, talking about economy would be copying the economics section, the developent of architecture, the architecture sub-section. Im not sure it is worth it for repitition and so neccessary. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, it is a deficiency in many city articles. I've been poking FAC candidates to fill the gap. I think it illustrates a lack of a comprehensive consultation of the relevant body of literature on the subject. In writing, I have found it best to write the history as a narrative: tell its story as a function of time. The History in this article starts out like this but turns into a list of names and dates by the end. It shouldn't be as detailed as the other sections, but should be congruent and supportive. For example, according to the History section TA has experienced killings and bombings since the 1990s but according to the Economy section TA "has developed dramatically over the past decades" and according to Architecture it has "the soaring price of real-estate". --maclean 05:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Over the past 60 years, Tel Aviv has developed into a secular, liberal-minded city with a vibrant nightlife and café culture. is an unattributed editorial.
I think this is cited throughout the article, whether we need 4/5 references to already cited sources at the end of the sentence Im not sure? Flymeoutofhere (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Just needs one. An explanation of what leads that conclusion/observation would be nice, too. This is what is making the recent history feeling under-developed: it is silent (or counter-intuitive) on what factors are driving the city's development. --maclean 05:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ive developed that section more. Hope that is enough - I dont want to start repeating the whole article in the recent history section, although I can see what you meant now. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The city has 200 known homeless people... The reference says that 200 people use that one homeless shelter, not that there are 200 homeless people in total. Likewise with the In London, for example, 1.9% of the population... stat, not total but an maximum estimate of single homeless people.
That reference talks about total homeless population of TA. It is in reference to funding of a charity, but does give overall statistics. If you want the London bit removed, though, I can do that of course. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably best not to compare 200 people who used one emergency shelter in TA with an estimate of entire homeless population of London. --maclean 05:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK - I'll remove it. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Tel Aviv is known for its openness, thriving night life, and around-the-clock culture.[70] is referenced to a Tel Aviv tourist website... How about "Tel Aviv markets itself as open, with a thriving..."? --maclean 18:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is really needed because it is sourced by two NPOV media organisations - the UK's Mirror and Israel's Jerusalem Post. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope I've addressed these comments sufficiently. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments. The prose is good; I have called out a couple minor issues that jumped out at me below. However, like some other reviewers, I have a problem with almost anything being cited to tourism-industry sites, official or otherwise. FA criteria 1c and 1d apply. The tourism sites have a massive conflict of interest and cannot be relied upon to provide objective information. Almost the entire Culture section is cited thus. There must be many articles in periodicals and journals about culture in Tel Aviv, and those sources should be preferred over what is there now. My concern is really only contained in the Culture section, but I could not consider supporting as it is. Other comments: Concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Are some items double- and triple-cited because they are likely to be disputed? If not, consider choosing the best source and using one citation. Multiple footnotes after seemingly innocuous passages like "Another housing society, Nahalat Binyamin, began to build on April 11, 1909, after holding a lottery to divide up the land." are just distracting to the reader.
    • Likewise, "On May 21, 1910, the name Tel Aviv was adopted." Is that date disputed? If not, two citations not needed.
    • Three citations: "More recently, however, many have been refurbished to their original condition."
    • "Tel Aviv was the Hebrew title of Theodor Herzl's book Altneuland..." Use is instead of was, unless it has a different Hebrew title now.
    • "This area is traditionally made up demographically of a greater percentage of Arabs, but recent gentrification is finding them replaced by a young professional population." The phrase "finding them" is awkward and should be avoided. Better to just say, "...but recent gentrification is replacing them with a young professional population."
    • "Nine of the fifteen Israeli billionaires live in Israel; at least four live in Tel Aviv or its suburbs (according to Forbes)." I don't get the "at least" qualifier. They do or they don't.
    • "It falls just short of New York City and Dublin and just ahead of Rome and Vienna." I'm not sure if "just short" and "just head" mean less expensive or more expensive.
    • "As a Mediterranean city, Tel Aviv attracts a variety of tourists." Vague.. variety meaning what? Different nationalities? --Laser brain (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I think I've addressed all these points apart from your inital comment regarding the travel sources. Its very hard to find english sources for this information other than in travel sites. I have posted a request on the Verifability notice board, and will wait to see what they say. I have already changed loads of these, but what are left are well-sourced and not really points which are going to be made up - they are looking for accuracy in them. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Travel sites. Throughout this FAC there have been 'problems' with the use of travel sites/sources as sources of verification. I posted a question regarding their useage at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ and this is the answer I received.

"Yes, they are reliable by or rules. However, they do have limitations. We have to remember their purpose, which is to give a very quick overview of the site and events discribed, and to encourage tourists to visit them. They will gloss over many facts (especially negative ones), and editorial review may not be the best. If information listed on a tourism sight is contrary to what is stated in more scholarly works, we should defer to the scholars. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)"

I therefore think that their use in this article as it now stands is acceptable considering they are not really supporting controversial claims. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't really agree with Blueboar's answer, or perhaps his answer lacks clarity. From the policy page WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This statement certainly doesn't apply to travel-industry sites. I think Blueboar meant that you have to be very careful what you use these for. If it is an extremely general statement like the presence of a building or the date of something opening, they are fine. But any kind of "claim", like something being the biggest, oldest, most popular, etc. should never be cited to a travel-industry site. --Laser brain (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that now we just have these sources for the more general statements. Those which were used for those claims have been changed now I think. Most of these are cited by news/journal sources which definetely cannot be doubted factually. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Random example: "The Batsheva Dance Company is Israel's most well-known contemporary dance troupe." This statement is cited to a travel site. I don't trust a travel site to back up this claim. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK - I see what you mean now - I'll look at those
OK - can you please double check, but I THINK I've hit it on the head. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. As I don't see any more obvious problem areas, I am striking my comment. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Something's wrong with the appearance of the hebrew in the Infobox, at least it is in my Firefox browser. The vowels and letters aren't aligning. I suggest a post to the languages Ref Desk could help sort this out if you can't do it yourself. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've posted a question on the helpdesk. Thanks for that. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As I explained on help desk, the Hebrew letter and vowel-point Unicode characters are in as correct an order as they're allowed to be (given the errors in the Unicode specification of combining classes for Hebrew diacritics), and display bugs are the problem of each individual browser program, so there seems little point in changing anything... AnonMoos (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As I've explained on the help desk, the problem can be fixed by replacing the {{Hebrew|text here}} template (which forces a font choice that is not advisable on all browsers) with {{lang|he|text here}}. This means someone really needs to either fix the "Hebrew" template, or substitute it on all the pages on which it's used. It's fixed in Tel Aviv now, at any rate. - Nunh-huh 00:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Very well-written and thorough article. I made a few small copy-edits to improve grammar (mainly comma placement) throughout the article, but it would've passed without it. I would like to see the climate, religion, sports, education, and especially the media sections all be expanded and the list of mayors either put into a table or expanded into a separate article, but overall it's definitely up to featured article status. Great job! bob rulz (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Maralia. Seriously, the global claims need to be toned down or sourced to neutral academic sources. Travel articles are insufficiently reliable, and the Jewish Virtual Library is insufficiently neutral, to make "Tel Aviv has the most x y in the world" claims. TomTheHand (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I want to address this once and for all.
  1. Most populous city in Gush Dan - cited to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics - the most reliable source of these stats
  2. Most Bauhaus buildings in world - cited to The Times of London
  3. One of oldest ports - cited by Jewish VL & Ive added Rough Guide publication source
  4. Most musumes - is now cited by a book (Governing Israel: Chosen People, Promised Land and Prophetic Tradition)

The travel articles used are therefore, well sourced, by internationally acclaimed news sources or travel guides. Most of this information is primarilly in Hebrew and as such I cant get an English source so easily. These publications, however, are well researched and sourced, and unless they were pretty sure about someting, wouldnt make the claim. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the claim that it's the most populous city in Gush Dan, because the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics is sufficiently reliable to make a claim about its own metropolitan areas. A travel article in the Times is not sufficiently reliable to make the Bauhaus claim, because it is unlikely that significant fact-checking is performed to come up with such blurbs. An article about the Bauhaus school which makes that claim would be different; it would be assumed that to make that claim a significant amount of research and fact-checking was performed. The article does not claim that it is one of the oldest ports in the world; it claims that it is believed to be the oldest. That needs to be toned down. I do not have a big issue with the museums claim, because it is phrased "is claimed to have the highest number of museums per capita", with sources plainly showing who makes that claim. TomTheHand (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
OK - I would have thought the Times to be a reputable enough source considering that usually news organistaions of this calibre are almost flawless. Anyhow, Ive trawled the net and have got a list of possible refs for this claim which I list below. Please tell me which are ok.
Just reading on, if I put 'is claimed' in front of the claims would that be ok because I know that these claims havent come out of nowhere, but am finding it really hard to find any concrete refs. When I come across them, then I'll add them. If you could confirm this, I have no issue changing them. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, travel sites and blogs are not going to work. You need to find a serious academic source for global claims. Roger, below, brings up a really good point. You shouldn't be putting stuff into an article and then scrambling around trying to find good sources for them. You should be finding good sources, and then putting what they say into the article. TomTheHand (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I have watched this article through a peer review and three FA nominations and I still remain of the opinion that it is not FA material. Far too much of the prose still reads like a prospectus and I am unhappy about the determination to stick with peacock claims supported by less than impeccable sources. A Wikipedia article ought to be built on facts extracted from reliable sources, not built on claims which scrabble round for sources. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The article has improved but the prose doesn't meet FA standards. An example: However, lately things have calmed down and the city has started again hosting many tourists and even more annual events. Careless diction (things) combined with nebulous phrasing (many tourists and even more events) dulls the prose. Majoreditor (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hey, surprised no-one contacted me, since my previous concerns are being discussed here - and are still not addressed. This article is not neutral. Despite several objections references to "the city that never sleeps" and "global candidate city" have not been removed. No, yes I know that both are referenced. However, stuff in the lead should be factual, seldom value judgement and if value judgement are being reported they should be notoriously commonly held views, or from indisputably relevent and authoritative sources. "The city that never sleeps" does not appear to be a general epithet of TA. And the relevance of "global candidate city" is unclear. It seems that rather than trying to find neutral description of TA the author is trying to find positive spin that he can subsequently justify by reliable citations. That's how you write factual promotional material, it is NOT how you write an encyclopedia article. If the lead is written like this, I am loathe to trust the objectivity of the rest.--Docg 11:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ive moved the "city that never sleeps" down into the culture section. The global candidate city is referenced to two academic institutions so I cant see the issue here. If you look above, and on the Talk page, the objectivity issues were solved. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • RE: Bauhaus Reference. Is this ok: Mann, Barbara E. (2006). A Place in History: Modernism, Tel Aviv, and the Creation of Jewish Urban Space. Stanford UniversityPress, 336. ISBN 080475019X.  On page 162. Here's the link. This is published by Stanford Univestiy Press. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
What about the Jaffa has been a fortified port town for at least 4,000 years and is believed to be the oldest port in the world and its related claim further down? A couple of points here:
First, even the travel sources don't say that it has been "fortified" for 4000 years. They say the harbour has been used for 4000 years, a very diferent claim.
Second, your article dates Jaffa to the Bronze Age. The following natural ports have settlements dating from the Stone Age: Piraeus, Marseille and Dover. Considerably older.
Now, what about the source for the local government claims? It leads to an empty page.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 17:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've added a citation here and have sorted out the local govt. I think I still dont get what you're trying to say with the Jaffa part. If you could go into the article and edit it as appropriate (and anything else), I'd really appreciate it because obviously if it needs to be done in order for the article to become FA, then it has to be done. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not an expert in ancient history, but surely Alexandria and Byblos are contenders, as well. On the Bauhaus note, I encourage you to read the UNESCO sources I provided: UNESCO explicitly distinguishes between Bauhaus and the more general Modern Movement in architecture, and makes a point of characterizing Tel Aviv's architecture as Modern, not Bauhaus. Working backwards from travel sites and promotional literature is just not an effective method of arriving at verifiable facts. Maralia (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I must have missed the docs at that link. I've had a go at incorporating that info and toning down the Bauhaus bit. What does this do to the world's highest concentration. Should it say 'is claimed to' in reference to Bauhaus or Modernist? I dont think its quite right yet but hopefully we are getting there! Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:18, 29 March 2008.

[edit] Raiders of the Lost Ark

Nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think this article meets all of the criteria for promotion to FA status. It is well-written and researched and represents an important milestone in the history of cinema. J.D. (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Articlestats

Alientraveller 246 (notified)
The Wookieepedian 57
ColdFusion650 55
Dark Kubrick 44
Mrwojo 23
Raiderss 15
J.D. 13

Maralia (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Firstly, checked the links, there are some dead ones, here.
  • Should you refer to Indy? His nickname isn't introduced, and perhaps it's a little unencyclopaedic anyway...
  • Any reason why the screengrabs are different sizes?
  • Jones' or Jones's - be consistent.
  • Where Magnum P.I. finishes a sentence, in the lead you have another full stop, in the article you don't. Be consistent again.
  • Don't overlink Star Wars.
  • "was the exact same location" - exact is redundant here.
  • "cast & crew" - cast and crew.
  • Could link to specific Academy award articles.
  • Page ranges in the citations need to use the en-dash, not hyphen.

Hope these comments are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. The nominator is not a major contributor and thus unlikely to be able "to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly".
  2. This article is simply not FAC-ready. It requires a close copy-edit by a good copy-editor:
  • to get the English to a professional level;
  • to ensure MoS compliance; and
  • to reduce the huge amount of trivia masquerading as encyclopedic content.
Examples
  • Strange capitalisation: Army intelligence, Ark, Staff
  • Measures and conversions: "A fibreglass boulder 22 feet in diameter" > "22 ft (7 m) ; "the boulder run by 50ft" > 50ft (16 m)"; "a 12-inch doll" > "12-inch (16 cm)". Also need standardizing.
  • Currency: "$20 million (USD)" > "US$20 million"
  • Dashes: the choice is unspaced emdashes or spaced endashes. This uses spaced emdashes ("We didn't do 30 or 40 takes — production; usually only four").
  • Ampersand: "Several members of the cast & crew fell ill"
  • Missing hyphens: "under cranked", "double exposed", "a 100 page".
  • Superfluous hyphens: "by the second-unit who"
  • Ellipses: no spaces between points
  • Trivia: "Several members of the cast & crew fell ill; Rhys-Davies in particular defecated in his costume"; "An amateur shot-for-shot remake was made by Chris Strompolos, Eric Zala and Jayson Lamb, etc"; "Unlike the character he portrayed, Ford does not actually have a fear of snakes; Spielberg was not afraid either".
--ROGER DAVIES talk 08:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I assure you the fan remake is hardly trivial:
Variety
Austin Chronicles
Wired
Village Voice
The Guardian
Minnesota Public Radio
The New York Sun
Indie Wire
The Age
Time Out
Archaeology News
Pop Matters
The Observer
Alientraveller (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:18, 29 March 2008.

[edit] Canons of page construction

Nominator --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • Egger, Willi reference needs last access date
    • Carreras, Fabian - is that a book also? If so it needs publisher information and date published, as well as a page for the information cited.
    • The Rosarivo Raul Divinia cite that is currently ref 12 needs a page number to the citation.
Links check out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I did the first one. The Fabian Carreras ones appear to be web articles. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 05:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Rosarivo's book is out of print. Very unlikely that we can find a page number. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed Carreras's web cite. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the information it is sourcing, can it be sourced to the ref following it? It's not so controversial that I'm going to screech about this, but it'd be nice to source the information completely. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I found 2 pdfs that seem to corroborate cites 10 and 12, figured we could replace them since those don't have page numbers.
  • [8] On Page 2, for cite 10
  • [9] On page 6, for cite 12. Dunno if we could use this one since it's in French, but it seems good to me, though my French is god-awfully bad. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The English one looks fine enough to me, no clue on the French, I took Latin. I'm thinking that's an editorial decision. I do note that the second one looks to come from Project Gutenburg? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments

Some piddly little points

  • I don't think there should be an "and" between van der Graaf and Rosario.
  • colon after "connection" in the second paragraph?
  • one p for one page. pp for more I think.
  • one only of your refs has the title not italicised.
  • the very last sentence before the box on Renner seems clumsy. I mean the phrase that says "according to Christopher Burke".
  • Why is Renner, alone of all the quotations, in a box? Fainites barley 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Done ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've put that last quote in c|quote rather than blockquote so it matches the others - if thats OK. Fainites barley 23:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Your first sentence is now not a sentence. Fainites barley 09:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. From the article title I was expecting a more global perspective. The article deals only with European canons of page construction. What about canons in other cultures? I have seen just enough Japanese books to recognize that there are canons of page construction for Japanese books. Probably they exist also in Arabic, Chinese, and Sanskrit. I suggest either rename the article, or add significant content from outside Europe. --Una Smith (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose see final comment.
  • For a couple of reasons, the first sentence seems awkward to me. Suggest perhaps: "The canons of page construction are a set of principles that scholars in the field of book design use to describe the ways that the margins, type areas (print spaces), and page proportions of medieval books may have been designed." Ling.Nut (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Awkward sentence + unnecessary text. "According to Fabián Carreras" Carreras not mentioned again in article & has no article of his own. Unnecessary, delete. Tighten text/improve coherence as follows:
  • "Raúl Rosarivo analyzed Renaissance books with the help of a drafting compass and a ruler, and concluded in his Divina proporción tipográfica ("Typographical Divine Proportion", first published in 1947) that Gutenberg, Peter Schöffer, Nicolaus Jenson and others had applied the golden canon of page construction in their works. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I made the above changes to the text, and have stricken them through. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Cquotes generally not appropriate, as per WP:MOSQUOTE. Certainly the quote in the WP:LEAD doesn't qualify for cquotes or blockquotes; it isn't more than 4 lines long. The quote farther down in the text should probably be in blockquotes rather than cquotes, again as per WP:MOSQUOTE (though I like cquotes too) Ling.Nut (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • How did a Hans Kayser quote come to be attributed to Jan Tschichold in the first cquote (and see about cquotes above)? At least that's how the sentence structure makes it seem, given that the colon before the quote comes directly after mention of Kayser.. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Anachronism: "has been used in book design, in manuscripts, and incunabula, mostly in those produced between 1550 and 1770". No incunabula after 1501. Recheck source and reword for clarity. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • leaning toward Oppose. The "Current applications" section raises 1b concerns: it's a one-liner with a large blockquote.. and the blockquote isn't really a "Current application" as advertised. It says (or seems to say) that the author, while favoring wide loower margins, does not suggest the use of the golden canon or any other canon. In addition, I'm not sure that the relationship between the text and the illustration is explained well in every case. Finally, I take on board Una Smith's 1b concerns as well. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed lead, MOSQUOTE and convoluted use of sources related to Kayser. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Added some more material. Ling.Nut, I see that you have made many fixes already. Is there anything else to fix that has not been yet fixed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. :-) Probably many things need to be clarified and/or expanded, in my opinion.
  • For example, the first sentence of the article is now merely a sentence fragment, since "...of medieval books may have been designed" was removed. Do you want to say something about "historical reconstruction" instead? I mean, you could make that fragment grammatical by simply removing the words "..the ways that". However, in my view the resulting sentence would suggest that the Canons of page construction apply to ... all books. I wonder if more work on the rest of the text is warranted as well. I need to spend some more time looking at that.
  • I still have problems with the relationship of the illustrations to the text. I see how Image:Golden canon of page construction.svg (the one with a circle on the left and a grid on the right) relates to the long Tschichold quote that begins "In figure 5...". However, it took me three readings to figure that out, and I'm not especially stupid (tho my wife might argue that point ;-) ). That illustration is a good one, but its explication need to connect a few more dots (figuratively, not literally). Just below that, I'm still trying to work out the relationship between Image:Tschichold medieval canon.svg and the text... I suggest the following:
  1. Number the figures. I know there's probably a Wikipedia guideline somewhere or other that poopoos on that practice as a general principle... and as a general rule, I would agree. But we're getting into some finer layers of explanation here, and extra measures are called for. WP:IAR privileges clarity over the letter of the... guidelines. :-)
  2. Remove the words "In figure 5..." from Tschichold's quote. Replace them with "In figure..." and the newly-added number for the corresponding Wikipedia illustration.. in square brackets of course. I know there's probably a Wikipedia [...copy every word my explanation above].
  3. Work on "connecting the dots" by drawing explicit connections between the text and the illustrations.
  • I still have 1b concerns... the section needs to be clarified, in my opinion... or dropped? Are these canons still in widespread use? If not, say so explicitly in the body text (as opposed to indirectly, within a quote) and cite it to a reliable source. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the very useful and pertinent feedback. I will continue working on this over the next days. The canons are still used and taught in the context of book design. FYI, several books (used in the article as references) are specifically based on these canons, (The Elements of Typographical Style, The Form of the Book, On book design). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:05, 28 March 2008.

[edit] Costello Music

The peer review wasn't getting any responses, and I can't see any glaring flaws with the article. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 16:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • Current references number 1 and 2 need what the journal was and the author and the title of the article.
      • I don't have access to the articles :( They're refs for the reviews in the infobox. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 17:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • What is with reference number 9 that is a self-reference back to the article itself?
      • It's a link to a section further down with all the chart archives in it. I tried linking them individually in the table but it resulted in a big mess. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 17:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.urbanplanet.co.uk/showNews.aspx?loadid=00651 is lacking publisher information in the citation
Other links check out with the link tool fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Comment' I also note that the nominator first edited this article on the 13th of March of this year. Do the other usual editors agree that it should be at FAC? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please check my user page to see my previous accounts. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 17:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
      • First edited in July, and did this over the course of a month. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 17:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I have slapped myself with a wet noodle for not thinking to check your user page for previous usernames! Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - all the sections are too shorts. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 07:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There's not that much more information. The album wasn't popular enough to prompt any kind of in-depth commentary. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 14:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you have any specific concerns or areas you would like to see expanded? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 14:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now.
    • Each quotation must be followed by a citation. This may mean that a citation is repeated in consecutive sentences. (done) -- Naerii 17:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please eliminate jargon; most people will have no idea what "A&R" means; "record company talent scout" could be used instead. (done) -- Naerii 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Is there information about why they recorded the album in LA instead of in the UK?
      • Hm, I had a poke around and found this [10] which says:

        • "A respect for rock history, and Jon's desire to achieve an old-fashioned, analogue sound, led to Costello Music being recorded with Beck's producer, Tony Hoffer, in Los Angeles's Sunset Sound, a studio once used by The Beach Boys and Bob Dylan."

      • Do you think that's relevant in the article? I'm not sure. -- Naerii 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I think that's pretty relevant. I don't think most bands would go to a different country to record their first album. Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Added, along with some other information I found. That section needs a copyedit more than ever now, however :'/ -- Naerii 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Did they write their own songs for this album?
      • Yeah they did, I'll add that now. -- Naerii 17:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the article needs a copyedit. The background section doesn't flow well at all, and the Release section at first makes it sound like the album was released only in the UK and US before going on to discuss other countries
      • Yeah, looking over it, I agree, but it's difficult to copyedit your own work - can't see the wood for the trees, as it were. -- Naerii 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Any idea how many copies they sold of the album in the UK? (the overseas amount is listed)
      • Added. -- Naerii 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There are several positive reviews listed, with only one negative. Is that a fair representation of the criticism recieved?
      • Yeah, it is - if you check the reviews in the infobox most people were like "well, this isn't the best album ever, but it's pretty good". -- Naerii 17:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Citations 1 and 2 need the title of the review and hte name of the reviewer
      • I don't have access to those magazines :( They were already in the article when I started working on it. -- Naerii 17:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, the references need to be complete. You may have to replace them with something else if you don't have access to these, or contact the person who inserted the reference in the first place. Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Okay, I poked through and found the person who added People magazine and Q magazine. The editor who added the first is a registered account that is still active, so hopefully I'll get a response on that front. The editor who added the People review is an IP who has presumably been re-allocated as it hasn't edited since September, so I'm not sure what to do there. I'll have a poke around and see if I can find the review. -- Naerii 18:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
            • No luck, I'll remove them now. -- Naerii 03:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The article should never source itself.
      • It doesn't, but I'll fix that as it seems to be confusing people. -- Naerii 17:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Are urbanplanet and ilikemusic.com reliable sources?
      • I replaced the urbanplanet source with The Sunday Herald. The ilikemusic.com source seems uncontroversial as all it is doing is confirming that they toured Japan, the US and Europe. -- Naerii 04:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the only External link should be the Official website.

Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot for the criticism, this should keep me busy for a while :) -- Naerii 17:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:05, 28 March 2008.

[edit] No Way Out (2004)

previous FAC (20:17, 8 March 2008)

I am renominating the article for FA becauase it is a good article and meets the FA criteria, the previous nomination failed because there were few responses and of the two responses, 1) did not make sense 2)The problem in the objection was fixed, but the user never replied. --TrUCo-X 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment, overlinking makes it look really busy... plus, I think linking dates is a rather uncommon practice these days. 128.175.80.58 (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Says who?--TrUCo-X 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
See also sections usually come before the references. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That's Fixed.--TrUCo-X 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
  • At the time of this writing, reference eighteen is invalid.
  • The match notes in the results section should be sourced. iMatthew 2008 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ref 18 fixed, I feel notes dont need to be sourced, its already sourced in the event section and the ref that sourced the match covers the notes.TrUCo-X 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Check out December to Dismember (2006). Our first FA. iMatthew 2008 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Done.--TrUCo-X 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Reference 33 is invalid. iMatthew 2008 18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed NimiTize 02:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I see no other problems with it. The MoS is great, I haven't found any spelling or grammar errors. Everything is fully sourced and explained. I give my support. iMatthew 2008 15:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • "the fifth annual (and sixth overall)" - confusing.
    • The event was first held in 1998, but not in 1999. But then it was used again in 2000 annually till present, so becuase it was not used in 1999 it was not continuosly annual. Is that better addressed?~~
      • Well it needs addressing in the article, not here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That is redundant. Overall means how many "overall", how can I fit an entire sentence into the lead for that little phrase? For example Unforgiven (2004), that is how it is written and its a GA.--TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Well that's as maybe, but this is FAC not GAN so standards are very much higher. All I'm saying is that I found the phrase confusing. If it stays, so be it, I won't oppose on that alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I think that sounds weird, as well. Plus, whenever there is a new new No Way Out (or whatever pay-per-view event), you'll just have to go back and change the overall number. I removed that, but kept "fifth annual", as most people understand what that means. Nikki311 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Title is "No Way Out (2004)", all other mentions are "No Way Out 2004" - which is it?
    • It's both.TrUCo-X
      • Well, it looks to me like it's only No Way Out (2004) in the title and nowhere else. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Well im not sure but WP:PW consensus on our articles is to write it like so...--TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Okay, I knew I'd run into Project rules at some point. It doesn't matter really what WP:PW say, it seems strange that you have one name for the title which you never use again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Actually, Truco you are wrong here. The official name is just "No Way Out". The title of the article is "No Way Out (2004)" to differentiate between the event taking place in other years (No Way Out (2003) and No Way Out (2005) for example). The title is not "No Way Out 2004", so it should not be written like that in the article. Either write just "No Way Out" or the "No Way Out" event in 2004. Nikki311 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I fixed it to read "No Way Out (2004)" in the article. Nikki311 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Ankle Lock" does not need to be capitalised.
    • I disagree with this one. It is the proper name for the move, not the move in general. Nikki311 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well then the link used needs to be corrected because it refers to "Ankle lock". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Nevermind. You are right. I misread it as "Angle Lock". Ankle lock does need to be uncap. Nikki311 14:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Fixed it.TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If you end a sentence with Smackdown! you probably don't need the full stop as well.
    • But that's the name of the show. (with the exclamation mark)TrUCo-X
      • Not disputing that at all, but Smackdown!. looks odd since you have two "periods" in a row. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • But thats how it might have to be due to it, so will it remain?TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Just lose the full stop! That way it's fixed for me! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Full stop lost. Nikki311 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • All very wrestling jargony but you've done a good job on linking out to some things. It may be a problem for the non-expert though as it's a little tiresome to only understand half the phrases.
  • "Other On-Screen Talent" - "Other on-screen talent"
    • FixedTrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "At WrestleMania XX, John Cena defeated the Big Show for the United States Championship after he delivered an FU to Show.[27][28] Goldberg and Brock Lesnar continued their feud up to a match at WrestleMania XX.[29] Goldberg went on to defeat Lesnar at WrestleMania XX.[27] After their match at WrestleMania XX, Goldberg and Lesnar were released from the company.[7][8]" - count the Wrestlemania XX's here...
    • But that's the name of the event, similar to RAW and SmackDown!.
      • I know, but featured articles are supposed to have good (if not brilliant) prose, and this isn't.
        • Fixed. Nikki311 16:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not keen on all the bold in the results. What's its purpose?
    • To tell the type of match in which contestants participated in.TrUCo-X
      • If I have to ask, you probably need a key. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • What are you trying to say?TrUCo-X 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
          • What I'm saying is if I don't understand why the font is bold, why should anyone else? It needs to be explained, and whether WP:PW say it's their style or not, it doesn't matter - featured articles need to be accessible to all readers, not just subject experts and fans. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Well that is the first time I encounter that problem, plus December to Dismember (2006) (FA) is like that.--TrUCo-X 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
              • The original purpose for the bolding, as I understand it, was to differentiate the results of the match (_____ defeated ______ in a ______ match) from the details of the match written below it (_______ pinned ________ after such and such move). This was in the originally form of pay-per-view results page, which were closer to just lists of results rather than articles (Ex: Halloween Havoc). When the pay-per-views began to be expanded into their own articles, the lists of quick results were listed at the bottom of the page for anyone who just wanted to see who beat who without having to read through the text. Personally, I'm not married to the bolding in any way, so if you still believe it should be unbolded....I can make that happen in two seconds. Nikki311 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
                • I don't really care if it was used in another FA or not, that's not relevant. All I'm saying is that the bold text should relate to something specific and in this case it really doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Bolding gone. Nikki311 13:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "(5:35)" = I guess this is the time into the match this occurred but it's not clear to non-experts or those not familiar with this style of article.

That's what I have for now, witholding support pending these points being addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Closing notes; this is the second archival of a FAC for this article this month. I hope some of tips for locating peer reviewers at WP:PRV, explained at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-17/Dispatches, will be helpful with this article, and that several weeks will be taken to work through any issues before it returns to FAC. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:05, 28 March 2008.

[edit] 2005 ACC Championship Game

Self-nominated. This is a companion article to the FA-class 2007 ACC Championship Game article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Licensing for Image:2005 ACC Championship Game tickets.jpg does not appear appropriate. Tickets contain no less than four copyrighted/trademarked logos and appear, therefore, to constitute derivative works (i.e. uploader is not the copyright holder and cannot release them into the public domain). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Bummer. What license would you suggest? JKBrooks85 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • After a discussion, the photo in question has been removed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Usual form is to list Author first before the title of the article.
    • http://www.newsadvance.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=LNA%2FMGArticle%2FLNA_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173353431203&path=!sports comes up with a Page Not found error for me.
      • All other links checked out fine for me. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Good catch! Must've just gone dead ... the link worked fine when I ran that tool earlier. The cite's been replaced. As to the format, if it really bugs you, I can fix them. I'd really prefer not to, simply because I'm lazy and because it's been acceptable on past FACs. Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you. JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It bugs me, but I'm picky (grins) Not enough to make you work too hard... (I know how hard it is to change refs, and if it's passed in the past, I can't make you) Looks good! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, you can always make me by witholding support until I do. :) I appreciate the compliment. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments. I have some copyediting concerns.
  • *I think the information about the conference asking to hold a championship in 2004 is irrelevant to this article.
      • Added a link to the main article.
    • The tone of this article is way too colloquial. It reads too much like sports commentary than an encyclopedia article. I've done a copyediting pass to try to tone that down, but I think there is more to do.
      • Well, I do newspaper writing professionally. It's just how I write; more than a few years of experience have ingrained that it me, and it's been good enough in other FACs. I would, however, really appreciate someone like yourself pointing out the more egregious examples.
        • That actually explains a lot :) I think your prose overall flows well, but I worry that some of the more colorful turns of phrase are unnecessary and could confuse people unfamiliar with US slang. The article is already full of football jargon (and really has to be), so the tighter the rest of the prose is, the easier people will understand it. The ones that generally bother me are things like "ran into a roadblock", "cast as", "headed into", "came out to a hot start," etc. I removed a lot during my copyediting pass, and I think it's decent now. Karanacs (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      • "the Hokies ran into a roadblock"
        • Replaced.
      • Please try to limit the number of times "heading into the [inaugural] champsionship game" is used
        • Done.
    • This sentence makes little sense and doesn't add much to the article "Virginia Tech quarterback Marcus Vick was cast as the key for the favored Virginia Tech Hokies on the field heading into the game"
      • Reworded.

Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Bolded part in the lede should not be wikilinked
    • Unlinked, linked later in lede.
  • Don't wikilink dates without year; November 5 and December 17
    • Removed links.
      • Actually, that's not true. Wikilinking month-date combinations allows a user's date preferences to work (5 November vs November 5). See WP:SYL Karanacs (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Replaced links.
  • "difficult Atlantic Division " difficult how?
    • Clarified.
  • Virginia should be wikilinked with their football page
    • Linked.
  • What is a touchdown?
    • Linked on first reference, unlinked on second.
  • "Virginia Tech defeated Duke and Ohio by scores of 45–0, then hosted #15 Georgia Tech, beating the Yellow Jackets by a score of 51–7.[8] The Virginia Tech defense held Duke's offense to just 35 total yards, an NCAA record." Did VT beat both Ohio and Duke by a score of 45-0 each? Its unclear. Also, it talks about Duke, Ohio, GT, than goes back to Duke. I think all Duke info should go together.
    • Reworded and rearranged.
  • Tight end is wikilinked at least twice. The first quarterback isnt wikilinked.
    • Unlinked and linked.

Overall looks good. I will go through it again, but this is a start. PGPirate 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Various fixes have been made as suggested. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Few more fixes, on my second look.
    • Location should follow this template: [[City, State|City]], [[State]]
    • Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football => 2005 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team
      • Relinked.
      • University of North Carolina => either to the yearly article or football team
        • Relinked.
    • First mention of Atlantic Division should be wikified
      • Linked first reference, unlinked second.
    • I think Atlantic Coast Conference only needs to be wikified once.
      • Fixed.
      • It seems like a lot of words are wikilinked more than once. I always thought editors wikify the first instance of the word, and thats it. Maybe I am wrong, just saying.
        • I tend to link football terms more than once in order to help out folks who may not be as familiar with college football. I try to space out the linked terms, but if there's a specific example you'd like me to remove, let me know.
    • The 2007 Louisville Cardinals football team did not play in a bowl game.
      • Relinked.
    • Maybe split this sentence up "The 2005 Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) Championship Game was a regular-season American football contest at Jacksonville Municipal Stadium in Jacksonville, Florida between the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Florida State Seminoles in a game that decided the winner of the Atlantic Coast Conference football championship."
      • Split.
    • "Virginia Tech entered the game having won the 2004 ACC Championship...." would season be a better word than game?
      • Excellent suggestion. Fixed.
    • "With the addition of Boston College, the ACC consisted of 12 teams, allowing it to hold a conference championship game under NCAA rules.[4] A request to the NCAA by conference officials to hold the game following the 2004 season was rejected, and so the league's first championship game had to wait until after Boston College's addition." I think these sentences should be switched. It goes from the 2005 season to 2004 back to 2005.
      • Switched.
    • "In their ninth game, however, Virginia Tech stumbled." If possible, it might be interesting to have their rank after the 8th game
      • Added.
- PGPirate 17:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • More changes have been made, per the suggestions. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:02, 25 March 2008.

[edit] Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol

Self-Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been significantly improved upon since its successful GA Review to improve the previously lacking prose and citations. I believe it now exemplifies some of the great work of Wikipedia and meets the Featured Article Criteria, and therefore hereby self-nominate this article as the major contributor, also assisted by The Dominator (the GA reviewer) and Milkbreath (the copyeditor) for Featured Article status. Codharris (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose for now. Neutral
    • There is no history section. I recommend the "chronology of missions" be altered and incorporated into a broader history section. I had to do a bit of searching in the article to find out when the organization was created. Also, the history section should be the first in the article
      • It has been moved to the first section and appropriately renamed History. Is there any other information you believe should be included in this section? Codharris (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Statistics as of February 27, 2008 - this is referring to the infobox, with those stats. Is there a reference to those stat numbers?
      • I just looked at my reference (which for some reason I never did list), and it requires a login to access. Since this is not allowed on WP, I have removed the information. If I find another source, I will re-add it. Codharris (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually that is allowed as a reference, just not an external link, feel free to readd it. The Dominator (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In the opening sentence, it'd be nice if you explained that better. You link echelon to Civil Air Patrol, but then three words later you also link to Civil Air Patrol.
      • Removed the echelon link as it provided no meaningful link. Codharris (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Double check the Wikilinks. In the lede alone, there are four links that are redirects.
      • I found the four in the lead and a few others throughout the article and fixed them. If there are any more, let me know. Codharris (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Regarding the tables, I'd like a specific section of the table that says "Source", since its reference is ambiguous.
      • Would a preceding title with inline citation be appropriate? Codharris (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The organization should be tweaked a bit. Icons of the Connecticut Wing and Cadet activities are both very short sections.
      • Both have been expanded with referencing. Codharris (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm a little confused about the sourcing for the images. You say they are PD, but I'd like some clarification on that. Were those images photographed by a user, or were they online and then uploaded?
      • They are products of the U.S. Federal Government. Under Public Law 576, Civil Air Patrol is officially incorporated and designated as the official auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force, a federal entity. Its logos, images and other assorted copyrights therefore fall under this domain, which is exactly how they are designated - products of the U.S. Federal government. Codharris (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In the table under Squadrons under the Connecticut Wing, is it necessary to list every city as X, Connecticut? Isn't it obvious that they're all in Connecticut?
    • I added a {{fact}}, which should be addressed.
      • Deleted. Added new information in its place, with references. Codharris (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks better. Yea, for the tables, an inline citation at the top would work. Regarding the history, how much of it is really attributable to the Connecticut Wing, rather than the Civil Air Patrol in general? The Hurricane Katrina section, for example, seems to focus only on the CAP in general, not necessarily on the Connecticut section. The same goes for much of the rest of the history section. Specifically, when was the Connecticut Wing formed? In the current command structure, it says As of February 2008. What does the sentence, The Connecticut Wing liaison is Lt Col Andrew Marteka., have to do with the rest of Cadet Activities, and is there a reference for it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll add inline citations in a moment. As far as the history section - CTWG was among the first wings formed as the national program was formed. Thus, Connecticut Wing formed on December 1, 1941. The 9/11 section does specify CTWG's involvement, and I believe the WWII section does as well. The present section also specifically relates to CTWG's operations. Although much of CAP is similar, I have eliminated those things that do not apply to CTWG and added some more specific things. The Hurricane Katrina section, as you said, is a larger-scale event that describes CAP in general. Although CTWG personnel and aircraft were involved, it is not specific to CTWG. It is, however, important to our history as explained in the last paragraph of that section. The sentence you're referring to is meant to explain that Lt Col Marteka is the liaison for Connecticut Wing as far as those encampments go - which is directly related to the previous sentence. Thus, it is important to cadet activities. This may need a copyedit to be clear... Codharris (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll change my vote to a neutral, on the basis that portions of the article are on the CAP as a whole, not necessarily the CTWG. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hink, you have a bolded oppose and a bolded neutral. Please have mercy on my eyes, and fix your initial boled oppose to a neutral, where I can easily see it when I read through next time. Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - regarding sources and pictures.
    • Footnote 27 goes to a sale site for CAP items, and doesn't appear to source what it's footnoted to in the article.
      • Thanks for pointing that out - it has been fixed. Codharris (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Ctwg.gif lacks source information, is it fair use or free? All the other pictures look good, as they are US government so non-copyright.
      • This has also been fixed now. Codharris (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, a large amount of this article is sourced to the CAP site or to publications by it. It would be nice to see some of the Further Reading books used also, to give more of a third-party view.
Much of the information (particularly in the history sections) that I have attributed to CAP-related sites is also mentioned in the third party publications mentioned in Further Reading. However, as I do not have a copy of all of those books handy, I cannot say which facts apply to which sources. As I encounter this book, I may take care of this, but note that WP:PSTS states Primary Sources are allowed, but must be used with care. Codharris (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Note I didn't look at prose or MOS issues, just sources and photos. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That takes care of that! Thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is CTWG a state or federal agency? I suspect I know, but it isn't as explicit as I'd like. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither. CTWG is not its own government agency. It is an entity of the Civil Air Patrol, Inc., which is a federal agency. Thus, since CTWG does not report to the state but reports through the national CAP to the United States Air Force and Joint Chiefs of Staff, we are a unit of a federal agency. Like any unit of the United States Air Force, this makes us neither - but a piece of a federal agency. Codharris (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Assuming you're referencing the images, note that productions of the individual wings are published by the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol", as indicated in the publisher line of the information tags on all of those images. Since the U.S. Civil Air Patrol is federal, the copyright status applies. Codharris (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No, other than the (formerly) missing license noted by Ealdgyth, I had no image concerns. I was curious for other reasons. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as GA reviewer. Article has come a very long way and is broad in its coverage considering it covers one wing of fifty-one. The prose might need some tuning up and I would eventually like some of the further reading books used as sources. My vote is support because I'm confident that the article will meet the requirements in the next few days. I strongly suggest getting a good copyedit from either Milkbreath or someone else who has alot of experience with this stuff like Marskell. The Dominator (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Multiple 1A concerns; a thorough copy edit is needed. Some examples from the first two non-lead sections:
    • “defense against submarine attacks along the borders of the United States” – no doubt you mean coasts?
      • Mainly, yes. Where else do submarines come from? The United States is completely surrounded by water except for the Canadian border (don't forget the Rio Grande). Even still, CAP does patrol the northern border as well ... performing border patrol and homeland security missions. Although the mission was different, these flights were flown during WWII as well. So, actually, I do mean borders. Codharris (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • How could “privately-owned civil aircraft” engage and/or sink submarines? Where did civilian planes get armament; what armament did they have?
      • Privately-owned civil aircraft were equipped with bombs ("depth charges") and machine guns. The machine guns were rarely used, mainly to scare off German U-Boats. The depth charges are mentioned in the statistics of this section - 173 U-boats, 57 depth charges, 2 sunk. This armament came out of the pilot's pockets - they had access to the weaponry as the Air Force auxiliary, but they paid for it themselves. They were, after all, privately owned aircraft. Codharris (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That should be better articulated in the article. Civilian planes attacking U-boote seems abrupt without preceding discussion of armament. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I've tried to express this more clearly in the article - let me know if this is clearer. Codharris (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • “More importantly” assignment of importance is OR. Do not editorialize, per WP:WTA
    • “A German submarine commander” – who?
      • He was a Prisoner of War! He was severely wounded and ultimately died. No one ever knew his name - that wasn't their primary concern at the time. Codharris (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, asking for a name would probably have been one of the first things asked. If this isn't known, however, it isn't known. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • “the U.S. government redesignated CAP as a civilian agency” – preceding text implies this had already been a civilian agency ("Civil Air Patrol", "layer of civilian defense", "privately-owned civil aircraft", etc.)
      • "Agency" is the key word here. Agency describes a goverment position or authority, but the group consisted of civilians. Civilian is just being used to emphasize that the government's official recognition of CAP as an agency did not make them a government entity, but did make them report to the U.S. Air Force and deliver an annual report to Congress. Also, the main reason this sentence is included is the predicate of teh sentence - an agency that would not participate in combat. This removed them from submarine chasing status. Codharris (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • If you're going to keep "redesignated" verbiage, the former status should be better articulated. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I've changed the phraseology of the sentence - hopefully it is more clear now.
    • “Their primary mission” – this is a singular entity.
      • Again, will fix. Subject-Verb agreement isn't really my strong suit Codharris (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Codharris, when you've addressed issues, have you pinged the talk page of opposers for a new look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I usually let my replies sit for a day or two, then put a note on the user's talk page if they haven't responded yet. Codharris (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Hope you don't mind - I put 'question' in front of your comment to make it easier for Raul654 to follow this page. Codharris (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That's kind of you, since I appreciate all the help I can get when I have to read through 50 of these pages, but unnecessary, since I'm the one following the page :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:02, 25 March 2008.

[edit] 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States)

Self Nomination - This article has undergone a sucessful GA and peer review over the past few months and has increased dramatically in quality. I think it is worthy of at least an attempt at FA nomination. Ed! (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment – as I mentioned in the article's talk page, two days ago, reference 9 does not support the unit's activities in Vietnam from '67 to '71. I think you should be using reference 12. Also as mentioned in the article's talk page – "the Brigade served in Binh Dinh Province, seeing four more missions, Operation Washington Greene, Operation Greene Lightning, and Operation Greene Storm." – four more missions, with only three listed. Carré (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed both issues. -Ed! (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Lead says nothing about the unit honors, so it is not a proper summary. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. -Ed! (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Why wouldn't GlobalSecurity.org be a nonreliable site? It is notable enough, and I've never run into problems using it. PressRepublican is a news site, and the other two are societies created by webmasters with valid credentials, as it seems. Still, if they are completely unusable I suppose the information could be sourced to one of the other citations; none of them conflict with one another. -Ed! (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Citation removed. -Ed! (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The Shelby Stanton book needs publisher information.
Fixed. -Ed! (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Some of the websites need publisher information and to be formatted consistently. Several have the author in the publisher spot
Please point me to the page where I can find out how to cite properly; I wasn't sure how to do this. -Ed! (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Publisher on a website is the group that puts out the information. To use an example from this article, the http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/173abnbde.htm citation, the publisher would be GlobalSecurity.org, and for this one http://www.173abnbde.setaf.army.mil/newcomers.htm, the author would be 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team Staff (which honestly you might not have to put in) and the publisher would be 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team. For this one http://www.173rdairborne.com/heraldry.htm, looking at the page and the site..., the author would be Ken Gaudet (since at the bottom of the page it says "Information credited to Ken Gaudet") and the publisher would be 173rdairborne.com. Do the expamples help some? Ealdgyth | Talk 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Also... Template:Cite web might help some. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Citation Removed. -Ed! (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth | Talk 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Was there a rationale for the brigade's constitution in 1915? Was it related to the war in Europe, Pancho Villa...? Contexualising the creation of the brigade, if verifiable, could be of interest to the reader. I'm too tired to support or oppose the article right now (mild insomnia and Wikipedia are an ill-advised mixture ;-). SoLando (Talk) 07:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I went looking for that, it seems that the Brigade was just part of the pre-WWI buildup, but there are no reliable sources to state that directly. -Ed! (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me. Minor issues with citations already mentioned above aside, I would recommend having the "Legacy" section come ahead of the "Honors" section, as the charts break the narrative text up. Ameriquedialectics 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support—Overall a worthy article with a few minor issues.
    • There are some spaces around the en-dashes, which a few reviewers deem objectionable.
    • Should the airborne in "Airborne qualified" be lower-case?
    • Should the gold in "Iraqi Gold" be lower-case?
    • The format of the "Honors" section looks irregular in my browser. That is, the "Campaign Streamers table is offset to the right edge and the image of Alfred Rascon is not visible unless I scroll right. (My browser is half the screen width.)
    • I'm not completely certain about the citation formats. Some of them appear irregular. E.g. "U.S. releases Turkish troops" uses an inconsistent date; "US Army, Europe Press Release, March 23, 2004" externally links the date into the title and doesn't use the actual title of the article (plus there is a left square bracket at the end); "U.S. forces find suspected gold cache in Iraq" doesn't list the publication date, &c.
    —RJH (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, about the "Honors" Graphs, I wasn't sure how to get those to float to the right (The kept overlapping) so I just set them with a bunch of <br/> tags, which isn't a perfect solution, but I can't find any other way to keep them set. -Ed! (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the table flow. Are you willing to address the other issues?—RJH (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I took care of the upper-case letters, but I'm still a bit muddy on why my citations aren't correct...-Ed! (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—not well-written. Here are examples just from the lead, indicating the need for someone unfamiliar with the text to go through it thoroughly. Research edit history pages of similar articles to locate good copy-editors (from their edit summaries); ask them nicely, and you'll have collaborators, for the future too. In particular, there's a tendency to write for experts in this topic. See my queries below, which I should not have to pose.

  • "Activated in 1915, the 173rd Airborne Brigade saw service in both World War I and World War II, but is best remembered for its actions during the Vietnam War." Is "but" logical? The contrast—if it's there—is unclear. Perhaps just plain "and" is better?
  • "Well noted for its roles in ..."—"Well noted" is a little awkward, and fuzzy in meaning. I'm unsure whether "Honored for its ..." is good. Or better "For its roles in ...", if all decorations were for those two operations (?). Needs thought.
  • "The brigade eventually returned to the United States, when it was deactivated in 1972." No, the "when" doesn't work. "Where" would be better, but surely "... US, and was deactivated in ...".
  • "2005–2006"—Is "2005 and 2006" better?
  • Uh-oh: "currently"—how long will that be true for? You need a "As of 2008, the brigade is ..." (preferably an unlinked "as of"). There are other "currentlys", too.
  • "A decorated unit"—outsiders may wonder whether this is different from the decorations of individuals you've already mentioned. Was is one decoration? If so, perhaps give the year and it will be clearer. And decorations are different from awards, or not? Tony (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC) PS I find the wrapping of the dates in the infoblot very hard to read. Can they be indented differently to avoid this? Why not string all of the dates into running text, separated by semicolons? Then the infloblot won't extend so far. Tony (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Should I wait for a non-expert copy editor to look through the page and restate things in layman's terms? -Ed! (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Query: no feedback on the copyedit since the 18th. What has been done, and have you contacted Tony to revisit the improvements? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:05, 24 March 2008.

[edit] Aang

Self-nominator: This article has come a long way, through four GA nominations and three peer reviews. Finally, the article has become greater than I have every imagined it to be. I think this article has what it takes to be FA. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 02:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolved concerns ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think an article that only has 100 words on reception for a 3000 word article is really comprehensive (FA? 1b) Will (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you care to explain how we could get any more comprehensive when every other review on the Internet says the same exact thing? Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's the proportion of real-life to fiction. Most fiction FAs have a proportion of 70-30 or 60-40 to real life (i.e. creation and reception), whereas Aang is about 70-30 (or even 80-20) in the other direction. Will (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Where in the FA criteria does it say there must be a certain proportion of real life to fiction?
  • Nowhere explicitly, but the difference shows that such an article isn't really comprehensive. Will (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • All possible sources about out of universe description have been added. You are welcome to look for more, but, as I view things, this is not a valid oppose since it is as comprensive as possible. The Placebo Effect (talk)`
  • It should be noted that User:Sceptre (signing as "Will") has denoted on his user page that he is on vacation, thus he may not respond to comments on this page immediately. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 13:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Sceptre/Will was actually refering to WP:UNDUE. With so little real-world content and so much fictional content, the article is either not comprehensive in regards to real-world information, or the plot detail is excessive per a MOS (WP:WAF). There are a few instances where the lack of real-world sources leads to originial research through synthesis of primary sources. Example: "Aang's character possesses a deep respect for life and freedom, as evidenced by his vegetarianism[13] and his reluctance to fight.[30]" - Who says he has a deep respect for life and freedom? Who says he has a reluctance to fight? Who says that even if the "his vegetarianism and his reluctance to fight" are obviously true (I haven't watched the show), that they support the first claim? This article is fine as a Good Article, but the focus on so much in-universe content really hinders it becoming FA (at this point). – sgeureka t•c 14:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I tried to look for more out-of-universe information but could not find any. However, I toned down the plot summary for the show and completely removed the plot summary for the game as it was not necessary. Hope it is better. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 20:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose—1a, 2a, 1c. The prose is full of redundant wording and other serious problems. Take the opening para:

Aang is a fictional character and the main protagonist for Nickelodeon's animated television series Avatar: The Last Airbender. The character was created by Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko and is voiced by Zach Tyler Eisen. Aang, being the central characer for the program, has appeared in every episode of the show, including the pilot episode that has never been aired.[1] In addition to the series, Aang has also appeared in a variety of other media, such as trading cards,[2] video games,[3][4] T-shirts,[5] and web comics.[6]

    • Comma after "DiMartino" probably better (and ... and).
    • Was ... is?
    • Remove "being"; you might consider using dashes here: "Aang – the central characer for the program – has appeared in every episode of the show, including the pilot episode that has never been aired." BTW, is this a smooth integration of two seemingly different ideas into the one sentence? Looks awkward. And at the top he's announced as "a fictional character"; only now are we told that he's "the central character". Poorly organised.
    • Oh the additives: In addition ... also. Remove "a variety of", since you trot out the variety of them in your list, anyway.
  • And further:
    • Do we really need "In the show,"?
    • Wouldn't mind a brief phrase after "Airbender", explaining that it's a super-race of aliens that regularly attack Earth, or something like that. One problem I have with such articles is their assumption of insider knowledge. "A supercentenarian at the incarnation age of 112"—huh? Am I missing something? The lead is meant to prepare us for the article, to paint the bigger picture, to lead us into the topic.
    • "that he must settle either along or with others"—along others? Um ....
    • and that he "seems to bring comfort in the most dangerous or hostile situations."[15]—See MOS on punctuation in quotations.
  • This is way below standard. The whole text is urgently in need of serious, time-consuming copy-editing by someone ELSE. Please don't just correct these random examples.
  • The verifications need auditing for accuracy, reliability, and formatting/MOS (I see ellipsis dots without the proper spacing, for example).
  • Ref 2 is used at the top in support of the claim that the game is in "trading card" form. But the web-page is only a commercial prediction of future publicaiton in that form: "CARLSBAD, Ca. – November 17, 2005 –Nickelodeon’s latest hit animated series, “Avatar: The Last Airbender,” makes its trading card game debut in January ...".
  • Ref 3 et al. require our readers to log in with a "nickname" and password, something that many will be chary about doing. Is this permissable?
    • Ref 8: Pittarese, Frank (2006). "Nation Exploration". Nickelodeon Magazine (Winter 2006): 2." Is that a page number at the end?

Tony (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 14:59, 22 March 2008.

[edit] Treehouse of Horror V

I am nominating this article as I believe I've done all I can to improve it and gain feedback on it. Through the help of several of WP:SIMPSONS, including User:Cirt and User:Gran2, I was able exspand many areas and I hope that this article will be promoted to featured status. Thank you. Buc (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Mainly due to the production section. It's basically a very large proselist. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:47, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
    • A very large what? Buc (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
      • A proselist: A list of disjointed facts thrown together in prose (paragraph form). Equazcion •✗/C • 17:58, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
        • Ok well if you can tell where the problem is I can work on fixing it. Buc (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
From the production section:
"Matt Groening originally pitched the idea that Homer would travel through time in Time and Punishment, by jamming his hand in the toaster, but the other writers rejected it.[1] The scenes where Homer is in the past were written so that he is there for the time it takes for a piece of bread to be toasted.[2] When Homer is first traveling through time, he originally stated "I'm the first non-fictional character to travel backwards through time".[3] Groening was confused as to why the line was changed to "non-Brazilian" because he liked the original so much, and not understand what the new line meant.[1] Peabody and Sherman were added in due to the show Rocky and His Friends being a major influence on The Simpsons. The scene where the family's house is being moved was originally slightly longer.[4] Reardon said that the storyboard for the scene where Flanders talks on a big screen, was "of War and Peace length".[5]"
Featured article candidates are supposed to contain brilliant prose. This could pretty much have been a bulleted list. Most of the production section reads like this. The sentences of a given paragraph should all work towards demonstrating a singular point. This looks like a trivia section that someone removed the bullets from. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:10, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - quoting equazcion. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed Buc (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
All the links checked out fine with the link checking tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose
  • The film is cuts off,
    • What's your piont?
      • The spelling error
  • mansion in the mountains to apply as caretakers - apply for jobs as caretakers?
  • he cut off the television and beer supply, who cut it off? confusing
    • Mr Burns, it says that.
      • The text is not clear on who says it
        • It says "Mr. Burns cut off the television and beer supply"
          • Because it was fixed after i said it
  • with an an axe
  • him in the back with his axe, as soon as he arrives.
    • I think that's ok.
      • It's redundant
        • How?
          • Bob and Bill entered the recording studio to start production on the album, as soon as they arrived at the recording studio- same concept here, he HAS to arrive to be hit with an axe thus making it redundant, I edited this page, as soon as i arrived in edit mode
  • The whole family sit in the snow to watch with him and eventually freeze., "watch with him"?
    • Err..yeah why?
      • It's poorly written
        • How?
          • It's awkwardly worded, The whole family sit in the snow to watch with himnext to him and eventually freeze.
  • He then kills a mosquito
    • Again I think that's ok
      • Redundant
        • How?
          • I then added another edit to this post. I then went to get something to eat after.
  • before returning to the present. In the present - redundant
    • What is
      • Return to the present, then IN the present - same thing, He's in the present, you've told the reader twice
  • Homer eventually arrives
  • David Mirkin tried to put "as much blood and guts" - no need for quotes
    • It's a direct quotes so it's is needed.
      • It doesn't need to be a quote, you can write out the same thing without a quote
        • "It doesn't need to be a quote" Huh? It is a quote, it's not a matter of choice.
          • It doesn't need to be a quote, for example - The band "enjoyed the recording process" - the quotes can be removed to be just - The band enjoyed the recording process, no is no need for a quote here
  • was also in reaction to this. Mirkin also, redundant also
  • One sentence paragraphs
    • I've fixed what I can understand. But some I don't know what your getting at. Buc (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Poorly written throughout, it's basically a list of information combined into a paragraph with no flow between the sections. Example, Homer is yellow. Marge has blue hair. Her hair is tall. Together they have three kids. etc etc M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose The sections are way to short.
    • Which one
  • The are alot of prose issues and one sentance paragraphs. I think this probably needs a rewrite. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 07:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Which ones? Buc (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't the name of the short "The Shinning"? indopug (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Referencing concerns:
    • “The Envelope” reference is a “dead” link (i.e. returns “No records matching your search criteria were found”). Publisher is also incorrect (should be LA Times).
      • Changed link.
    • http://www.noisetosignal.org/about/ – this is a blog.
    • http://www.tvsquad.com – this is a blog
      • Added these facts in. Buc (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • http://media.www.thequindecim.com – a college newspaper; is this reliable? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The text addmitts it a college newspaper. Buc (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Identification of the source type(s) in the article prose does not address the concerns. How are these sources reliable, as defined in WP:V and WP:RS? Why are the opinions of two bloggers and a college newspaper staff notable? Anyone can compile a “personal favorites” or “top 10” list (see WP:SPS); why do these peoples’ opinions matter; what makes them authoritative and/or experts? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose right now

  • " sixth season, it premiered" - Should that be a full stop?
  • Production section has lots of really short paragraphs.
  • "Time and Punishment" or "Time and punishment"?
    • It's the former -that's the title of the segment- but I think it should be in quotes, rather than italics. Zagalejo^^^ 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "They also wrote scenes where Homer is in the past were written so that he is there for the time it takes for a piece of bread to be toasted." this sentence does not make any sense (to me, at least).
  • " Although a book from this scene was use was use in this segment." again, this doesn't make any sense.

Some rework required, particularly with the non-sensical sentences noted above. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn see Peer review Buc (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 19:48, 21 March 2008.

[edit] Primeval

I'm nominating this article for featured article because Primeval is an extremely popular ITV science fiction show with a lengthly but detailed article to match. The page covers most aspects of the series, and the pages linking off of it do the rest. Me and User:Nubula are the key editirs for the show that I know of, but the main Primeval page gets alot of edits. That's all I really need to say, feel free to look around the article. Please leave comments. --- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) review me! |my chatroom] 12:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - only short sections and tables, you must work for the GA review. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Image:Primeval cast.jpg fails WP:NFCC#1, which states "non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" The FUR asserts a purpose of "To illustrate the cast of the TV series". As a still-running program with living cast members, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect that a free "cast" image could be obtained (e.g. from a press conference, "red carpet" event, etc.) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Many many references lack publisher and last access dates, which is the minimum needed. Some are bald urls, which is also a MOS issue. Please format into a standard format. Link tool also shows a dead link to "Kanal 9: 48 Hours". Will try to return to judge the sources for RS after they are formatted. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above (bad ref formatting, too short, just tables,...). The article may be of B status at the moment. Please improve it to GA status first; you will find many good ideas how such an article might look, at WP:GA and WP:FA. – sgeureka t•c 13:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:48, 21 March 2008.

[edit] Richard Dawkins

Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel this article satisfies Featured article criteria. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Moni3: This is not an area that I have a lot of experience in, but I've read interviews with Dawkins, and my partner (who is a biochemist) and I have discussions about religion, evolution, and Dawkins in particular. She's adding to this commentary through me.

  • There's a lot of technical terminology that should be described simply for readers who are unfamiliar with the science in the article.
  • The second paragraph in personal life is odd. It describes Dawkins' formation of his thoughts on religion and evolution and then discusses his marriages, as if that's a cause and effect relationship. Perhaps creating a paragraph just for his relationships.
  • The evolution (ha!) of his theories, I think, should be in the same section. The aforementioned portion of Dawkins' thoughts on religion and evolution should go in the section on education.
  • Perhaps a sentence for the ignorant (me) to describe what "argument from design" means.
  • There is no citation for the first paragraph under "Evolutionary Biology".
  • Please describe what spandrels are and what their importance is to evolutionary theory.
  • In the lead of the article, you mention that Dawkins is the originator of new ideas, chiefly memetics. I think it would be very helpful to describe the impacts Dawkins' books had in the scientific community. You have some passing reference to criticism, but if Dawkins turned the scientific world on its ear, that should be made clear.
  • Please explain what reductionist is, in relation to the memetics debate.
  • I don't understand from the article the significance of the usage of "meme" in the context its being used. I'm not sure what it's missing, but I don't get it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the "Religion" section needs a topic sentence to start off with that introduces Dawkins career-spanning relationship with organized religions, and perhaps a sentence or two that prepares the readers for the extent of his arguments against religion.
  • This section: Dawkins notes that feminists have succeeded in making us feel embarrassed when we routinely employ "he" instead of "she"; similarly, he suggests, a phrase such as "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should be seen to be just as improper as, say, "Marxist child": children should not be classified based on their parents' ideological beliefs. is confusing.
  • Has the article had a copy edit from the League of Copy Editors?
  • Comments
    • Some of the formatting in the references is a bit odd. What is the "Twelve" in this Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Twelve, 5. ISBN 0-446-57980-7. reference for?
    • I'm unsure about using a source from Dawkins himself for some of the details of his life. Also, what is the publisher of the Curriculum Vitae? Is that coming from Oxford? It needs a publisher.
    • I'm uncomfortable with quoting to this without going directly to the source article: Downey, Robert (11 December 1996). Article in Eastsideweek (title unknown). Eastsideweek
    • A number of references need publishers... and/or other needed information:
      • BBC News Online, 2001-10-12. "Richard Dawkins: The foibles of faith." Accessed 2006-01-29
      • Aims of the Simonyi Professorship?
      • Simonyi Professorship, 2006. Prof. Richard Dawkins
      • The Darwin's Rottweiler article needs publication date and last access date
      • Radio Times, p. 27, there is no way to verify this reference.
      • Abigail Lustig et al. Darwinian Heresies, Cambridge University Press, ISBN is this a book?
      • Terry Eagleton, 2006. "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching." London Review of Books.

I could go on and on, but the references need serious serious work. Please ensure they all include information that allows folks to find the specific source, i.e. publisher, date of publication, etc. When they are cleaned up, I'll try to look at them for reliability. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from AC+79 3888 Ealdgyth, I have attempted to rectify everything you have pointed out here. There were a number of anomalies in references due to contributing editors not coordinating their efforts. Much of it has been tidied up recently. AC+79 3888 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Richard001

  • Lead, lead, lead. An article's lead is the first thing you look at, and this one just isn't long enough. Should be roughly twice as long, with at least 3 paragraphs. Take a look at other articles to see what I mean (actually don't, you'll find almost all of them suffer the same problem, to a much worse extent...) Richard001 (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
  1. The lead mentions his support for Brights movement. But the body of the text does not mention it anymore.
  2. The last sentence in the lead: "His extensive writings on the topic include 2006 book The God Delusion, which, as of November, 2007, had sold in excess of 1.5 million copies in English-speaking territories, and been translated into 31 other languages, making it perhaps his most popular work to date." This info does not qualify to be in this short lead. I don't see this info anywhere in the body of text.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from AC+79 3888 As the text concerning the popularity of The God Delusion is clearly of importance, the obvious thing to do is to incorporate something on it into the main body of text. I'll try to do so (of course, if anyone else feels up to the task, feel free). AC+79 3888 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Masterpiece2000 I don't think there is too much problem with the lead. Compare the lead of this article with the lead of the article Barack Obama (a featured article). Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite ready yet The article has excellent material and is well balanced. However, it needs significant copy editing. There are many run-on sentences. Some paragraphs should be divided, and some reordered. Dashes are used inconsistently. Citations of sources are not consistently formatted, and some lack important information, such as the author; citation of Web sources should be by author (if stated) and title, not a paraphrase of the fact to be supported by the citation. And so on. The article is appropriately classed as a WP:GA, but does not approach WP:FA quality yet. Another peer review would help, as would a request to the League of Copy Editors (although I believe they have quite a backlog). Finell (Talk) 07:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost support There are some minor copyedit needs, and incomplete citations as described above. In particular, web references need both publication date and access date; some have neither. Also see if you can remove some of the quotation marks as there are a lot of quotes in the article and these tend to break flow. However this is a terrific article on an important and interesting topic, and I enjoyed reading it. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose—Poorly written. The lead contains fertile ground for a copy-editor. So does the rest of the article.
  • No hyphen after "-ly"—see MOS.
  • "He has since written several best-selling popular books, and appeared in a number of television and radio programmes, concerning evolutionary biology,..."—Consistent tense: "HAS appeared"; remove comma after "programmes".
  • "well known"—hyphen in all varieties of English.
  • A list is a list is a list; why does "also" suddenly intrude? "He is an outspoken antireligionist and atheist.[4] He is also a secular humanist, sceptic, scientific rationalist,[5] and a supporter of the Brights movement.[6]. He is a prominent critic of creationism and intelligent design." Let's make it a proper, uniform list and establish a better relationship between between the opening statement and the rest: "He is an outspoken antireligionist and atheist[4] – a secular humanist, sceptic, scientific rationalist,[5] a supporter of the Brights movement.[6]", an outspoken antireligionist and atheist,[4] a secular humanist, sceptic, scientific rationalist,[5] and a supporter of the Brights movement,[6] and a prominent critic of creationism and intelligent design."
  • "His extensive writings on the topic"—which topic, after that list?
  • Hyphens used as interrupters. See MOS's sections on dashes. In any case, the temporal phrase needs to be a smoother part of the clause—I'd remove the interrupters.
  • Remove "other". Tony (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:48, 21 March 2008.

[edit] Flag of Japan

I'm nominating this article for featured article because, believe it not, this article is pretty stable despite it being a hotbed of Japanese politics. Granted, it still needs the copyedit, which it has been in line for a while now. I tried a balance of English and Japanese links, but if more English links are needed, please let me know and I will see what can happen. Unlike with some of the other flag articles I did, I managed to find photos and paintings of flags, instead of having to rely on all SVG graphics. Any comments or concerns are welcome, as always. Thanks for looking and for still wanting me here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't judge most of the Japanese sites for reliablity (heck, I can't even read most of them) so I'm at sea there. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed first URL (same as the second one). Working on the other URL's, which some have been contributed by Japanese users. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am working on the others, fixed a few, but some of the websites, while like an American geocities, host copies of laws. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - please delete that links; so the references aren't many... but dead links and others aren't good references. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I already removed the dead links, unless more just cropped up since last night. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)



  • Comment: Might want to check on the prose. For example:
It was first adopted as the naval ensign on October 7, 1889, and was used until the end of World War II in 1945. It was re-adopted on June 30, 1954, and is now used again as Japan's naval ensign, used by the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. miranda 21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Copyediting now. On second section of first paragraph. miranda 04:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • When the new flag law was passed on 13 August 1999, the dimensions of the flag were altered slightly.[citation needed] - What flag law and who passed it? miranda 05:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The law in question is the Law Concerning the National Flag and Anthem. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The flag is flown from sunrise until sunset, though it is allowed to fly the flag from the opening and closing of a business or an educational facility.
Doesn't make sense. miranda 14:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course it makes sense, although a business or school is permitted to fly the flag from opening to closing would be more idiomatic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Design

  • Passed in 1870, the Prime Minister's Proclamation No. 57 had two provisions. - how does this related to the flag's design. Need an introductory sentence before placing facts
    • Read the next sentences, they will explain the flags design.

Subnational

  • Each province...Each ... - repetitive
    • Fixing.

Imperial

  • Starting in 1869, flags were created for the Japanese emperor, his wife (the empress), and for other members of the imperial family. - which emperor?
  • Oppose Needs copyediting. Four errors in the first four paragraphs[14] does not bode well for the rest of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I see. I'm sorry but the prose just isn't up to FA standard at present, although it might improve if more FAC reviewers read through it.

Other comments

  • In the history section there are no dates for how old the oldest flag is and when the first records were written.
  • Why mention the Z signal flag? There's no real indication of why this single event is relevant or what the flag is.
  • The "Postwar period" section should be arranged chronologically, or thematically, at present I don't see the links between the paragraphs.
  • "The order requires school teachers to respect both symbols or risk losing their jobs" What does that mean? How do you show "respect"?
  • The first sentence of the "Design" section has confused verb tenses. It relates to something in 1870 but is in the present tense. It should probably be either "who flew it and how it was flown" or "who could fly it and how it was to be flown". I won't edit it myself because I can't find the information given in that sentence in the reference given at the end of it. DrKiernan (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I was hoping to have the copyedit done before the FAC, but I felt like after 2 months, I felt it was ignored. Anyways, the first known flag was in the 13th century, and that is the most specific date I got. The Z flag is important to Japan in a military sense. The Z flag is the same one that is used for ship signaling, which I will link to now. As for the respect, it is listed more in detail in the protocol section, but this usually means rising from their seats when the anthem is played, then facing the flag during the anthem. I fixed the last part of it; it mentioned on who had the right to fly the flag, when it should be flown and how it is made. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:48, 21 March 2008.

[edit] Flight 19

Anynobody 08:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose (you had got one week) - more references (the ref 2 is composed to 25 points?), only 8, if it's possible add the bibliography (facultatif), the graphic isn't very good. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 10:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 08:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
more references (the ref 2 is composed to 25 points?) Yep, it's simply the most detailed source located thus far. Most sources discuss it in the context of the Bermuda Triangle and don't go into detail about the specifics of the flight itself.
if it's possible add the bibliography Which bibliography, a list of every book to mention it? There are so many books about the triangle, mentioning Flight 19 listing even a good portion of them would probably necessitate a spinoff while books only about Flight 19 seem to be non-existent.
the graphic isn't very good Which one and why? Anynobody 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed you support The Last Temptation of Krust, which also has eight sections, prompting the question: Is there something you think is missing or should be repeated reiterated? Anynobody 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(you had got one week) Umm ok, in the future you may find editors conforming to your suggestions within your timeframe if you 1) Say there is a timeframe 2) Answer questions posed to you about said suggestions. Until you said time expired I had wondered if you were too busy to reply or just forgot. Anynobody 05:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Fair Use concerns regarding Image:NYTflight19.jpg
    • Image has incomplete rationale (see WP:RAT), which may be moot given the next bullet.
    • Image does not appear to significantly contribute to our understanding (required by WP:NFCC#8). The only relevant, reasonably legible text is “Great Hunt on for 27 Navy Fliers Missing in Six Planes Off Florida”. Why is a Fair Use image needed for this? This text could be included in the article prose. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I've never been very keen on that image myself for the exact reasons you've cited. However it was there before I started editing and nobody else seemed to have concerns. Knowing that I'm not the only one I ditched it. Anynobody 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Not a problem, and thank you :) Anynobody 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • References need to be formatted consistently. Usual form is to put author first. Some of the sites need publisher information given also. I can't tell from the references what is the publisher, what is the author, etc.
    • Not quite sure that http://skepdic.com/bermuda.html is the best source possible for "meant that there was little hope of rescue, even if they had managed to stay afloat"
No links show up as dead. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I can't tell from the references what is the publisher, what is the author, etc. Indeed for some sources that information isn't available, such as the excerpt from Flight 19's board of inquiry. However I've endeavored to clarify them a bit more.
      • Not quite sure that... That was misplaced, it was supposed to be a citation for the Argosy article, and now is. Anynobody 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you please use the {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}} templates for referencing? The current referencing format is inconsistent and does not include information like publisher or author. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • While I certainly understand the need for consistency and will try to address it, I actually prefer not to use the templates you mentioned because they can make editing sections difficult. Anynobody 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It'd be easier to illustrate than explain I think, check out the lead section of L. Ron Hubbard for example of the mess they can contribute to. (I don't mean to imply it makes it difficult for me or other somewhat experienced editors to edit, but I've seen newbies and anons get discouraged by them.) Anynobody 05:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, I understand. In that case, could you just format it manually to conform with the output of cite web, cite book, cite journal? You would just need publisher info, accessdate, date page was created, etc. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Absolutely :) I'd planned on doing exactly that ASAP Anynobody 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment

MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

www.history.navy.mil is the website run by the Naval Historical Center. Some of us from WP:SHIPS have been in contact with them about website outages over the last couple days; they are aware of the problem and working on it. This is an official website of the United States Navy, so I'm confident these links will be available again shortly.Maralia (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:33, 19 March 2008.

[edit] HIV

previous FAC

Nominator is Mikael Häggström (talk · contribs)

  • Support. Almost two years have passed since last nomination and a lot of things have happened. I went through it and as far as a second year medicine student can tell, it seems overall correct. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: Please check external links; at least six are dead. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • The Sowadsky reference is missing a publisher
    • The Joint United Nations Programme "Overview of the global AIDS epidemic" reference appears to have no publisher
    • Is the NIH really the publisher for the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses? (I'm fine if it is, but it looks to this layman that it should be ICTV from the website)
    • The "Should spermicides be used with condoms?" the publisher should be the FDA. (Condom Brochure, FDA OSHI HIV STDs which is listed there now is the title of the work that the subsection is part of. You would put that in the "work="field of the cite web template.)
    • "HIV Sequence Compendium 2005" is a dead link and is lacking publisher
    • "Crystal Structure of Key HIV Protein Reveals New Prevention ..." reference is lacking publisher information.
    • http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/hiv-db/COMPENDIUM/1997/partIII/Gelderblom.pdf (Fine Structure of HIV and SIV) is a dead link
    • http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/hiv-db/COMPENDIUM/1998/III/Carr.pdf is a dead link (Reference Sequences Representing the Principal ...)
    • http://www.hab.hrsa.gov/tools/HIVpocketguide05/PktGARTtables.htm is a dead link (A Pocket Guid to Adult HIV/AIDS Treatment January 2005 Edition)
    • "Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in Pediatric HIV Infection" and "Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1 Infected Adults and Adolescents" are missing publisher information.
    • "WHO Case definititons of HIV for Surveillance and ..." is missing publisher information.
    • "Scientists expose HIV weak spot" is missing publisher information
    • "German scientists "cure" HIV-infected ..." is missing publisher and is a blog so how reliable is this as a source?
    • "Another Potential Cure for HIV discovered" is missing publisher information, and how reliable is this as a news source?
    • "Special Session of the General Assembly ..." is missing publisher.
    • "Evaluating the World Bank's Assistance ..." is missing publisher
    • http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hivsur82.pdf ("US HIV and AIDS cases reported through December 1996") is a dead link and is lacking a publisher.
    • http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6718/abs/397436a0_fs.html is a dead link and is listed in the references as a bald link with no publisher, title, or other bibliographical information.
    • Double check the external links, http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/campaigns/aids/release080103.html was a dead link Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The article is not ready for FA. There are many problems with facts, it is not up to date in some sections, many readers will find it is impossible to understand because it assumes a good knowledge of cell and molecular biology.

  • The cartoon in the Info box could be replaced with a real electron micrograph.
  • The alternate names have not been used for over 20 years, even the "reference" says outdated.
  • In the second paragraph of the Lead "Infection with HIV occurs by the transfer of blood, semen, vaginal fluid, pre-ejaculate, or breast milk. Within these bodily fluids, HIV is present " only in infected people. The second half of the paragraph makes the same point but is better.
  • "According to current estimates, HIV is set to infect 90 million The reference is dated 2005..
  • Opportunistic infections should be linked and/or defined.
  • "Lentiviruses have many common morphologies no they don't they share, or have similar, even in common would be better.
  • Incubation period should be linked.
  • I'm concerned about the use of latent and latency , these words have exact meanings in virology and I don't think HIV exhibits the classical latency seen in herpesvirus.
  • termed LAV was called LAV.
  • Mother to child transmission is abbreviated to MTCT which is non-standard, and the this abbreviation is only used once. Why not just say by this route.
  • yet large for being a virus not really, about average I would say. Bad grammar here too.
  • The single-stranded RNA is tightly bound to nucleocapsid proteins, p7 and enzymes needed for the development of the virion such as reverse transcriptase, proteases, ribonuclease and integrase I don't think the integrase is structural. Please check.
  • Should coreceptor be co-receptor?
  • down-regulating you could use suppressing.
  • HIV that use only the CCR5 strains that use?
  • are termed are called?
  • The HIV test section is very out of date, Western blots? please this is the 21st century, and why no mention of PCR for proviral HIV DNA, and the all important viral load?
  • HARRT, (another out-of-date term) nor alleviates the symptoms this is dangerous nonsense.
  • The epidemic officially began on 5 June 1981 makes it sound like a party.

There's so much work needed on the article. It has once more been presented here too early.--GrahamColmTalk 12:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(Postscript. I tried a copy edit tonight because this is an important virus. I gave up; most of the cellular and molecular biology is accurate, but it's such a jumble sale! It reads like every Ph.D. student on the planet has pasted in bits of their theses. It's too much work to take on.--GrahamColmTalk 00:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC) (UTC))

  • Precious little on pharmocotherapy, which is complicated and needs some detail, even in summary form. Precious little on HIV and ageing—much more information has recently come to light on this topic. I think it's not ready for promotion. Tony (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The "History" section is miniscule in comparison to the rest of the article, and it consists largely of one-sentence paragraphs. This section needs to be fleshed out quite a bit more to appropriately summarize (per summary style guidelines) the AIDS origin article. — Dulcem (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is a long way from FA quality. The Origins section in particular is really inadequate, and by the way AIDS origin probably should be merged into HIV and cleaned up. About half of the early cases listed do not held up to examination and some early cases that do hold up are not listed. --Una Smith (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Also, large chunks of HIV would fit better in other articles about AIDS. In particular, the sections on clinical course, treatment, prognosis, AIDS denial, and vaccine design and trials. That is in line with how other virus/disease topic pairs have developed here on Wikipedia. --Una Smith (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per some of the concerns noted directly above, and additionally some major image problems per WP:MOS#Images. The article rampantly stacks images in rows on the right, which interferes with the formatting and makes the text difficult to read. VanTucky 03:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I reviewed just HIV#Epidemiology. This is a fork of an old version of AIDS#Epidemiology. HIV#Epidemiology contains a bunch of material (World Bank; prevention in Uganda) that isn't epidemiology. It also contains many obsolete estimates that should be updated in the light of the revised (and reduced) December 2007 estimates by UNAIDS. Better yet, the section should be trimmed down to a couple of sentences and just refer to AIDS#Epidemiology as the main section (or vice versa); why maintain two copies of HIV/AIDS epidemiology in Wikipedia? Eubulides (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:01, 18 March 2008.

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

previous FAC (17:08, 15 February 2008)

NOMINATOR: I am nominating this again for FA since extensive reworking of the article has occured with several contributing editors including copyedits. These editors collaborated and worked together building consensus on addressing FA comments from last attempt and new comments emerging on the talk page. Thanks you for your time to come look at this article and give us your honest vote. NancyHeise (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Restart: old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, as before. The concerns I had have been adequately addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Perhaps the most viewed and criticized article in Wikipedia! Even the infrequent unconstructive ones have been answered. Article is factually correct and readable. Student7 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I sustain my support; the article is very comprehensive on aspects of the Church, its history, and its practices. It also has great prose and is very accurately presented. Hello32020 (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: This sentence in the WP:LEAD is ambiguous, but the interpretation most readily accessible violates WP:NPOV: "It traces its origins, via apostolic succession, to the original Christian community founded by Jesus." This could be interpreted as meaning either:
  1. the Catholic church actively traces its own origins in this manner (which entails subjectivity), or
  2. as an assertion of fact taken from common knowledge, verifiable historical fact etc.

I suggest that the latter interpretation is the one most readily accessible, as in for example:

  1. United States Postal Inspection Service: "The Postal Inspection Service is one of the oldest federal law enforcement agencies in the United States. It traces its origins back to 1772..."
  2. Cleveland State University: "The Cleveland-Marshall College of Law traces its origins to the founding of Cleveland Law School in 1897..."
  3. etc.

Therefore suggest: "Catholic doctrine asserts that the origins of the Catholic church can be traced..." Ling.Nut (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE:Done. Thanks for the suggestion. NancyHeise (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Not an improvement in my view, and actually much worse for NPOV. Is there anyone who would dispute that the origins trace back that far? Apostolic succession is a different matter of course, but this wording suggests the whole "tracing" is dubious. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
RESPONSE - I edited that sentence myself. Does that work? Nautical Mongoose (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The early history is documented by sources which do not clearly support the material as the history of the Roman Catholic Church. We are not permitted to assert claims that the sources do not, even if we think they are "obvious" or "natural" conclusions of the references. To avoid cluttering this FAC, I have posted specific examples of my concerns to the article talk page. Vassyana (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
RESPONSE - I have answered Vassyana on the talk page in depth. I will make brief reference here: Oxford History of Christianity has a subsection called "Rome" that speaks specifically about the Roman Church, my references clearly state that the quotes are taken from that subsection. The meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem in the year 50 is referenced to this subsection specifically discussing Rome on page 37. All of my sources specifically talk about the Roman Church existing from the beginning of Christian history. None of them make any argument in the other direction even Eamon Duffy who is considered my "other side of the argument" source. Thus it appears that there is a significant consensus of historians that contradict Vassyanas position. At least 25 of them counting all the scholars that are listed as authors of the books I have cited, 18 of them coming from the Oxford History book alone. One of my University press sources "The Roman Catholic Church, an Illustrated History" specifically states that the church was founded by Jesus in his lifetime.NancyHeise (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't understand the inclusion of the the bulk of the first paragraph of the "Final judgment" section, nor the relevance of the verses from Matthew 25 as quoted. The "as quoted" bit is important. Note here that by no means am I arguing doctrine etc. I'm merely saying that the bits as quoted aren't precisely relevant to this particular section of the Wikipedia article. Here goes:
  1. I do see how one could make a case interpreting 25:34 as an instance of Jesus presiding over the separation of sheep and goats etc., "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." But my prob is that the bit as quoted omits "inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world", which would seem to me to be the most important point. Those words are the ones that pin Jesus' comments to the time of the Judgment, so those should not be omitted. However, the article does include what are apparently some reasons why those "blessed of my Father" will "inherit the kingdom." Thereafter follows a brief discussion of spiritual and corporal works of mercy. If you're still with me here (I hope), then what I'm saying is that although the discussion of spiritual and corporal works of mercy is surely connected to Final judgment, it is not properly considered a part of the section on Final judgment. That discussion should more accurately be placed in a section about... spiritual and corporal works of mercy? Social Gospel? I dunno. Something about the works we do here on earth... the spiritual and corporal works of mercy could be mentioned, but not discussed, in the "Final judgment" section.
  2. The second paragraph, on the other hand, seems perfectly relevant to the section.
  3. So I suggest taking only the first sentence plus my selected quote of the passage from Matthew 25 from the first paragraph, and then tacking those onto the beginning of the second paragraph. That leaves a one-paragraph section. Then more could (and perhaps should) be done to flesh that out. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
FINAL RESPONSE- Agree. I made changes to the section called Judgement and placed a new section under Jesus and Eucharist called Catholic Social Teaching. I think this is a better arrangement, thanks for the suggestion. NancyHeise (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment I have offered an alternate working version here Ling.Nut (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • STRONG Oppose. I do not think the article is there yet, I think we have made great improvements, but I know there is a richer body of source material that can be used as references. I will work to get this where it needs to be, but cannot support it in its current form. --Mike Searson (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
RESPONSE - Since the bibliography and footnotes section of the article are one of the longest in Wikipedia and I have spent myself in the library and buying books on Amazon to create the article, I am struck through the heart with this suggestion. If there are specific sources that Mike has in mind, that have not been used here, I am willing to get those sources if he can please provide the names. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, I do not have anything specific in mind. The problem is that no matter what the final product is...this article will come under the strictest scrutiny and will be held to a higher standard. For that reason, the sources have to be impeccable, regarding quality as well as with regard to content. None of the cited sources for example, specifically address claims about "Catholic church" vs "Christian Church"; which will be a major point of contention and already brought up in the FAC. I know that "Catholic Church" was used as early as 110 A.D. in Epistle to the Church at Smyrna and The Death of Polycarp in 125 A.D. these original sources should be cited as well as other sources pointing to these, I don't see it. Another editor as recently as this morning asked for citations on Universites, hospitals, etc. Whether because he wanted to nitpick the article or he legitimately did not know of all the various hospitals, universities, etc founded by the Catholic Church is immaterial; the bottom line is that I could not confidently source what he was asking for, because I did not know or trust the quality of the reference in question. I say all this as someone who has invested time and energy into this article, who is also a practicing Catholic. How can it be expected to stand up in the face of those with an obvious bias and agenda against the Church if it passes and ends up at FAR?--Mike Searson (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I am adding new sources in hopes of winning Mikes support. Please see two new sources added today and two more to come tomorrow. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Two sources are not going to win my support. Since I started working on this article, I've really only noticed the sections I worked on in bits and pieces: history, liturgy, Tridentine Mass, sacraments, etc. As a whole the article is way too long, does not have an encyclopedic tone (some sections do, but overall it's not there), and the sourcing leaves much to be desired. I won't get into the MOS mess, because that's not my strong suit, but when they are pointed out by Sandy or Tony they need to be addressed quickly.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The article has taken a turn for the worse. Any signs of once engaging prose are now vestigal and any real facts about beliefs or dogma that a reader would want to gain have been eliminated. What remains of history, controversy, etc is now a watered down shell of what had the potential to be a great article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what Mike would like to see, I have worked extensively with both Catholic and non-Catholic editors who have agreed to the changes made to the article in its present form. I did re-add some of the beliefs section that was core material that got tossed in the vigor to reduce the size of the article but I dont think anyone is advocating tossing it again. I trimmed it with the help of other editors to eliminate redundancy. While I would like to make Mike happy, I have to listen to other editors concerns too especially when they are in agreement on certain issues. NancyHeise (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, I know you have been more than accomodating and I know you have been working hard to get it done properly, but I think the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater here. There is no mention of the Apostle Paul, the Roman Missal, the Tridentine Mass, rules for Communion, Holy Relics, yet there is mention and a wikilink to womenpriests. Scant mention is given to the pagan persecutions, penal laws, or the Catholic religious martyred by mohhamedans or nazis in WW2 in lieu of having space to talk about the Clerical sex-abuse scandal. We see nothing of Pope Pius X opposing modernism, changing the rules for reception of the Eucharist, or John XXIII trying to help the Church find her place in the modern world. What of the Irish monks of the Dark Ages who preserved ancient texts both sacred and secular so they were not lost forever like so many other texts were? Nothing about the church's impact on Art, architecture, music, or literature is present. The Precepts of the Church are glossed over, we see nothing concerning the Corporal and Spiritual works of Mercy, Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit, the three Eminent Good Works, Cardinal Sins, Cardinal virtues, 3 Munera:Munus docendi, Munus sanctificandi,Munus regendi or anything that resembles what makes the Roman Catholic Church unique among Christian Churches; but we have plenty of information on Martin Luther. Nothing about vestments, Holy oils, the bells, incense, scapulars, medals, 7 sorrows and of Mary and Joseph, I guess I should be glad that at least the rosary gets a wikilink if no other mention. I do not feel that the present incarnation does full justice to its subject matter. It is not as comprehensive as it could be and unlike other subjects, it is not because of a lack of quality printed source material to document and reference these things.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have problems with this section:"Some Catholics who call themselves Traditionalists objected to the new Mass called Novus Ordo Missae which used vernacular language in favor of the old Mass called Tridentine Mass that used only Latin. Today, both forms of the Mass are celebrated with the vernacular being more common." The controversy had little to do with language, as the Novus Ordo is also said in Latin in quite a few parishes. Also, the drastic translations did not seem to occur in languages other than English. True, there were many who left the Church altogether, switched to an Eastern Rite, or went to Mass begrudgingly because the "New Mass" was seen as more of a Protestant type celebration...the thing is that there were also misapplications of the Vatican's instruction and outright lies about the status of the Tridentine Mass. In the 70's and 80's up to as recently as 2 years ago, people said the Old Rite was outlawed. It never was, JP2 issued an Indult in 1984 allowing the Tridentine Mass to be said with the permission of the Local Bishop. The Traditionalists represented a minority who held out.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have archieved my and Nancy's comments because the specific concern has been dealt with. I'm neither supporting nor opposing this article, but the one concern I brought forward has been dealt with.
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
ISSUE RESOLVED NancyHeise (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support You guys have no idea how hard my mom worked on this! She stays up past midnight sometimes to edit and cite stuff, and when I see her on the computer she's usually surrounded by a ton of books...that's it.StacyyW (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
< moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This article is thoroughly comprehensive, well written, good reading, informative, and well cited. It covers a very broad topic on a subject that has irrevokably changed the world, and to which 1/7 of the world's population belongs. While it is certainly one of the most difficult subjects on Wikipedia to write a fair, NPOV, well-cited, and thorough article on, Roman Catholic Church is an exemplary article, and, IMHO, it has all of the qualities that I listed. I have read many Wikipedia articles, including many featured ones, and though I have only been on here for a year and a half, I feel that this is assuredly one of the best I have ever read. It is informative and doesn't appear to suffer from what in my opinion is one of the pitfalls of an online community such as this, choppiness. For me, this article flows very naturally, from the intro to importance to origins then beliefs, history, and finally the stats. It provides a plethora of helpful links to more lengthy explanations and definitions (etc.) where things need to be summarized. I think that the main flaw I find is the sheer length of the introduction, which may be unalterable due to, as I have said, the sheer breadth of the topic. If this can be changed, that would be wonderful, and if not, I find it perfectly understandable. Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
<off topic commentary removed to talk page; this FAC has been restarted once, please stay on-topic relative to WP:WIAFA > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I am just wondering if the 13 support votes on the previous page of this restart page still count. If not, may we contact those people to come see the article and revote? I dont think there have been any substantial changes to the article and there were only four opposes, one changed to support, another said she would change to support if I added more on art which I did, Vassyana has reasserted her oppose saying my sources all have to be Roman Catholic Church specific which they are and another voted no because he wanted to see a criticism section which is against what Jimbo Wales suggests. In accordance with Jimbo, we have incorporated criticisms throughout the article. NancyHeise (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
FAC is not a vote; please focus on addressing actionable opposes per WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
But to answer the question that was asked, there could be no objection at all to asking those who commented on the previous page to look at the article again and to confirm their opinion in this restarted nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a message on the talk pages of all those who voted on the previous page inviting them to come vote again. I did not invite those who have already come and voted. NancyHeise (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Support----This Article deserves to be A FA. Very well written. It follows each and every guideline of a FA. I had previously voted. I am revoting again.-->>>Kensplanet (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparing this article to the article Islam which has featured status, i cannot see any deficiencies in Roman Catholic Church.Further to the issues raised by Ealdgyth, I cannot see what more can be done than to say that other forms of Christianity existed at the time, as has been done. The fact is indisputable that the "Roman" Catholic Church today is the direct organisational continuation of the organised catholic church of the early christians. Xandar (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose—Not well-written; a "professional" standard is required. Here are examples just from the top, which suggest that 'the whole text' needs a good massage by someone unfamiliar with it. At issue are matters of grammar, style and formatting. There's redundant wording, and there are MOS breaches.
  • "Alongside" and "also"?
  • In the listy sentence at the end of para 1, why the comma after "hospitals", but not after "sick"? Sorry to be picky, but there are tons of commas already. Use the Oxford comma unerringly if you must, but frankly, the prose would run more smoothly if it were rationed to places where it is required for disambiguation.
  • "by means of the liturgy regulated by church authority". Clunkiness and redundancy? Why not "by the liturgy, which is regulated by the Church".
  • "as well as the ordinary laity, and those like monks and nuns who live a consecrated life under a rule." Same issue. Why "ordinary"? Remove "those like" (what does "those" refer to?). Comma required after "nuns".
  • "intricately intertwined"—euuwwwh.
  • "amongst". Well, OK in the 1960s, but plain English suggests losing the "st".
  • Caption: "A 15th century painting depicting Jesus giving". Ing ing ing. Hyphen required. Also, the eucharist caption is a full sentence, not just a nominal group, so needs a final period, according to MOS.
  • "with the vernacular being more commonly used"—ungrammatical and clumsy. Reword.
  • "church-state conflicts"—Nope, en dash required. See MOS.
  • Ellipsis dots need to be properly spaced: See MOS.
  • Eucharist: is it going to be E or e? I see both.
MikeSearson took care of this list. NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
These were just random samples. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And lots more.

Random issues:

  • Why is the Nicene Creed quoted in full? Certainly not unless there's a decent amount and depth of commentary on the wording in WP's text.
In light of making the article as short as possible we decided to quote it in full since any commentary would likely be longer than the actual text. We felt it was good form to give the reader the actual creed since it is also discussed in both the lead and history section and is the most important part of the church's beliefs.NancyHeise (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a good reason. The text needs to be elsewhere and the commentary here, linked to it. Quoting verbatim large tracts of text is inappropriate, especially where almost nothing is said about it. See the article on the US Constitution. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "like a dove."—See MOS on final punctuation where the opening quote marks occur within a WP sentence.
  • Many of the links and piped links are good. But there's a lot to link, and parts of the text are looking overly blue. This detracts from the high-value links and makes the text harder read and messy in appearance. I'd remove the repeat links for a more effective use of linking.
  • 1c: Not good. Here are random samples (in which I found every item I sampled wanting in some respect).
    • Please audit the references for consistent, MOS-required formatting. For example: "The Roman Catholic Church an Illustrated History" (surely there's missing punctuation?). Hyphens instead of en dashes in a few pages ranges. The O'Connell book—does it start with "The" or doesn't it? There's a clash between the title in the reference list and the bibliography. Such sloppiness won't do in a serious, authoritative article. —This is part of a comment by Tony1 (of 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
      • WP:Foot subsection entitled Style Recommendations allows you to use a shortened form of the title in the text if the full title is in the bibliography. I believe the audit you suggest of the references has already been done by Karanacs with the help of SandyGeorgia.NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • All I've done in the references is identify which ones obviously failed WP:RS and which ones looked duplicated. I haven't done a comprehensive audit of the source formatting.Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Nor have I; I have gone through a few times and left sample edits of minor MoS issues that needed attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref 223: Why not send us directly to the "web site" that was the source for this NYT posting? Who knows what mistakes might have occurred in the replication.
      • Because we are trying to get away from self published sources. The New York Times is a very reliable third party source and we thought it was even better than using the self published source. NancyHeise (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't care how reliable you think the NYT is—there's absolutely no reason to link to its version rather than the original. Avoiding self-published links is to minimise self-promotion and POV; the display of an official text is not in that category. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't think there is any Wikipedia policy that would require me to eliminate using NYT in favor of a self-published source. Since I have been beaten over the head enough times over self published sources by Karanacs on this and another FA I did, I would prefer to keep the NYT piece. Thanks for your opinion, please respect that I have one too on this matter. NancyHeise (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ref 228: Author cited on the web page, but not given here ....
      • The name appearing above the article is just below an advertisement for a book, not necessarily the author of the article. NancyHeise (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm uneasy that the history has drawn on rather too few books, but I don't know the area, and can't determine whether sufficiently broad sources have been used. It's just that there are a lot of sweeping assertions that I'd normally want to question, or check the detail on. For example: "By the mid-third century, persecution was extensive throughout the empire.[121] The ferocity of the persecution varied, with tradition holding Decius and Valerian I prominent among persecuting emperors.[125][126] In spite of these persecutions, the effective systems of Roman roads facilitated evangelization.[127]" OK, I'll take these assertions on trust, but many wouldn't. —This is part of a comment by Tony1 (of 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
      • These assertions are found in many of our over 30 books used, they are very basic historical facts that I dont think anyone is going to question. We eliminated one of the books we used that had the same information because another reviewer was uncomfortable that the book was not specifically written about the history of the Roman Catholic Church. We are doing our best to make everyone happy here :0 ) NancyHeise (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But it is not only 1a and 1c that are at issue: the article fails to satisfy 1d (balance) and 1b (comprehensiveness). In summary, it is far too much like a text that the Church PR department would write. On the surface, it's a sequence of facts, but heavily skewed towards the historical and a very mainstream interpretation of the faith. There is little treatment of contemporary criticism of the political and social role of the church, everywhere, but especially in the third world. No proper treatment is given to those who would speak out against what the church has done to the hundreds of thousands of African women whose husbands were advised by their local priest (under orders from the Vatican) not to wear a condom, despite knowing that they were HIV positive (that's mass murder in the eyes of many) [oh wait, we do have this: "The church's rejection of the use of condoms, however, has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where AIDS and HIV infections are at epidemic proportions. The church maintains that countries like Kenya, where behavioral changes are endorsed instead of condom use, have experienced greater progress towards controlling the disease than countries solely promoting condoms.[213]", but it's heavily weighted towards the church's self-defence, and hello, the Herald Tribune (if the page could be accessed) looks like beating the depths of its own unresearched twaddle in that article; what about some scientific evidence rather than the musings of Catholic journalists? The exposures all over the catholic world of the sexual predation by priests of their flock, especially of the children among them, are not treated well: again, the church is made to look as good as possible in the text; many people would find this POV. Nothing about the current wealth and financial governance of the church. —This is part of a comment by Tony1 (of 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

In the effort to keep the page to a manageable size and provide Wikiproject Catholicism with a main article that would wikilink to all other pages in the project, we chose to mention all main facts supplying just what was necessary to give both sides of the issue and then wikilink to pages where those issues are discussed in depth. Each criticism has its own page where the subject matter is discussed in full, in addition to having the page Criticism of the Catholic Church be a main see also article in the top of the page. NancyHeise (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already suggested that the History sections need to be significantly reduced in size (they all link to daughter articles, and in their present length and detail suggest the need for a separate article on the history of the RCC). Thus, using the bloated size of this treatment as a reason not to introduce more balance here is not an acceptable defence. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have looked over the history section in an effort to comply with Tonys comment. However, compliance with his wishes will eliminate material that was inserted and expanded upon in order to comply with previous FA reviewers comments on this and a previous FA nomination. While I try to keep all FA reveiwers happy, it is not always possible to do especially when their wishes conflict. Please understand. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

SUMMARY: Needs thorough copy-editing by someone else. Needs the opinion of a disinterested historical scholar or two as to the balance of the account. The history sections need to be trimmed significantly. A more balanced angle on the deficiencies of the church is required. Quite simply, nothing less than a major overhaul is necessary.

Finally, two matters:

  • First, as you'll see from my talk page, I'm no friend of supernatural religion. However, the substance of my review would not alter if that weren't the case, since I'm merely applying conventional standards of research and balance writing here.
  • Second, I want to reinforce Sandy's point above about the fact that this is not a vote. Consensus is required for promotion. Too many reviewers appear to have flown by from somewhere else to support the article without properly engaging with the FA Criteria. Tony (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
RESPONSE: See talk page of user Tony for my comments in response to his final comments here. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
< Responses moved to talk page; Nancy, pls stay focused on WP:WIAFA. A second restart at FAC would be unprecedented; personal comments can be added to the talk page.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There are a few referencing issues that need to be addressed.
    • Citation 194 (International Religious Freedom Report 2006) is wikilinked to a google cache which won't be there forever. Can you find the original page?
      • I changed the link to the actual document from US Dept of State and now its wikilinked to that page of the original document. Thanks NancyHeise (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The books in the References section don't include publication locations. That is generally standard.
      • This is copied from WP:Cite#full "Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional"NancyHeise (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There are two listings for the Annuario Pontificio in the References section. The only difference between the listing is the ISBN. Are these actually different? If so, it is not clear in the footnotes which one is being referred to. If not, please fix the references so that this only appears once.
      • I have ordered the new Annuario Pontificio and will eliminate these with the most current information when I receive the book,hopefully in the next day or two.NancyHeise (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, 1a. I must concur with Tony that the prose is not at the professional standard required here. After reading the article, I got much more of a sense of "persuasive essay" than encyclopedia article. The prose misses the mark significantly in serving its audience here. A thorough treatment by an uninvolved editor is required. --Laser brain (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote. We were not trying to write a persuasive essay, but a factual article that would help readers who wanted to know what the Catholic Church is, its beleifs, its community, its practices prayer and worship and history. I was inspired to put effort into this after I saw the FA on Islam which is very well done on a controversial subject. For people like me who just want to know the facts without all the fluff of a pro- Islam propaganda piece or arrows of an anti-Islam propaganda piece, it was refreshing to read just the facts and know what they believe and practice and history. I thought what we were creating with this article was identical and helpful to Wikipedia, especially to Wikiproject Catholicism who needs a top article to wikilink all other articles in the project. NancyHeise (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Nancy, it's NOT a vote. No one is going to do a count. Consensus is not 50% plus 1. Tony (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And, to keep this page focused on WP:WIAFA, please direct any followup on this commentary to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Support.Oppose. The article is very good. My only complaint is that either the article is U.S.-centric or the editors are too harsh on singling out the U.S. regarding the child abuse scandal. It was quite widespread in many countries and the first cases came to light in the 1980s. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It was difficult to find any information about the abuse scandals in other countries that comprehensively quantified the problem. Only the United States had extensive studies that developed a reportable conclusion. There is information compiled by the Vatican that give the worldwide figure of total accused priests compared to total worldwide priests and that figure is 0.02%. I have only found that figure in a Catholic News article quoting a cardinal. I currently have on order the new Statistical Yearbook of the Church, if the information is in there, I will add it. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It isn't that hard to find sources :-) But, if you want to blame the US, so be it! I'm Canadian. The article is good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment.I've flip/flopped on this article. The article needs to be tightened up. The article is not NPOV. The text confuses Christian doctrine with specific Roman Catholic doctrine. If it eliminated what is universal to Christian belief, then the nearly 10,000 words of bloat could be reduced to a decent size. This isn't supposed to be a repeat of the Catechism of the Church. A non-Catholic and especially a non-Christian reader will find the article hard going as it does not provide context for the reader but resorts to too much jargon. The Lead alone is written at an advanced level - grade 12.7 by the Flesch-Kincaid score - and at over 500 words in length is getting a bit long. I'm still bothered by the U.S.-centric section on the child abuse scandal. I said it earlier, it is easy to find good references to the scandal and its world-wide reach. Also, the scandal was being reported before 2001 outside of the U.S. Simply, the text is factually wrong. Thus, reading the article and pondering it some more, I oppose the article being promoted to FA at this time. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The more I look into the article and compare it to other encyclopedias, and reputable sites, the more POV problems I see. The minimizing of the child abuse scandal and its affects on the Church is one lacunae that is bothering me more and more. A comment was made that the scandal is a drop in the bucket of 2 000 years of Catholic history, and yet there are plenty of good reputable sources that put the scandal in context of the church's history without the the fault of recentism. For example, this book:
  • Wall, Patrick D.; Doyle, Thomas J.. Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse. Chicago: Bonus Books. ISBN 1566252652. 
The author is a "Fr. Doyle, a canon lawyer, served at the Vatican’s U.S. embassy in the early ’80s".
I throw up my hands here. There are good reputable sources that take the 'long view' of the child abuse scandal on the Church. The contributing editors are turning a blind eye. Seek and ye shall find. This article can not be FA quality without a better discussion of the scandal. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica devotes a thousand words to the topic. Cheers ! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Its comprehensive, had many good images, has been reworked many times to be neutral and well written. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -- I reiterate my earlier support. Coemgenus 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Since some have taken exception with the brevity of my support, I will repeat in full what I said at the last nom: "I'm not knowledgable about the issues with the pictures, but the article's text is clear, well-written, and NPOV on a topic that inspires a lot of POV." I still agree with this statement. Coemgenus 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -- I also reiterate my earlier support. --Anietor (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Vote early, vote often. OK, all supporters please "reiterate" what the nominator still regards as a vote, and you'll swamp us. These support repeats should be struck through. Tony (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Tony, I think there is merely some confusion about what "restart" means in FA nomination, which may suggest that a reiteration of a prior position is warranted. Striking through suggests a change of position, no? The.helping.people.tick (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of the images such as Image:Albrecht Dürer 022.jpg should be moved a little down, right now they are directly below the level 3 header, and due to their left alignment they are breaking the prose's flow. Outside of that there are few matters that concern me, nothing so particulary troubling to prevent being featured, especially if we take under consideration that religion based articles are always hot topics. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, good point. Per WP:MOS#Images, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings". ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have made changes to the images due to this comment. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Actually, my heart says Support but my mind says Oppose. I realize a copious amount of sweat and tears has been poured into this article. I've been scanning through the previous FAC, and the article has come a long, long way. I offer my respect and thanks to all those who have dedicated themselves to this task. Unfortunately, however, FAs aren't (or shouldn't be) awarded for hard work and dedication. They also aren't awarded for the worthiness of the topic. They are awarded for possessing an outstanding degree of compliance with WP:WIAFA, and I'm afraid this article just isn't quite there yet:
First, I am immovably sure that the article needs far too much work yet toward compliance with 1a. It needs to be tightened, tightened, tightened. Redundancies need to be stripped away mercilessly. All too often, moreover, it is not readily apparent to me how the Bible verses quoted to support various points are directly relevant, or whether they are needed at all. Finally, the article is a bit overburdened with clunky turns of phase and overdecorated with commas. As one example, I reworded the following sentence:
  • Previous: "In Catholic belief, before the creation of man, God created spiritual beings called angels, servants and messengers of God, who possess intelligence, will, and immortality."
  • Mine: "In Catholic belief, before creating mankind God created spiritual beings called angels to be his servants and messengers. Angels are immortal, and possess intelligence and will."
  • This sentence was originally in your form but was changed due to an FA reviewer who felt it sounded too much like the sentence was a statement of fact rather than a belief. It has been difficult trying to make various FA reviewers happy on these minor differences of personal taste. NancyHeise (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Immediately below this is another clumsy passage, which I didn't edit:
  • "Originally created to live in union with God, the first humans, Adam and Eve, by committing this original sin, brought suffering and death into the world. This event, known as the Fall of Man, left humans separated from their original state of intimacy with God. This state of separation can follow the soul into death."
Too many commas breaking up twisty constructions, too many sentences start with "this" etc.
I don't claim to be a professional-calibre writer. I can't always pull the rabbit out of the hat, but I can clearly see when the trick has failed. It fails here, and throughout the article.
Second, as for 1b and 1d, well, you'll note the first thing I pointed out was a grammatical construction that created a violation of WP:NPOV. That construction, while fixed in the lead, stands unmolested in the "Origin and mission" section... and I think if I pored over the article I would find more such... I am not sufficiently well-versed in Catholic history etc. to mount a formidable opposing argument based on 1b and 1d. That would require the services of a domain expert. However, see my comments about magic and magicians above. I just... get the feeling... that the article speaks too much from a Catholic POV, uses Catholic arguments to make Catholic points, etc. So my conclusion is "Oppose based on 1a", and I retain nagging concerns about 1b and 1d as well. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
RESPONSE:Thank you for your comments. Issues such as personal taste on things like wording are difficult for us to make everyone happy. Sometimes, removing wording for one person to make him or her happy will often offend someone else who then sees an obvious bias that the other may not see. We have tried to keep everyone happy but I realize that we can't always be successful in that area. NancyHeise (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as much as I respect the work that Nancy and others have placed into this article, it does not meet the current criteria per Tony and others. My main problem with the article is that it reads like a persuasive essay, not an encyclopedic article. All points of view must be considered and addressed per WP:NPOV, and that is simply not done here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
RESPONSE:Thanks for your comments. I realize there is a tendency for some people to want to see more expansion on certain criticisms. Again, it is difficult to make everyone happy here. We have omitted no criticism of the Catholic Church. All are mentioned in brief summary and then wikilinked to other Wikipedia pages where the issue is discussed in further depth. We had to do this in order to keep the page length down to a minimum. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not limited to mere criticism. Different points of view are not necessarily criticism. Per above, the article is heavily favorable towards the Church. I am a Catholic and this is blatantly apparent. As I requested at the previous FAC, please work with the editors who have raised objections on this nomination and work with them. If you are confused, ask for clarification. Merely brushing them off and using ad hominem attacks is not going to help you in any fashion here. FAC is not a vote. As it stands, this nomination will fail unless you can address the oppose votes here. There can be fifty support votes and it would be irrelevant in every fashion possible so long as the objections remain. I implore you to cease your attacks and work with the editors here. Getting a third party copy-editor to fix the page per Tony's suggestion would be a start. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, it clearly reaches the requirements of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. No question about it. I'm trying to maintain good faith, but from the words of the people who are opposing, it seems their issues are more centred to their personal opinion of the Catholic Church, rather than "is this article up to standard for FA". The article presents a thorough, complete, overview of the subject at hand.. including relevent criticisms to present a NPOV and over 200 citations. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as before. The article still has room for improvement. However, it meets FA standards. It's a fairly good article on a complex subject. Majoreditor (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The sacrament of Penance is fully described in the section about Jesus, but receives only a mention in the paragraph about sacraments. Is that the way it should be? I mean... Jesus is connected to everything in Christianity, and so everything could perhaps be in a section about Jesus... but is that the logical place? Ling.Nut (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, really, we could have gone into depth on each sacrament in the paragraph about Mass where they are all listed. But it was more logical to describe each sacrament under the actual belief section from which the purpose of the sacrament originates. As you will see, the most basic sacraments are described within certain sections of Beliefs like Penance under Jesus - whose death is believed by Christians to have granted people the opportunity for forgiveness of sins for those who are sorry and repent - Sacrament of Penance. NancyHeise (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I just replaced a lower-case "p" with a capital P in "sacrament of penance". Just now found a lower-case "c" in one instance of sacrament of confirmation". Am I correct in assuming that words like confirmation and eucharist should always rec'v caps after "sacrament of.."? Penance is both a sacrament and a general English word, but what about eucharist/Eucharist? Ling.Nut (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I could use help capitalizing these. After reading the Wikipolicies I thought it best to lowercase them just to not appear POV. After another editor started to captialize them, I asked SandyGeorgia for advice and she told me to go ask Tony (who subsequently came over with a big Oppose vote). Tony advised me to capitalize them. I have been doing so as I go through but may have missed some - your kindness and help to get them all is much appreciated.NancyHeise (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a bit surprised that the Demographics & Membership sections are placed at the very end of the article... I would've thought that these, being more general, would come near the front.. are you following some template on this arrangement? It's a matter of style, but... Ling.Nut (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Everything about this article was conceived following the example of the FA on Islam which I found to be very helpful to someone like me who does not know much about that religion. Since some of my children's school friends are Muslims and it is respectful to people of different cultures to have some knowledge of their beliefs, I found the article extremely helpful. I organized this article along the same lines. I want this to be an FA so people can trust that the information is not some product of ignorant editors going back and forth on Wikipedia! NancyHeise (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Despite other editors' confessed (no pun intended) struggles adhering to WP:AGF regarding the Oppose votes, the fact is, you need non-Catholics reading this article. I just finished reading (and rereading, and re-rereading) "Church organization and community" and it didn't make sense to me. I suspect that's because Catholics, when reading, subconsciously "fill in the blanks" with missing information — whereas those blanks are chasms to me... The section seemed to omit key information, to include redundant statements, etc etc etc. I'm gonna try to work on a revised version in my user space, though I'm sure it'll contain some errors. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The article has been much improved by the contributions of non-Catholics. I especially appreciate the number of them who have been respectful of this religion and truly wanted to help Wikipedia have a decent article on the subject regardless of their personal feelings about the Church.NancyHeise (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Nancy is working on the Community section as per my comments; I'm working on an (unfortunately) competing version here. That version currently has tons of redundancy that can be cut cut cut. unfortunately I have to quit for the day now, but I hope we can work together. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I replaced my reworking with Ling Nut's making some minor corrections of fact. NancyHeise (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I must give extreme kudos to Nancy for maintaining her composure in the face of some of the extreme POV carping by certain people on this page. She must have spent over 100 hours of intense work on this project since nomination. No sooner does she work to appease one set of objections when a whole shaft more appears. There are vague criticisms saying the article is "too pro-Catholic", with no detail given, presumably because it doesn't follow their own prejudices. Is the "France" article too pro-French, I wonder or the Science article too pro-science? At the other extreme there are people like Dave1 who want the article to conform to their own personal style and word choice preferences, with numerous petty criticisms. References are removed because they aren't from books specifically looking at the Catholic Church, then someone objects that the source is too narrow! Finally when the history and belief sections are enlarged, and heavily referenced to include sections detailing issues that FA reviewers have said need to be included, others then turn up and say the sections need cropping! We will never get anywhere at this rate! Xandar (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
<remainder of commentary moved to the talk page; please stay focused on WP:WIAFA and remember that Islam and the article author are not being evaluated here (Roman Catholic Church is). Please continue this off-topic discussion on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment All I'm saying, which I do believe NEEDS saying on this page, (more is on the talk page) is let's have constructive relelevant, and specific criticisms only, not vague, general bad-mouthing, or saying "someone else could do it better." Saying "not well organized" or "should be better than this", is no use whatsoever to the process. If your point has any relevance, explain HOW and in what precise way you would prefer to see it organised, and in what precise way it should be "better", otherwise I would say the comment is irrelevant, and should be ignored. Xandar (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose It's covering a pretty big subject but it's not very well organized. Most of the covered topics have main articles so it really shouldn't be this long. The history is better off in its own article. "Origin and mission" is out of place. Obviously, a featured article doesn't need to be perfect but it should be better than this.Mike92591 (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Multiple editors have just worked to trim the article in all areas. It was 132KB and is now 118KB. I have looked over every part of the article to remove excesses or redundancies as well as three other editors. I do not see any more we can cut without starting to violate FA criteria requiring us not to omit key information. NancyHeise (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You could move the history.Mike92591 (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The article is well up to FA standard, which means (like its subject) not perfect. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Multiple instances of British English spelling. They didn't appear to be in direct quotes or book titles etc.; just in the body text. The overwhelming majority of the text (including section headers) is American English, so I assume that's the standard for the article. Look for: organisation, behaviour, criticised, baptised, favour, endeavour and travellers. I think that's all of them. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, I'm fixing the British Eng. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am unfamiliar with the specific criteria for FACs these days, but if this is the sort of thing that people are allowing through, I am a little unhappy. In general, this article is not sufficiently neutral, does not rely sufficiently on disinterested academic scholarship - especially in matters related to the catechism, where Msgr. Barry is used, and in medieval history, where a book credited to "Harcourt Religious Publishers" is used extensively.
Wikipedia allows self published sources like the Catechism and Code of Canon Law when creating sections like "Beliefs". The other books referencing those sections are not self-published, even the Msgr. Barry book. The history section is referenced to over 30 books with several that are University press published and written by scholars that are then supplemented with a variety of books spanning a wide expanse of published sources on the subject matter. I think it makes the history section quite well-rounded. NancyHeise (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course, self-published sources are allowed. Two things, however: our best articles should avoid them if possible; and in this case the Catechism is a primary source, which should be used with caution, and ideally only to support a secondary source for an interested reader. (I'd love to put that in terms of FA criteria. Its mentioned in WP:V, but not explicitly in the criteria. Typical. Prose should be "brilliant", but the quality of sourcing isnt addressed.)
The history section is strongly dependent on the Harcourt book, which is - as far as I can tell - a parochial publishing house in Florida. Relata refero (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Since "specific" complaints are also asked for, may I direct people to the section on the Church's history in the Renaissance. On the Church's role in the New World, this is all that is mentioned: "n December 1511, Dominican friar Antonio de Montesinos openly rebuked the Spanish authorities governing Hispaniola for their mistreatment of the American natives, telling them "you are in mortal sin ... for the cruelty and tyranny you use in dealing with these innocent people".[142] Although King Ferdinand enacted the Laws of Burgos and Valladolid in response, enforcement was lax. The issue did rouse a crisis of conscience in 16th century Spain. An outpouring of self-criticism and philosophical reflection among Catholic theologians, most notably Francisco de Vitoria, led to debate on the nature of human rights, and the birth of modern international law." Seriously? This is not the mainstream view of the Church's involvement, far from it.—This is part of a comment by Relata refero , which was interrupted by the following:
Amazing response - this was found in several books and is in fact the mainstream view. I am happy that the article will sufficiently reveal to people that the Catholic Church, as viewed by historians, has been an influence for good in the New World and is distinguished and separate from the harm done by Spanish explorers. NancyHeise (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It has indeed been a lasting and in many ways "good" influence. The activities of the Franciscans and the famous sermons of Vitoria and de la Casas are indeed relevant, and the fact that Vitoria's lectures at Salamanca on the subject are crucial to the history of international law and sovereignty is a nice point. That does not give an FA the right to skip over the accepted view that there were many problems, particularly its justification of forced labour under its stewardship (see Bruce E. Johansen), its vast holdings, and the close alliance with the Crown under the patronado real. The mainstream view? The Catholic Church "....was a government agency like any other... in return for assistance in conerting indigenous peoples to Catholicism, state officials were given the right to appoint Church officials and control its finances..." (Carlos Forment). For the final word, see the John Frederick Schwaller's introduction to The Church in Colonial Latin America which puts into perspective the thoeretical "wins" in Spain with the abject failure of adminstration of those principles on the ground. The way the section is written, it sounds the other way 'round. Relata refero (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the part of the article you are having trouble with and calling POV is this "In the Americas, the church expanded its missions in cooperation with the Spanish government and military. Junípero Serra, the Franciscan priest in charge of this effort, founded a series of missions which quickly became important economic, political, and religious institutions.[165] These missions brought grain, cattle, and a new way of living to the pagan Indian tribes of California. Overland routes were established from New Mexico that resulted in the colonization of San Francisco in 1776 and Los Angeles in 1781. However, by bringing civilization to the area, these missions and the Spanish government have been held responsible for wiping out nearly a third of the native population, primarily through disease.[166] This period also saw the church struggling against the colonial abuses of the Portuguese and Spanish governments. In South America Jesuits established semi-independent colonies or reductions to protect native peoples from enslavement. Pope Gregory XVI, challenging Spanish and Portuguese sovereignty, appointed his own candidates as bishops in the colonies, condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839, and approved the ordination of native clergy in the face of government racism.[167]" This part of the article is referenced to two different Scholarly books published by University Presses supplemented with an online source. Clearly, scholarly works in agreement would constitute reliable facts that we can put in the article. Neither source mentions your "mainstream view". I have to use the best and most reliable sources over others and that is what the article has done. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was talking about the earlier section, which I quoted. This section uses a book published in the 1970s by the "Society of Californian Pioneers", and Duffy. I have no objection to the section on the 1830s, though it certainly doesn't tell the whole story; one would think the Jesuits had local church support, which wasn't the case. My concerns about the earlier section stand. Relata refero (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
In an effort to address your concerns about this issue, I looked up the book you have cited to support your viewpoint here: "The Church in Colonial Latin America" by Schwaller. Here is a direct quote of a review of the book by Brian Larkin of St. Johns University History Dept :"Readers interested in the history of the Church and religion in Brazil, the Caribbean, or the frontiers of Spanish America will be disappointed. Likewise, readers particularly concerned with the religious history of women will find little of immediate interest in this volume. Not even Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz or St. Rose of Lima, Latin America's two most famous religious women, receive mention. Because of its limited scope, instructors will need to supplement this text with other materials. Nonetheless, Schwaller has provided scholars with a useful selection of articles for the classroom." You can read the rest of the review here [[15]] evidently, it is considered to be of such a limited scope that it is not useful in the classroom. How can you expect me to use this book on the brief summary in Wikipedia? NancyHeise (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, reading that section, the Reformation is not put into sufficient context: "In Europe, the Renaissance was a period of renewed interest in ancient and classical learning, and a re-examination of accepted beliefs. On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses, which protested key points of Catholic doctrine as well as the sale of indulgences.[144] Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, and others further criticised Catholic teachings. These challenges developed into the Protestant Reformation.[145]" Criticised how? The only thing mentioned here is indulgences. Not good enough.—This is part of a comment by Relata refero , which was interrupted by the following:
This is what I was talking about earlier about not being able to satisfy all people. In an earlier FAC, reviewers wanted more info - we put it in and then this FAC they want the article to have less. Now we have less and we have reviewers who want more again. Several editors both Catholic and non-Catholic worked together to get the current version, many top sources were consulted and used for the current form of the history section. It was recently trimmed by Karanacs and Lingnut.NancyHeise (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but must repeat that from the point of view of an encyclopaedic article on the Catholic church, not having a few sentences on what caused the Reformation is very not-OK. Relata refero (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that more expansion of this section is needed. It was expanded to include the information this reviewer would like to see. It was subsequently trimmed by three non-Catholic and very expert FA reviewers in a recent vast trimming of the entire page. NancyHeise (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
My comments on the need for context for the most major event in Catholic history stand. On the subject of who made the changes, it doesn't matter: they may be expert FA reviewers, but they've certainly screwed up the article here. Relata refero (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the key is to make sure that the most important points are covered, and those of lesser importance are left to the article on the History of the Roman Catholic Church. I agree with Relata that the article should include more information on what led up to the Reformation. Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Addressed. I have added two new sentences sourced to a University press book that state what led up to the Reformation, see the two sentences immediately before Martin Luther's 95 theses. NancyHeise (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The end of the section sums up the problem with the entire article: "Baroque religious expression was emotional, with joyful and exuberant music and art intended to appeal to the senses. Emphasizing the humanity of Jesus and the motherly qualities of Mary, this style offered the common people a joyous religious experience." Depressingly in-universe, as it were, and completely ignores the mainstream scholarship: "The baroque is the glorification of established regimes: it is the art of authoritarianism that carries the awed observer away so he forgets to doubt and question" - Joyce G. Simpson, quoted in Jose Antonio Maravall; not to mention the stream of thought that links the baroque in religious architecture to spectacle, illusion and theatricality, for which see Karsten Harries on ethics in architecture.
I am not sure what FAs are coming to these days, if this is a representative candidate. Relata refero (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The section on Baroque is referenced to a non- Catholic church affiliated source and was inserted at the request of a non-Catholic FA reviewer. NancyHeise (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, the Baroque section is referenced to the book from Harcourt, the religious publishers. Relata refero (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no particular contradiction between the views on the Baroque quoted or mentioned, and Simpson (whoever she is) appears to be discussing the secular Baroque in particular; the passage in the article cannot reasonably be accused of "completely ignoring" mainstream views. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia NPOV requires an article to give the reader a fair representation of views. This does not preclude us from supplementing all of our 90% + books used to create the history section with the only one that is published by Harcourt Religion Publishers. In fact, it is to the advantage of the article not to be accused of being anti-Catholic by using at least one of these kinds of books to tie in with the others. We did not use just one book but over 30 including more than a fair amount of University press citations.NancyHeise (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
John: Joyce Simpson wrote the book on the French baroque. In this section she is talking about the general approach to the baroque in France; Maravall later on in the same passage goes on to point out the unitary structure of authority between the Church and secular power, and their common use of the baroque. This is absolutely the mainstream in art history. The passage may not "contradict" the mainstream, but it definitely ignores it.
Perlease - she wrote a book called "Le Tasse et la litterature et I'art baroques en France" in 1962, so mainly about the reception of Tasso, an Italian pre-Baroque poet, in France - that is all I can find on google scholar etc. This is a passing reference in a huge article, and gives a perfectly conventional quick summation of the impact of the Baroque in religious art. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Nancy: in this section the Harcourt book is the source for all the major claims. Relata refero (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess I am not understanding what is controversial about Baroque art. How is art controversial - is there anything in the aritcle that is not a referenced fact? No. Neither is this a material item to the Roman Catholic Church as an organization. We made mention of Baroque art as a cultural thing of the times. It is not church policy, there were no papal decrees - it was a fad. NancyHeise (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comments The article needs a thorough copy edit - there are awkwardly worded sentences, confusing diction, and easter egg links. Here are some examples from the lead.
Issues resolved, Awadewit talk 00:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • On Images: Obviously there is a plethora of art to choose from for this page and the editors have chosen lovely images (all listed as being in the public domain). However, none of the captions list the artists and only some list the dates. Many of these works are famous and beautiful (I studied a lot of them in my art history classes). It would be helpful to readers unfamiliar with the art historical tradition to identify the artists and approximate dates for them. Awadewit talk 15:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
While we could change all captions to reflect only the origin of the artwork, I disagree that this would be an improvement to the article. The reader can click on the picture to discover its origin, the article is not about art history, it is about the Roman Catholic Church and these pictures are about subjects directly related to content in the article. We chose to caption the content of the picture rather than its origin in an effort to supplement reader's understanding of the article topic, not redirect their attention to an off-subject topic. NancyHeise (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clearer. I wanted only to add to the captions. Most artworks are identified in FAs and then have a commentary about how they apply to the article. It is both a gesture of recognition to the artist and a way to inform the audience. Awadewit talk 14:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Origin and mission
  • The church and scholars such as Edward Norman consider this to be the manner of the church's origin and cite historical records that support this belief. - Is there any way to characterize the group of scholars that Norman belongs to? Do they belong to a strain of thinking, for example?
"Dr. Edward Norman (born 22 November, 1938) was Canon Chancellor of York Minster and is an ecclesiastical historian. He lectured in history at the University of Cambridge. He is an emeritus Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge and was Dean of Peterhouse for seventeen years and Dean and Chaplain at Christ Church College, Canterbury and Professor of History at the University of York. He is a member of the Peterhouse school of history. Norman also was a BBC Reith lecturer in 1978, discussing the relationship between religion and politics. Margaret Thatcher once invited him to Chequers, although Norman insists he is not a Thatcherite and says he is 'appalled by the results of naked capitalism'. He has left the Church of England and has converted to the Roman Catholic Church, although he claims these two actions are independent of each other." He has been involved with the Conservative Philosophy Group and has written for the Salisbury Review. this was copied and pasted from the Wikipedia page on Edward Norman, not an obscure historian from an obscure college. His book "Roman Catholic Church and Illustrated History" is one of our University Press sources used to create the article.NancyHeise (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If you can verify from somewhere other than Wikipedia that he part of the "Peterhouse school of history", that is precisely the sort of information we are looking for. Describing it would be even better than giving its name. For readers unfamiliar with the world of biblical studies, it is pretty much meaningless to cite a scholar's name, but if you can say "he uses this particular methodology", that helps them out a lot more, if you see what I mean. Awadewit talk 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree that we have to put anything in the article more than a wikilinked name of the author in the origin and mission section. It is easy enough for the reader to go to the page of that author and see who he is. I added a reference to the Wikipedia page on Edward Norman to support the claims made on his page. Is there some Wikipedia policy that requires more information on an author? I'm sorry, while I am complying with many of your requests, I do not see how this will make the article better. I think it will clutter up the messages being conveyed in the Origin and Mission paragraph and is unnecessary if we have a wikilink to the author, which we have for both authors cited.NancyHeise (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, Edward Norman is a top scholar at one of the worlds top Universities. Peterhouse school of history definition concentrated on these scholars views of politics in the 19th and 20th centuries. This is not relevent to the topic of the article.NancyHeise (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a wikipolicy somewhere about proper attribution of quotations. I'm sure someone here knows where it is. However, the real issue is that you can help the reader. Let me give an example. In the article about Mary Shelley that I'm currently working on, I just noticed the same problem. The article could say: "Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar write that..." Now Gilbert and Gubar wrote a very important book on women writers. It would be better, however, if the article said: "Feminist literary critics Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar write that..." That way readers know the perspective from which the scholarship is coming. It is these tiny details that help readers who don't know what you, the writer, knows. Awadewit talk 00:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Addressed 74.225.135.48 (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Just adding where he is a professor is not what I meant - that doesn't help the reader. That is why I tried to give an example. Perhaps someone else knows the answer to this question? Awadewit (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Prayer and worship
  • The Mass is a representation of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary and a response to Jesus' request for the disciples to remember him in this way. - I thought this was supposed to be the Eucharist - "Do this in remembrance of me".
I changed this section and got a better source. It is such an important and unique part of Roman Catholicism that I thought it needed a little more background. 74.225.135.48 (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Church organization and community
  • The church teaches that women have a different yet equally important role in church ministry, prayer and life. - What is that different role? A small description should be included.
Addressed NancyHeise (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The new sentence only repeats that the role is different - it doesn't state what that role is. I would delete the Pope sentence and find a source that explains what women are supposed to do. Awadewit (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The lay person's role in the church body is to make Christian teaching and the Christian life a reality in the social, political, and economic realms of the secular world. By offering their prayers and good works as spiritual sacrifices, by being good Christian examples to the world both in word and deed, by self-mastery and working to conform worldly institutions to the norms of justice, the lay faithful participate with the ordained in Christ's priestly, prophetic and royal offices. - I think that by relying too much on the Church's own language, this sentence has the potential to confuse readers. Much here is unclear to me: What is a "Christian life"? What are good works"? Phrases like "word and deed" are religious and unfamiliar to the casual reader. I worry that "working to conform worldly institutions to the norms of justice" implies that somehow they aren't already just - if that is the Catholic position - that needs to made clearer. What does "Christ's priestley, prophetic and royal offices" mean? Again,this is religious (and poetic) language - it is vague and doesn't help the reader unfamiliar with Catholicism understand what the duty of the lay Catholic is.
Addressed NancyHeise (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand what "Christ's priestley, prophetic and royal offices" means. Awadewit (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Lead
  • I still think the lead is too detailed. I've tried copy editing it myself, along with my other copy editing. We'll see what people think. Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I read it and thought your changes were fine. 74.225.135.48 (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still going to work on it some more - the lead needs more flow. Awadewit (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Sources
  • Poughkeepsie Journal - Why are we using this newspaper to describe the differences between the CC and the Greek Orthodox Church? Awadewit (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a problem with using it? The discussions between the churches were a news item. The Poughkeepsie Journal is one of the oldest newspapers in the country, I considered it a reliable source. I thought the article was well done. 74.225.135.48 (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say that generally we stay away from newspapers whenever possible (see discussion on FAC talk page recently). This story is from six years ago. Surely some more reputable source, such as an academic journal or book has published something on this since then? Awadewit (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Awadewit that it would be better to use a non newspaper source. I'll see if I can find one. Karanacs (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC) I've now replaced the newspaper reference with a book reference. Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Please describe the Barry book for me. It is not available in my university research library (which is quite extensive), nor is it easily available for purchase (e.g. on amazon). I saw several books on the internet by Barry, but they were for teenagers. The publisher in a description of a large type version, describes it this way: "Designed for adolescents and young adults, it is an ideal resource for those who have minimal catechesis". While this is true of Wikipedia's audience, it should not serve as the foundation for the research for the article. However, there seem to be many books with this title. See here. I'm concerned, however, that the book doesn't appear in WorldCat. I've checked through the article and this book serves as the sole secondary source for at least the "Spiritual realm", "Church", and "Devotional life" sections. His book plays a major role elsewhere, so we need to make sure it is the most reputable source possible. That it is so hard to find disturbs me. Awadewit (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The book is used as a tool for Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church. It is created for and sold to Roman Catholic Religious Education departments for use in various programs to initiate people into the church. Usually people coming into the church are adult converts or teenagers who want to make their confirmation (which often happens either in middle school or high school). They have to take two years of classes before they can get confirmed. Thus, the book is a summary of basic Cathoilc belief. If you will see, I have supplemented the Beliefs section with a new source "The Essential Catholic Catechism" by Dr. Alan Schreck, Servant Publications - this book has what are called "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" which means that it is declared by the Catholic Church to be free from doctrinal or moral error. It is an acceptable source to represent Catholic Belief. It is not exactly a Catechism but a commentary explaining it. NancyHeise (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My inclination is to say that the article should not rely so heavily on Barry, then, for several reasons. According to the websites I saw and what you are saying, I'm not sure it is written for adults - I'm concerned that basing our articles on simplified sources will give Wikipedia a bad reputation and might have misled us in what we included (not intentionally, of course). What the church chooses to include in Confirmation classes is not necessarily what we need to include in our article. We need a multiplicity of views. I did see that part of the Beliefs section is supplemented with Schreck, but that is only part. I am also concerned that the book is so hard to obtain. This book is the citational foundation for several sections; it is disingenuous for Wikipedia to claim that it is sourcing its articles and then point readers to unobtainable books. However, this is a tricky issue. I have asked others to weigh in on this issue as well. Let's see what they think. Awadewit (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it is my opinion that it is a top source that no one will argue with Wikipedia for using if it is used to train new converts to the religion. I did not know it was so hard to obtain - I teach religious education so I have a copy given to me by the church. NancyHeise (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the article would be better served if we include more non-RCC sources to back up some of what is sourced to the Barry book (I hadn't realized it was so hard to access). While I don't believe that book would have errors, I think we definitely need a plethora of views here, and not necessarily only the view of the RCC. (Note: I am not advocating getting rid of this source completely, just supplementing with a book not directly associated with the RCC.) That said, I do appreciate that Nancy found this book rather than sourcing directly to the Catechism, and I wouldn't oppose based on this. Karanacs (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have now looked up all of the Catholic churches in my town, but unfortunately I would need a car to get to any of them and I don't own one. I think that using this book, which is not a third-party source, peer-reviewed in any way, written for teenagers, written for "new converts" (a very specific target audience), and extremely difficult to obtain, as the sole source for many of the sections I have listed above, is a significant problem. I agree with Karanacs that it should be supplemented with other, more reliable, preferably non-RCC sources. Unlike Karanacs, I will oppose based on this - sources are the foundation of Wikipedia's credibility in FAs. They must be impeccable. Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to change my "comments" to "oppose", unfortunately, because of the source issues I brought up and those brought up below. Finding new sources often involves not just replacing old sources with new but also doing new research to determine if the article is accurate and, if not, fixing it. This can take some time. When the new sources have been added and the article has been checked for accuracy, I will, of course, be happy to look at it again. Awadewit (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 1a - I still think that this article is wordy and awkward in places. I have copy edited it myself and tried to help the editors, but it is in such a state of flux that this assistance is a drop in the bucket. Whole sections are rewritten daily.
  • 1b - First, this article needs more on the Catholic church's modern missions. I mentioned this briefly on the talk page of the article, but the more I think about it, the more I think it is necessary. I've spent quite a bit of time now thinking about what should/should not be in the article (several days in fact) and I'm concerned that the practical "mission" of the Church is not given more space. Its efforts to convert and to help the needy are a large part of the institution and should be given space in the article. They are mentioned in the history but not in the "contemporary" part of the article. This needs to be rectified. Other editors have addressed the problems with the history (which I think should be shrunk). Second, I think this article focuses too much on the ideal Catholic life. More on the lived Catholic life would be helpful. For example, saints are very important to Catholics in Latin America but saints receive very little treatment here. Thus, I would expect the article to, at times, mention the differences between Catholic theology and the actual practice of Catholics in different parts of the world. Which brings up my third point. The article does not describe the different kinds of Catholicism the world over very well. Since Catholics are not all the same everywhere, some attempt should be made to describe the different Catholic traditions in Africa, Latin America, Europe, and America, for example.
  • 1c - I've already explained my objections to some of the sources used.
  • 1e - The article is not stable, but this is an artifact of the FAC process. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I would like to point out that I'm sure we all agree this article is very important and I would like to thank the editors who have put so much time and effort into it. I am hoping that by ironing out any little writing problems, we can also iron out any possible POV problems. Happily, focusing on the language of an article often has that effect. Awadewit talk 13:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(off-topic) I remember now why I don't spend time near FAC. Precisely the belief you outline in the last couple of sentences, which really seems to have no grounding in fact. Relata refero (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Three editors, two of whom are not Catholics, who opposed the FA nomination have just spent a significant effort to eliminate POV and trim the article. I appreciate thier efforts and do not feel there is any POV left to eliminate without eliminating what the Catholic church thinks of itself - important content to have.NancyHeise (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I am more focused on the writing. Awadewit talk 21:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of your points have been addressed like the Origin and MIssion sentence and easter egg links. Others are matters of personal taste that may conflict with the many qualified and often non-Catholic editors of the page who have gone over several times with improvements. Some of your comments will just make the page too long and off subject - wikilinks are provided for the reader who wants more explanation of terms like Gospel, liturgy, etc. Thanks for your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we generally don't talk about qualifications, but if you want to hear mine, I'm sure you would be satisfied with them. I have both on- and off-wiki qualifications. :) I would also argue that explaining core concepts such as the Holy Spirit early in the article are not off topic. Readers need to be helped along - they often skip parts of articles and when reading introductory articles such as this one, we might assume they are unfamiliar with the language of the Church. We should do all we can to assist them in understanding the material we are presenting. Awadewit talk 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: those who have a problem with the length of the article please take a look at the comparable featured article Israel. Squash Racket (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This article is 60kb of readable prose (to calculate this, I followed the directions at WP:LENGTH). According to that page, "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". Awadewit talk 15:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot has been done in the past few days to cut its size, esp. by User:Karanacs. If it fails and then receives intensive copy editing, a lot more will be done. If it passes, then it is perhaps unlikely that it will receive such intensive scrutiny. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Current readable prose size per Dr pda's prose size script of Roman Catholic Church is 56KB, Israel is 46KB, Islam is 41KB, and Atheism is 32KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Further to size, here is a list for comparison purposes of the articles found in the on-line edition of Encarta.
  • Roman Catholic Church (Encarta): 4,400 words
  • Islam (Encarta): 9,700 words
  • Christianity (Encarta): 7,100 words
  • Atheism (Encarta): 1,500 words
  • The current size (15 March 2008) of the Roman Catholic Church article: 9,700 words
I think it is not unreasonable to envision the main Roman Catholic Church article to be about 5,000 words. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not Encarta. The current Catholic article on Wikipedia, is better than Encarta's (which is the purpose of this project anyway). Squash Racket brings up a great point, Israel's article was allowed to pass without having essential imformation stripped out of it, so should this article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If this article is cut to fit Wikipedias guidlines, it will omit basic facts - several editors have just trimmed everything out of the aritcle that is not core. We want a useful article, not a shell and this subject warrants a sufficient size to meet the FA criteria that requires it to not omit important facts. The Wikipedia guideline on article size states at the top of the page that if a subject warrants a larger size, then it is OK to ignore the guideline. NancyHeise (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Question for the MOS gurus I hate to ask this, but it must be asked if we are going to do this right: Are we going to go with "church" or "Church". This recently came up at the Zwingli article FAC, where we went with "the Church". The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers states that capitalizing the shortened form is a good idea in order to distinguish it from the generic use of the word. Here is their example: "The Democratic Party has always been the dominant party in this country. However, recently other political groups have begun to encroach upon the Party's territory." I have frequently seen "the Church" in published scholarship. Thoughts on this? Awadewit talk 21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The rule is that you use lower case unless you are naming the church. I went through this already with the FA Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. NancyHeise (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
But I am pointing out that grammar books disagree with this and perhaps we should rethink that decision. Awadewit talk 14:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you would have to argue that with top Wikipedia people, I just did what they told me to do on Archdiocese of Miami.NancyHeise (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and the talk page of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and don't find any discussion of the capitalization issue. Can you please point us to this discussion? I don't know what "top Wikipedia people" means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
NancyHeise responded on my talk page that this was based on one comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami that "diocese and archdiocese should not be capitalized unless referring to a specific one", so there doesn't appear to have been a broad discussion of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support removing the Nicene Creed, as articles do not usually contain entire texts like that, and we are trying to reduce the size of this one (I was actually about to suggest this move). I would not support removing the entire "Beliefs" section. Awadewit talk 02:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The Roman Catholic Church is an organization built around a set of beliefs. Take out the beliefs and it is no longer a church; it's a social outreach organization, or something like that. No way on earth can that section be tossed.... As for eliminating the Nicene creed: I too think it should go. But just removing it goes far beyond the bounds of WP:BOLD in my opinion. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE TO FA REVIEWER FROM NOMINATOR: Because two editors are now discussing eliminating the Beliefs section for this article and one has already eliminated the Nicene Creed (which I replaced) I am wondering if we can please have some kind of ruling on the RCC page as of my last edit. The page is currently being turned into something that I would not consider worthy of FA and would probably make me withdraw the nomination. These changes have occured without consensus of editors considering all of the support votes here and only a couple of opposes stating elimination of Nicene Creed and no one advocating tossing the entire beliefs section. It has been over two weeks that this page has been at FAC. I think it was perfect as of my last edit here which includes the polishing edits of SandyGeorgia, Lingnut and several other editors many of whom are not-Catholic and worked extensively to eliminate any POV and address issues brought up by the oppose votes on this page. How much longer do we go on without a decision and at what point can this controversial page receive protection from the kind of editing that is occuring now? NancyHeise (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Note I have since restored the page to the form it was in as an FA nomination. NancyHeise (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. All major edits should go through consensus on the article Talk Page. Xandar (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If this is true, then the article fails FAC #1(e). These differences and changes need to be worked out on the talk page. If there is edit warring and lack of consensus on the article in major ways, then the article clearly isn't stable. We can't force and article to be "stable" by reverting back to an earlier version. The concerns of these editors need to be addressed, or they need to be convinced to jump on board (or vice versa). Conflict like this isn't good for the nomination :( -Andrew c [talk] 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Also in view of the sheer weight of comments here; and in the interests of Nancy and others, who have spent far more time on the page than I have been able to offer, can objections be less matters of personal preference than things the objector or commenter really believes are breaches of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria? Perhaps mentioning the specific criterion they are referring to, and in what precise way they allege the criterion not to be met. Secondly, since the number of suggestions for change shows no sign of slowing down, there needs to be some sort of shape to this process. Perhaps if a number of us could agree a finished article, and then everyone can re-submit valid supports and opposes from that point?? Xandar (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the article has reached the finished point and do not want another revote. I would like the FA reviewer to please come and make a decision. It has been two weeks and the only issues coming up now are minor issues of personal taste with no breaches of wikipedia policies or POV. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Nancy. I suggested a re-vote so the old objections could be weeded out and the process boil down to those who still have issues - and whether those issues are valid or not. At the moment I'm confused as to who is still opposing and for what reasons? Xandar (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that two weeks is a relatively short time for an article of this magnitude and potential controversy. It is also normal for the prose of an article to be carefully checked. That is part of what FAC is about. Awadewit talk 14:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I personally think that when this page gets longer than the actual article in question, that's when a decision should be made. We're almost there! ;-) Seriously, though, I'm having a problem with a quite key sentence in the article, in the Reformation section or whatever it actually is: "On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses, which protested key points of Catholic doctrine as well as the sale of indulgences.[151]" When I started the All Saints' Church, Wittenberg article about the church the theses were posted on, I found out and was confronted about them not actually having been posted there. In our The Ninety-Five Theses article, under "Initial Dissemination", they mention that there is no contemporaraneous evidence supporting the posting of the Theses on the door. It references that statement to "Iserloh, Erwin. The Theses Were Not Posted. Toronto: Saunders of Toronto, Ltd., 1966." Now, in such an important article as this, I don't think that we should be putting as fact what may be question. Perhaps throw in an allegedly or historically or something, but I don't think that we should be saying that he did in fact post his theses there. Any thoughts, yea or nay? Benjamin Scrīptum est - Fecī 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Might ask RelHistBuff. He's been working on Reformation articles recently. Might know. Awadewit talk 15:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I reworded this and added a reference to support the rewording. My source says it was originally sent in a letter to the Archbishop of Albrecht who was the one selling indulgences to raise money. Luther then sent the 95 theses to other bishops hoping to spark debate and discussion in a scholarly fashion. NancyHeise (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
My source (Bainton, p. 60) says that Luther did post a placard of the Ninety-five Theses on the Castle Church. Of course, there will always be many theories. Unless there are more publications other than Iserloh (who is by the way a Roman Catholic professor of church history at Trier) that support his claim, I don't think this theory should be given undue weight. An additional comment: I do think the coverage on the Reformation is weak. There are significant number of sentences devoted to the English Reformation (Anglicanism), but I think most Protestants would agree that the heart of the break with Rome lies within the German (Lutheranism) and Swiss (Calvinism) Reformation of which there is little description. Another question: why are the French reformers simply called "militant followers of Calvinism"? Is there something wrong with calling them Huguenots? --RelHistBuff (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Diarmaid MacCulloch (who is Anglican in background, but claims no religous affiliation) says in The Reformation (2003) page 119 "Reputedly Luther spoke out on October 31, 1517, celebrated in later years in German-speaking lands as Reformation Day. That day, he may or may not have publically advertised his intention of setting up an academic disputation on the subject of indulgences by tacking to the castle church doors in ..." What year is Bainton? If it's his Reformation of the Sixteenth Century the original publication date on that is 1952. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Does it really matter if we say Luther posted them on a door or not? I mean, we have the 95 theses in the article with a reference to the fact that he sent it to bishops. Do we have to go into detail about whether or not he posted it on the door? I think that is really not necessary. NancyHeise (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not that important. It was brought up by Bmrbarre and the idea was to improve the text. However, MacCulloch's formulation (brought up by Ealdgyth) is preferable. A more serious problem is the coverage of the Reformation. Following with the "different course in England" sentence, nearly a whole paragraph is devoted to the actions of the English royal family. Their stories make great television dramas, but the real split with Rome was based on the movements started by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. I'm not asking for additional text, in fact keep it to one paragraph. Just reduce the English politics and add a few sentences on the Continental reformation. I also believe that there is a definite POV problem when the Huguenots are described simply as "militant followers of Calvinism". --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Changed to Huguenots. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • <off-topic comment moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: The Huguenot article says: "Tensions led to eight civil wars... between 1562 and 1598", while the Roman Catholic Church article says "In France a series of eight civil wars were fought between 1560 and 1621". Discrepancy, or some really subtle point? :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Is it Tyler Hitchcock or Hitchcock for the last name of the author of the Geography of Religion book? The bibliography has it Tyler Hitchcock, but most of the time it seems to be referred to in the footnotes as Hitchcock. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Source concerns
    • Gentzler Medieval Times to Today is listed as a Juvenile Nonfiction book at Google Google Books entry Amazon entry. I really don't think that using a book that is targeted at 9-12 year olds is the best source we can be using for the Early Middle Ages section.
      • I agree that this children's book is unacceptable because it is not an academic, peer-reviewed source. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I have concerns also about using the Geography of Religion book for some of the sourcing. Not as much as the above book, but still some concerns. The description of the book leads me to believe it's more a coffee table book than a serious scholarly work. Google books entry
      • I agree that this does not look like the best scholarly work. This article is up for FA - it should have the best research. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Using the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is a bit outdated. Granted, it's not to a particularly contentious piece of data ("The ferocity of the persecution varied") but the two sources you are using for this statement don't say that the ferocity varied, they are both noted as persecutors. Use the Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity book instead, it'll be a lot less contentious than using an outdated Catholic encyclopedia.
      • I agree that the Catholic Encyclopedia uses outdated historical methodology - it would be better to use more reliable sources. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You're using Issues and Trends in Technology and Human Interation, specifically a side comment in a chapter about the benefits of the Internet to 21st century churches to source "In spite of these persecutions, the effective system of Roman roads facilitated evangelizing..."
      • I agree that this statement needs to be sourced to a more relevant source. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that a Thomas Woods book is the most scholarly thing we can reference in the Middle Ages.
    • Langley, Medieval Life is another juvenile nonfiction book. It's one of the DK books, heavily illustrated. Entry at Google Books and Entry at Amazon. The book is aimed at 9-12 year olds.
      • I agree that this children's book is unacceptable because it is not an academic, peer-reviewed source. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, the Riley-Smith reference is a good scholarly third-party source.
    • Here's a review of Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition from the NYTimes. I tend to think Kame's probably an acceptable source, but the review brings up some points to bear in mind when using it. Review
    • I have concerns with using this Asia and the Pacific World Explorer which appears to be a another juvenile book aimed at 9-12 year olds. See Amazon entry
      • I agree that this children's book is unacceptable because it is not an academic, peer-reviewed source. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The Resh Thomas Behind the Mask: The Life of Elizabeth I book is another juvenile. Entry at Google and Entry at Amazon, where the review from School Library Journal says Grade 8 Up.
      • I agree that this children's book is unacceptable because it is not an academic, peer-reviewed source. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Using a source from 1855 isn't the best source we could find for the statement "Pope Innocent XII launced further church reform in 1691 when he outlawed nepotism and simony." (We'll leave asside the issue that simony was against canon law long long long before this....since William of York was deposed as Archbishop of York in the 1140's for simony, and I could multipy the examples). Surely we have something more recent than 1855?
      • Using such out-dated reflects poorly on Wikipedia - we can do better. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I really only looked at the sources for the ancient, medieval, and reformation sections of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The 2 from the Catholic Encyclopedia were provided by me when that was actually an entirely different statement that it was sourcing. Since it was condensed and rewritten the sources were pulled out and used to support something else. I used those to source and support the names and dates of 2 emporers (one of whom arrested a pope while he was saying Mass and had him beheaded). I cannot speak to the sourcing of children's books. The Woods book is decent, but as I've said and been shouted down about and accussed of being "mean and hurtful" I think the article deserves better.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Children's books are not acceptable sources for an article on the Roman Catholic Church on which much as been written by scholars. According to WP:V, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." For the section on the history of the Catholic Church (from which this list was taken), we should have the best scholarship published by historians. They publish in academic presses and academic presses. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing notes on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:01, 18 March 2008.

[edit] Final Fantasy V

This article has seen a long gestation, and has improved to its present condition with the help of Hibana and others. It is comprehensive, covers the story well, and should be ready for Featured Status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Co-nom/support—been a while since I helped this article, but it still looks pretty good. Could probably use some polishing, but Spring Break is coming up...— Deckiller 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? If you going to be on spring break, how can you co-nominate it, doesn't that mean your not going to be around, and isn't that the point of co-noming? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary; I'm going to be home a lot. — Deckiller 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok, awesome!! :) Great to have you back! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support seems good enough. Another great FF article. igordebraga ≠ 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, though I wish some of the paragraphs in the plot section are chopped up for better readibility. Manderiko (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Speaking of the plot section, I think it should be trimmed a little. One of the images could probably be cut too. I'd remove the last image depicting Exdeath's death, as it doesn't really seem to illustrate its purpose. The Prince (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm kind of at a loss for what to trim from the plot section. I am afraid if I cut any part of it, the whole thing wont make sense, since not much of it seems tangential or overly detailed. I'm sure Deck and others may find something, but if you could I'd love a suggestion or two of what needs to be cut. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd leave that one actually, since it's the only one in the article that shows what the FMV's look like. I'd take out the Galuf death one or the fan translation one; neither one shows something that the other pictures don't (besides English letters, and I think we know what that looks like). --PresN (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I trimmed out the Galuf death picture, at least the last game image shows the FMV that was added. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Should the screenshots taken from the unofficial English SNES version be replaced with screenshots from the official (Japanese) version? Also this sentence should be clarified: "The main cast from the game, now regarded as great heroes, only make a cameo toward the end of the story." The anime takes place two centuries after the game, so how can the cast of the game appear? Are they immortal? FightingStreet (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I honestly have not idea if they can be used or not...any experts out there? Also, someone clarified that weirdly phrased sentence. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think there is any problem with it, as in this case the fan translation itself has some notability and is even referenced within the article. I have, however, trimmed down two images thus far to better comply with the requirement for only using crucial fair use images. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The problem is that the notability of the fan translation isn't established clearly in the article. The website of the fan translation and another fansite are cited but that's not enough. They should be replaced with actual reliable sources. Seiken Densetsu 3 even cites a written book for its fan translation, so it shouldn't be too difficult. FightingStreet (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Planned work—It's been a while since I've read the page, but I'll try to give it a copy-edit, maybe work a bit with the story section, and add some refs. — Deckiller 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

  • "The Job System is a defining feature of Final Fantasy V" I haven't played this game, but this doesn't make sense to me. The job system is in every FF game, so how can it define FFV? If anything, it's defines the series. I haven;t played many FF games, so correct me if I'm wrong.
  • You probably already know this, but the article could do with more references.
  • Make a decision between BrE and AmE, as there's "dialogue", and then "localization" further down the article.
  • "Setting" is probably too long. Such things like "If anyone goes to the nearby Valley of Dragons, a ceremony consisting of three Kelb in a line running around in circles is performed in the hopes that the adventurers will return safely." seems like trivia to me.
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but the first paragraph in "Characters" consists mainly of one giant sentence. I'm no expert on grammar, but can't some of these semi-colons be replaced with full stops?
  • Story simply just needs to be cut down, especially as in-universe context is provided in the prior sections. It has this X-meets Y and then goes to location z sort of structure. I mean, this line for example: "Galuf, suddenly realizing that he needs to go there without knowing why, accompanies her." I really don't know where to start with that one.
  • Tell me if I've got this wrong, but shouldn't the full stop be after the quotation marks here? Translator Ted Woolsey explained in a 1994 interview, "it's just not accessible enough to the average gamer." Look over the other quotes if this is the case.
  • "was released on the internet". Shouldn't "Internet" be capitalised?
  • "It is often cited as the first RPG to be completely translated by fans.[32]" But you provide only one reference, so how does that confirm "often"?
  • "Uematsu had originally intended the game to include more than one hundred pieces of music, but reduced the total." Any indication of why this happened?
  • Reception section is short and basic. I mean it's structured into consecutive quotes by different reviewers.
  • In ref 1 use "language=Japanese" instead of what's used now.
  • On ref 9, an author isn't listed even though one is stated in the source. It also gives the date as a year, even though the full date is stated in the source
  • Same for RPGamers. Please check all refs

Needs a big copyedit. A decent article, but not deserving of FA yet. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Good feedback and points; however, no offense, but I had already said that I would be giving the article a much needed copy-edit. To clarify, I haven't done any work on the article yet. — Deckiller 18:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • None taken. Drop a note when you think they've been addressed and I'll have another look. Cheers. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Several sources used in the article are not reliable (fansites, blogs, etc.): [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. FightingStreet (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Some of those sources seem reasonable; most are definitely poor sources, but others can probably be kept. I'll have to see what they are being cited for. — Deckiller 18:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Notes: some of the sources are missing data (like last accessdate and publisher) and you don't have to say in English on the sources: this is the English wiki. There are some problems with puncutation on image captions (see WP:MOS#Captions, the difference between sentence fragments and full sentences), and I saw some WP:PUNC issues with the punctuation on quotes. Concerned about the list of sources above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I and Deck will begin to work on it soon, I'm just finishing up on FFXI, both very busy FAC's :) Good think Sandy stopped my 3rd nomination! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I apologize for not getting to this yet! It's been a busy week, what with the release of my first RPG Maker game and all. Still time during Spring Break! — Deckiller 16:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I just hope they don't close this first :( Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't been able to conduct a thorough review, but I have found a few issues:

  • The review scores listed--it is important to specify which version of the game they are of, as they look like GBA scores, but there's no way for me or the reader to be completely sure.
  • I don't see a source for the Final Fantasy Extreme info; if it has one, inline cite it there.
  • The average reader (and by reader, I mean me) has no idea what a "memo-save" is; per the guidelines on gaming jargon here, it should be clarified.

--Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 00:01, 18 March 2008.

[edit] Year Zero (album)

Self-nomination: I feel this article meets all the criteria and covers the album as well and as thoroughly as possible. The article recently passed its GA nomination, and I believe it is ready for FA status. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Where's the info on the recording of the album? The article skips straight to "Promotion and release", so arguably fails criterion 1b. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point, good point. I'll see what I can scrounge up. Any other suggestions/comments while I take care of that? Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Taken care of, I think? There was already a little bit of stuff in there, I just needed to flesh it out a bit. Drewcifer (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The "Recording" and "Promotion and release" should be in two separate sections, in my opinion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. It was definitely an odd combination of stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment That ugly, irrelevant box is totally unnecessary. It should be removed. NSR77 TC 02:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean the Year Zero ARG template? I can't imagine any article that the template would better fit, except for the Year Zero (game) article itself. It's part of a series of articles on the ARG, so the template is there to tie it all together. Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It's unnecessary. I can't think of a single reason for it to stay. NSR77 TC 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Because there are 10 articles that have to do with the YZ ARG, all of which are organized by one template. This one of those articles. Obviously the album and the game itself are closely connected, and many of the ARG sub-articles tie directly into this article (namely the Campaign timeline article, but the others too). It's no different than say, the series of articles on Censorship. Only difference being that this particular article is about an album, which necessitates the Album infobox in addition to the series template. So, there's a few reasons right there. Drewcifer (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Why does there have to be a large, space-filling box, though? I assume a template at the bottom of the page would be equally as effective but less blatant and in the way. NSR77 TC 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well I can see your point on this one. However I'd say this is more of a template issue that it is an FAC issue. I'll bring it up on the template's talk page and/or at the NIN WikiProject. My own opinion of the issue is obviously to keep it as is (I made the template in the first place), since at least for just about every other YZ ARG article, it acts as a infobox of sorts, and organizes a series of article together quite nicely. The only reason it looks a little bit out of place here is because this article already has an infobox. But it would be silly to compromise the functionality of the template on the other pages simply because it doesn't work perfectly in this one. But like, I said, I'll bring it up on a few talk pages and see what happens. Does that sound reasonable? Drewcifer (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Have you come up with anything? NSR77 TC 15:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ideally yes, but since I personally don't have access to the physical Kerrang! magazine (and I'm sure 99% of readers wouldn't either), I think the Blabbermouth report is sufficient. If I were to use the Kerrang issue itself, not only can the reader not actually read the source of the quote, but I wouldn't be able to give proper attribution (the author for instance). Closest I could get to the actual article is this, which isn't much good. Drewcifer (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • What makes http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/ a reliable source? Likewise http://www.techamok.com/ (When I first went there, the front page had a bunch of skimpy photos of Pamela Anderson and Rebecca Loos listed as news on the front page, which kinda made me wonder a bit.)
I've never encountered Pitchfork being challenged as a reliable source, to be honest. It seems to fit the criteria of WP:RS. Namely, if you look at the Pitchfork Media (which admittedly is a mess), there's a ton of 3rd party external links discussing the website, its owner, its niche market, etc. And what's wrong with skimpy photos? =) Replaced it with a USA Today source. Drewcifer (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My main problem with the skimpy photos was they were the wrong sex! I got edumacated on the Pitchfork Media earlier today, so that's cool. Just so I'm clear, you replaced the techamok.com site with the USA Today? Ealdgyth | Talk 02:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Drewcifer (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
All of those websites are owned and run by ZDF-Hitparade, hence the nearly identical style/format of the various sites. Drewcifer (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The 81 link was working a few days ago, bummer. Replaced it with an archived version. As for the spiral link, I just removed the sentence and cite altogether, as it wasn't particularly useful info anyways. Drewcifer (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • A couple of the references could be combined as they only differ on the date of access.
Could you point me to which ones you see? I can't find any. Keep in mind that some may look similar (have similar titles), but are actually different archived versions of the same page (such as #38 and #39). Drewcifer (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
38 and 39 were one, and I believe the other was taken care of with the fix to 81. (i.e. I can't find it anymore!) Looks like that's taken care of. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth | Talk 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: The article is very strong, and impressively well-referenced. Of the four featured article criteria, I recommend addressing the following:

1. Basic criteria met?:
1a. Well written?
  • This sentence should be in the past tense: "Reznor also stated that the album is "part of a bigger picture of a number of things [he is] working on"."
Done. Drewcifer (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Split this into two sentences: "Some reviews criticized the album, however, such as Spin Magazine's review, which summarized the album by saying "The songs drag in the middle, choruses become interchangeable, and too many tracks end with the same electronic stuttering"."
I agree it was awkward, but I think splitting it into two separate sentence would be a mistake. Instead, I reworded it and separated it all with a colon. Does it look agreeable to you? Drewcifer (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It was better, but I added a minor fix. Good now.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Themes section should follow the Recording section.
I'm not sure if I agree with you there. The first two sections are mainly historical-type sections (this happened, then this happened). The themes is broader and more focused on the music rather than how the music came about. Better to keep similar sections together, no? Drewcifer (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You make a valid point. I withdraw this objection.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the sentence that begins "During a concert in Lisbon, Portugal, a..." be in the earlier section on USB drive promotion?
It is mentioned briefly in the section, but not the Lisbon part. I figured the two sections required different things: the promotion section required a mention the overall fact that USB drives were used, but the actual venue didn't seem especially important in the context of the section. In the tour section I'd say the opposite is true: the fact that it was on a USB drive is secondary to the fact that it was Date X at location Y on Tour Z. Does that make sense? There is method to my madness. Drewcifer (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
1b. Comprehensive? Yes
1c. Factually accurate? Yes
1d. Neutral?
  • The Music section is just an outlet for Reznor to brag about how awesome he thinks the album is. Later in the critical response section you already have a review by Ann Powers. Besides, this is probably the 100th time in the article where its been mentioned that this album is different from his others. Ditch that whole section for being at best redundant and at worst biased.
I put the section into the article in response to some suggestions made in the GA nom. I'll definitely try and improve it, but I think the article would suffer without it. I'll scour some reviews/articles about the album to get some more 3rd party sources in there. As for mentioning that the album is different, I believe it's only mentioned in the entire article three times: once here, once in the Recording section, and once in the lead (which is supposed to repeat the article). Also, I don't see the problem with quoting the same reviewer twice, especially if that reviewer is notable enough to have their own article. Drewcifer (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I expanded the section a bit, attempting to bring some 3rd part quotes and stuff in there. I still think Reznor's descriptions are illuminating, but hopefully now it doesn't overwhelm the section. Also, I realized that part of your complaint about the article repeating itself about how the album is different was spot-on: I used the same exact quote about writing from his journal in two different sections. So, I left the full quote in the Music section, but rewrote the part about it in the Recording section. Let me know if you think this works. Drewcifer (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I really applaud your efforts with this section. But I'm afraid that my initial concern is still unaddressed. I am not even opposed to a music section. Many WP article contain them. But they usually contain info like: "This album employed a lot of string instruments...", or "The percussion used in the album was a departure..." or "The production techniques on this album employed more sampling...". But in this article, after the first half of the first sentence, the section just spews opinions....all positive opinions and, worse, opinions of the artist himself. The other good sentence begins "Many of the songs on the album..." Otherwise, here's a sampling of that section: "effective sonic tricks", "slashes of prettiness", "organic approach", "You can fuck to a lot of it." I think the problem is obvious. A basis of WP is to present information—not interpret it. We leave the interpretation to the reader. The only time we present any opinions at all is if they are from renowned opinion makers (eg - All Music Guide), and such opinions should be presented in a section that reflects the fact that this is not the opinion of wikipedia (eg. a critical response section or peak chart positions). The current section doesn't do that. It will have to be removed, merged with critical reception, or completely re-written to focus purely on the composition from a technical aspect (eg. - which instruments were used, in which studio it was made and in which key the songs are written).

(←) I can see your points, but I think it's a little hasty to say the section is beyond help. The problem I'm having with using sentences akin to what you suggest is something that came up in the Nine Inch Nails FAC a few months back. Namely, that musical descriptions of that type tend to be borderline-POV. The sentence describing the instrumental outros for instance, is a bit borderline, and I had a hard time convincing myself to include that, given the comments made at the NIN FAC. So, instead of ME describing what the album sounds like, I've attempted to attribute everything to some source, via direct quotes. And the best place to find people describe music is in reviews of the music. I suppose some of the quotes are positive, which I also suppose is a problem, but some of them aren't. I suppose Ann Powers' description is fairly positive, so I've taken it out. The Drowned in Sound stuff seems pretty solid to me, since the review (or at least what I've chosen to point out from the review) merely compares the album to previous albums. "Organic" seems like a pretty neutral description of With Teeth, and it fits in nicely with the section, I think. I don't see how that could possibly be considered a positive or negative descriptor. The AMG quote also seems pretty solid to me. It uses big flowery words like "guitars squall" and "Percussion looms large", but it doesn't describe the squalling guitars and large percussions as a good thing. In fact, the latter half of the quote is just a list of adjectives. I could easily imagine those words coming from a negative review of some crappy metal/techno album. As for the quotes from Reznor, I'd definitely say it's illuminating to hear directly from the artist, but some of them could go I guess. Of all the quotes, I think the first one is the best: "Highly conceptual. Quite noisy. Fucking cool." The fucking cool part is an obvious red flag, but since it comes from the artist himself, and is part of a larger quote, I think it's actually somewhat informative. It should be taken with a grain of salt, of course, but anything directly from the artist should be. I've taken the other two quotes out though. Drewcifer (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the music section again, and do see the validity of some of the critique. But I still think the section is a little interpretation heavy. For a really good example of what a music section should be like, see Rain (The (Beatles song). It too incorporates some analysis, but includes a lot of technical information to substantiate it.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
That's definitely a good music section, but it's only so helpful to compare similar sections between a song article and an album article. Things like time signature, instruments, and specific song sections aren't applicable to an album article. I could do that for all 16 tracks, but that would be pretty silly I think. So, instead of going into track-for-track specifics, I've tried to describe the album in broad overall terms.
Look at it this way: throughout the section, I make a few points:
  • Noisy/distorted
  • Largely electronic
  • Made almost exclusively on a laptop
  • Differs musically from NIN's previous album, With Teeth
  • Overall tone
  • Many songs have an extended instrumental outro
That pretty much describes the album as far as I can tell. I'm actually quite pleased that I was able to get the above across in such a concise section. Without going into a track-for-track analysis, I can't imagine doing anything drastically different. And since describing music (specifically 16 songs of music), is inherently somewhat interpretive, I can't really do so without taking from outside sources. Drewcifer (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
1e. Stable? Yes
2. Complies with Manual of style and relevant WikiProjects?:
2a. Concise lead section? Yes
2b. Hierarchical headings? Yes
2c. Well-structured table of contents? Yes
2d. Consistently-formatted inline citations? Yes
3. Properly placed, captioned and/or rationalized images?:
Done, I think. Drewcifer (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Appropriate length?: Yes

When these issues are addressed, note the changes here and notify me on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far.— Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 00:01, 18 March 2008.

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

previous FAC

This is currently my 2nd attempt to bring Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi to featured article status. I feel that that many contributors, including myself who help to bring this article to AA-rated with terrific reviews should get featured status. It is currently the only Star Wars movie to not be featured in Wikipedia. A Raider Like Indiana (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: Please check links; one appears to be dead. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth | Talk 03:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - please delete the 1st, the 2nd, the 2rd and the 4th because they are spam-sistes (coca-cola, boots) or blogs (21 answers...). MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Minor Support although it needs some work, it's well done, and all problems will be brought up by this FAC. igordebraga ≠ 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot, specifically:

Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot.

I think the plot summary is too long. Whilst I'm not usually a stickler for these types of guidelines, the current summary weighs in at a massive 1,166 words and the plot is not all that complicated. I think the cast list could be converted to prose, and I think some of the extra descriptions of characters in the cast section are not necessary as their roles are covered in the plot summary. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Oppose A lot of major things need work.

  • The lead is too short
  • Plot is too long
  • Arin't Development and Production the same thing?
  • No ref in the DVD release section
  • Reaction should really be at the bottem
  • No ref is Novelization section
  • Prose needs work.

Buc (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The article is not comprehensive. This is the most serious problem with it. The article is supposed to cover all aspects of the film, but it has very little discussion of the film's themes and cinematic style. An analysis of the artistic elements of the film, except for the soundtrack, is missing. The missing published knowledge on this topic should be written using the work of film scholars. There is plenty of material available on Star Wars. Ultra! 19:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 00:43, 17 March 2008.

[edit] Osteopathic medicine in the United States

Self-nominator.Article has matured a great deal in past months. The topic is an important one within the history of medicine and the current state of health care in the United States. I believe the article touches all the most important points within its topic, represents all major views fairly and with a neutral point of view.Bryan Hopping T 05:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - checking the page's external links, I note 2 died links: http://www.aacom.org/events/annualmtg/2007/Presentations/Thu%20Challenge%20-%20Coping%20with%20Growth/Mychaski%20-%201910%20All%20Over%20Again.ppt and http://www.aacom.org/colleges/. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is much improved since my GA review in December and so I need to read it again before commenting fully, but, please delete most of those external links. They imply that the article is not complete, (i.e. not comprehensive), and that it cannot stand alone. Also, in my GA review I was concerned about the unintelligible sub-headings; I see they are still there.--GrahamColmTalk 09:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's too many dead links and others are of questionable reliability. Also, (and I know I keep going on about this); a sub-heading is supposed to clearly tell the reader what is coming next. Is it just me that has this problem? Including abbreviations in headings doesn't help, I have to keep back-tracking to see what they mean. Please note that the meaning of AMA for example is not immediately obvious to English folk like me.--GrahamColmTalk 18:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed many external links, fixed the two dead reference links and changed 2 subject headings. Could someone point out further subject headings that need clarification? Bryan Hopping T 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm concerned about the legitimacy of Image:Manuellterapi5.jpg The first frame, for example, appears to be a copyvio of this image (with shirt logos removed). The uploader's only other non-deleted contribution is that frame alone (Image:Manuellterapi1.jpg); one can see that substantial smoothing and reduction of detail has taken place. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Gevitz N. Visible and recognized: osteopathic invisibility syndrome and the 2% solution. The DO. March 1997:23-4, 26-7. PMID 9107129 What is "The DO"?
    • A lot of websites need publisher and/or last access date information.
    • A couple of links go to sites that require registration (NYTimes, NEngl J Med). There is a field in the cite web that allows you to say "format=fee required" or "format=registration required", which is helpful to use.
    • Current footnote 36 (AMA policy H-295.876) is lacking publisher, same for 38, which looks to me like a duplicate of 36, which could be combined? Right now it's a bald link, which is against the MOS.
    • A number of websites are linked with a bald link when they should be formatted like a normal reference.
    • Current footnotes 49 and 52 look identical to me, the Singer, Allen M. ones. Combine?
    • The Cummings, M. Dobbbs KJ link takes me to "Select a Wolters Kluwer Source" page, not the article.
    • Formating issue, but the See also section usually goes before the footnotes. MOS experts, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Use the link tool checker up top here, there are a number of things it's flagging as suspicious or that timeout. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why the tool is calling some links "timeouts." They appear to work perfectly. I fixed the "Gevtiz" & "Cummings" references. I moved the "see also" section ahead of the references. Bryan Hopping T 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This article needs a lot of work. I've listed below some problems in the lead. I agree with Graham wrt the section headings; they are just odd and there are probably too many. Note: I'm a lay reader from the UK so I'm pretty ignorant about OM in the US. BTW: have you considered handling the detail of the History as a separate Timeline of Osteopathic Medicine in the United States list? Then the broad transitions can be covered in flowing prose here.

  • Why is there a picture of surgery in an article on osteopathic medicine?
  • "based on the premise that the primary role of the physician is to facilitate the body's inherent ability to heal itself" This can neither be an accurate or comprehensive definition of OM as practiced in the US today (based on what I've read in the rest of the article and related articles). I see that it comes directly from your Lesho-1999 reference, which goes on to cover structure and function as well as the musculoskeltal system's effect on other organs. You need to revise the first sentence or two to attempt a better definition, ideally cited to an authority.
  • "Though practiced..osteopathy" the reader doesn't yet know that OM is mainstream and isn't enlightened as to what the differences between OM and osteopathy are.
  • "Physicians who graduate from osteopathic medical schools..hold a doctorate in osteopathic medicine" this is a tautology. Also, the fact that there are osteopathic medical schools that are distinct from "allopathic" medical schools needs to be stated more clearly and separately.
  • "sometimes known as osteopathic physicians" If this is only sometimes, does it merit a mention in the lead? Alternatively, if this is an accepted term, why not just say "Osteopathic physicians hold a Doctorate in Ostepathic Medicine (D.O.)". The word "osteopathic" is wikilinked back to this article.
  • "while holders of a similar, but far more common M.D. degree are known as allopathic physicians" the commas are wrong here and the sentence is too long. This use of "allopathic" is not common outside the US and, I suspect, not common within the US outside of osteopathic vs allopathic discussions. Can you rephrase this?
  • "The existence of this distinction and of D.O.s as licensed physicians is not widely known." What distinction? That there are two kinds of physician in the US? If you drop the "of this distinction and", the sentence no longer works. Why does this sentence need three citations? Only the Gevitz citation is important.
  • "the profession gradually moved closer to mainstream medicine" this movement only occurred in the US, it would appear. This sentence is trying to cover too much. I suggest you start with the foundation as one sentence. Say that this remains a complementary medicine in the rest of the world in another sentence. Then describe how it moved towards the mainstream in the US.
  • "Today" (and "currently" elsewhere) see WP:DATED.
  • "achievement of normal body mechanics as central to maintaining good health" is an utterly meaningless statement to a lay non-osteopathic reader. I see it comes from your source, who I suspect is over-using jargon.
  • "D.O. physicians" starting a sentence with an acronym is really confusing at times. Too many dots. Why don't you just say "Osteopathic physicians".
  • So far, OMM is the only thing that separates the training. But reading this, you get the impression that it is only used to treat musculoskeletal disorders (i.e., you indicate where this therapy has evidence of effectiveness but don't clarify that OM uses that therapy for other disorders too). Your Lesho-1999 source actually states the use of manipulation outwith musculoskeletal disorders is a key distinguishing feature of osteopathic medicine.
  • "a social movement" This leaves the reader wondering. What aspect of society is it campaigning for?
  • "osteopathic curricula". Eh?
  • "D.O.s outside the U. S. are known as "osteopaths"" Not true. An osteopath doesn't hold a "Doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine".
  • "modalities" is an erudite term.
  • "Discussions about" The reader isn't interested in navel-gazing discussions. If there is a problem with "distinctiveness" then state that.
  • "More recently, the topic of for-profit medical education has become an issue." Again, see WP:DATED. This passive sentence says there is an "issue" but doesn't say what the issue is.
  • I suspect the lead isn't an adequate summary of the body. Look at each section and see if it is covered by the lead.
Colin°Talk 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
To respond to your first question, many osteopathic physicians are surgeons (in the same capacity as their allopathic counterparts). The fact that the article doesn't make this clear, leading you to ask the question "Why is there a picture of surgery in an article on osteopathic medicine?" shows me that the article does in fact need some work. Thanks for the feedback. I see that the article is particularly confusing for UK readers, leading me to think the separation from European Osteopathy needs to be explained more thoroughly, perhaps with its own section. Thanks for the feedback! Bryan Hopping T 01:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I understood that the DOs did everything an MD did, including surgery. In fact, I'd say you overemphasize the similarities of the two medical schools so much that the reader really does puzzle at times to understand what the fuss is about. Colin°Talk 07:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well to answer that question I'd say, "the whole thing is fuss." Seriously, it is difficult to write an article about a topic that insists we all make a fuss about how "distinct" it is, but from any objective viewpoint is largely identical with what it calls "allopathic" medicine. Look at the sources, you will see that the entire field is riddled with discussions regarding how to define itself, or if it should even be defined as a distinct entity at all. This creates some confusion in discussing it as a defined "thing." (Aside - what does wikipedia have to offer in term of guidelines regarding topics whose definition has little consensus?) In any case, I appreciate your feedback immensely, and I will consider carefully how this article can be advanced in an appropriate, meaningful way. Bryan Hopping T 08:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a and MOS. Here are random examples. Needs a different person to go through the whole text.

  • If you must shove dots into "US", please don't space the letters (inconsistent in this respect, in any case): see MOS. And suddenly it's spelt out, inconsistently.
  • The print on the pie graph is SO tiny; do we really have to click on it to understand the basics of the graph? And can you use sentence, not title case, consistently?
  • "Between 1980 and 2005, the number of osteopathic graduates per year increased over 250 percent from about 1,000 to 2,800." Um ... Isn't that 180%? You may think it's 280% (to harmonise these statements just underlines the redundancy), but remember that a doubling is a 100% increase, yes?
  • "1-2% of physicians"—en dash for ranges; which is it to be, % or spelt out? I see both.
  • "varies widely in different regions"—"varies widely between regions"? Tony (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Most of what is written above also bothers me. There seems to be a lot of trivia, almost like this article tries to fill up space. But here are some specifics:

  • I know the AMA uses "allopathic", but frankly that's an annoying POV term that was invented by those who promote homeopathy as an alternative to medicine and science. The problem with its use is to a lot of educated individuals is that only "alternative medicine" uses allopathy or evidence-based, so it implies that osteopathy is an "alternative medicine."
  • The article needs to clearly state that a lot of osteopathic practices are unscientific and unproven in the lead. Many DO's have eliminated those practices from their own medical armory, to the point that DO's and MD's are almost indistinguishable.
  • Just for information purposes, it should be made clear that when Stillman founded osteopathy, the state of medicine in the US was atrocious. It's alluded to, but it's not clear. A casual reader would think that this is no different than Hahnemann starting up homeopathy.
  • There are a lot of MOS issues. I was going to write them all down, then I saw what was written here, and I figure most of it was caught. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The term allopathic should be used sparingly, if at all, since it doubles as a pejorative. There are ways to refer to MDs without testing these chilly waters.
  • The US graphic defines 3 groups "early," "middle," and "late." Is there a source that blocks states into these groups? It's unreferenced. Antelan talk 00:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that it is pejorative. In fact, I only see the term used in conjunction with evidence-based medicine (I go with the opinion that medicine isn't medicine without evidence) and alternative medicine types. I'm shocked that the AMA actually uses that term. I'm resigning from them on Monday. Seriously. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:43, 17 March 2008.

[edit] Waterboarding

I'm nominating this article. It's been through hell and back again, including RFAR, non-stop drama, probation, attacks by SPAs and long-banned users, but it's growin incredibly stable, and incredibly sourced and detailed, in the wake of all of that. Thanks have been quite calm for some time now. It's definitely a group effort, and a perfect example of positive growth in an article. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Although the article gives good historical background of the practice, the article remains a WP:POV nightmare, with discussion on the discussion page that has gone on for years about the lede, "Waterboarding is a form of torture...". These discussions have been repeatedly raised by numerous goodfaith editors whose attempts to mitigate the POV have repeatedly been shot down by a small group of editors who have dominated the discussion board who say that the argument that waterboarding is not torture is subject to WP:UNDUE. With all respect to those editors, the page as it stands appears to affirmatively assert that waterboarding in all its forms is universally defined as "torture" which is a vague and politically charged word,(see discussion here), and this is simply not true. Although I think this topic is one of the most important of our time, and wikipedia's editors have taken a valiant stance in confronting this issue (wikipedia's article is first when waterboard is typed into Google), I do not believe the article sufficiently acknowledges the very noticeable POV problems and I therefore must oppose.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • An extreme minority of editors oppose the current lead, and for invalid reasons that discard NPOV--there is no NPOV issue here. When 230+ sources and authorities call a thing torture, but 6-10 American conservative sources say it isn't, there is no NPOV conflict; such opposition to the FAC can be disregarded. American views are of no special value to us. Lawrence § t/e 17:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not of special value, but at least value. You would prefer to imply in the article that there is no disagreement at all.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Totally incorrect and false statement by you. The controversy, being limited to one nation and the definition disputed by only the smaller political party by population in that one nation, is detailed right here: Waterboarding#Controversy in the United_States. Please don't try to deceive viewers of this page. Lawrence § t/e 18:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry. I should clarify. You would prefer the lede of the article to imply that there is no disagreement at all, as was implied by my objection being about the lede. My apologies if I misrepresented your viewpoint. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I also dispute that only an "extreme minority" of editors oppose the current lede.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There previously has been a false inflated number of users "opposing" the wording, but it was discovered through deep investigations, including Checkuser confirmations, that a massive amount of them were in fact a banned user and Conservative advocate (User:BryanFromPalatine). Other than that, and counting yourself, there have 4-5 users in good standing that I can recall, compared to the dozens of others that worked on the article. Lawrence § t/e 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I see a number of other users on this page alone who have expressed an opinion that the lede violate NPOV, and I saw a number of others on the discussion board. Whatever, this isn't a poll. It appears to be a question of law whether or not waterboarding is a form of torture in all circumstances rather than a question of fact.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If its a question of law then we have more than enough legal opinion and previous cases to say waterboarding is torture, but all the legal opinion is based on medical opinion which is uninamous that it is torture. The only case that it is not torture under your claim is when a)its not on US Controlled teritory (as opposed to a military base thats 80 years old) b) its not performed by US military c)they've been told its OK by the OLC. Thats it! Thats the only time it Might not be torture under US LAW. Who cares (well other than those waterboarded), just because they have found a legal loophole to push torture through does not mean we should change our definition. (Hypnosadist) 14:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
So you concede the point that there's a possibility that it might not be torture in limited circumstances? Which cases are you talking about? --Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No its Torture(medically defined) every time its done, to whom ever it is done to. I concede that POTUS can stack enough of a legal deck for it to escape prosecution. (Hypnosadist) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What is "Torture(medically defined)"? What cases were you referring to?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I mean that torture is defined by doctors not lawyers or loopholes. If you have been tortured it can be determined scientifically, recorded and studied scientifically, and weaseling by lawyers does not change that. CDOG your entire argument is based around the presupposition that one POTUS not doctors decide what the WORLD AND HISTORY WIDE definition of torture is, this is utterly flawed. (Hypnosadist) 05:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You still don't cite any cases so why don't I just cross your unfounded assertion out. Although the legal opinions may be persuasive (I personally am persuaded that waterboarding can rise to the level of being torture from what I've heard and seen about the process) but those opinions do not appear to be legally binding and they are NOT unanimous. To address your point that doctors define torture, I don't know where you're getting that idea and I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about. Scientifically? Let me refer you to the difference between Plato's Theory of forms, and Aristotle's Scientific method. Torture is an abstract concept that is defined by human beings based on certain a posteriori facts, not an inherent thing in existence that would exist if there was no one there to observe and define it. The real problem is that "torture" is ill-defined and a loaded word. You're right to say that we shouldn't just base our arguments simply on what the President thinks. Just because he doesn't believe in Evolution doesn't mean that that article should be altered. (Plus there is another article that addresses some of those opinions). But waterboarding appears to fall in a grey area where there is real and ongoing debate (at least in the United States) about whether this interrogation technique actually does rise to legally defined level of torture. The medical facts are important because the legal definition of torture relies of the infliction of a certain level of pain, but the definition of torture itself is legal in nature. If it wasn't there would be no way to punish someone for torturing someone else.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"You still don't cite any cases" Read the sources, heres one to get you going[28] why don't you find some cases were waterboarding is proved to be "not torture".
"The real problem is that "torture" is ill-defined and a loaded word." No we have a clear definition provided by UNCAT and the EUCHR and multiple expert sources BOTH medical and legal that waterboarding violates both. The loaded aspect comes from the seriousness of the crime (like rape).
"But waterboarding appears to fall in a grey area" not according to any expert sources, one says it MIGHT not be illegal, thats not the same as it being torture.
"but the definition of torture itself is legal in nature." This MIGHT be true if every country in the world used the same laws but they don't. As far as i'm concerned if POTUS created an executive order that said waterboarding is not torture under US law it should only get a passing mention and certainly not change the leads first six words. (Hypnosadist) 06:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect to an editor who likely has more experience here than I do, 6 to 10 vs. 230 does not indicate no NPOV conflict. Even if those who said waterboarding wasn't torture were as few as 6 to 230, that's still 2 1/2 percent of the population. If someone said, "Adolf Hitler was a murderer," they could probably get 220 to 224 out of 230 people to agree with them. But I warrant that lead in a Wikipedia article would get changed very quickly. And in America at least, the bill that would have banned waterboarding in the U. S. passed by a margin that was significantly less than the 2/3rds that would be necessary to overturn President Bush's veto of March 8, 2008. Over a third voted against it being banned. There's also the issue of, if some waterboarding is torture, is all waterboarding torture? If the article says it "is," as fact, then waterboarding CIA agents and military personnel as part of their training is torture. And yet some of the very people quoted in the article who say waterboarding is used as torture claim that they were not tortured. "Is" is an absolute. If I may be allowed to quote a section from Wikipedia:NPOV Jimbo Wales said the view of a significant minority should be presented, and "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." We have named prominent adherents, including the president of the United States of America. It's difficult to get more prominent than that. Wakedream (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why don't we just fix the NPOV problem? "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that consists of..." If waterboarding in the modern form is widely considered to be torture, the article can say who thinks it is torture and name sources. The problem we've had is that a few bad actors have been pushing the "not torture" POV, and this has made everyone over sensitive. We have to get beyond this problem and fix the article. I really value the feedback from uninvolved reviewers here. Jehochman Talk 02:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggested this form of wording a couple of months ago and got shouted down. Good luck trying it again :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both of us--let's keep it NPOV with "interrogation technique." If people believe it's torture, they ought to believe the facts in the article can speak for themselves without us saying it's so. Wakedream (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - i read only a piece of the article, and there's too pov! MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • What is too POV? Lawrence § t/e 18:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • This objection is so vague as to be unfixable, and is therefore invalid. Raul654 (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per criterion 1e (stability). This article was placed on probation by ArbCom less than one month ago. A review of article stats indicates the following edit history for the last 6 months:

  • October 157
  • November 252
  • December 208
  • January 63
  • February 204
  • March 48

As much as I appreciate the massive ongoing effort put into the article, it is, well, ongoing. This is just not stable. Maralia (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose
    • The technique section is a trainwreck. The 1st sentence of the Technique section is out of place. The "Two televised segments" paragraph is confusing and poorly worded. And finally the lead does a better job describing the technique than the technique section.
    • The "Mental and physical effects" section would be better if it described the effects and used Dr. Keller's words as the reference. The section also seems wrapped up in mention "testimony" and "open letters" etc. It should simply describe the effects.
    • Article is overly focused on the US. A "waterboarding controversy in the united states" article might be a good idea . I stopped there. -Ravedave (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"A "waterboarding controversy in the united states" article might be a good idea"I've been asking for that to happen for ages. (Hypnosadist) 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Right off the bat, the opening sentence is POV, claiming as fact a highly disputed and disputable statement about the subject. Seems the article needs to be re-written from a Neutral Point of View, not as one convinced of something about the subject. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Query - If this is an article about a form of torture that dates back to the Spanish Inquisition, why is so much of this article devoted to current controversies/practices in the U.S? Since its clear that the point of this article is to discuss inhuman activities of CIA/whoever, wouldn't be better to move all this contemporary stuff to an article called "Waterboarding by the United States" (or something like that), while this one gives a more general account and history about Waterboarding? As of now, this article about a old torture is completely dominated by this American controversy, making it very unbalanced. indopug (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"wouldn't be better to move all this contemporary stuff to an article called "Waterboarding by the United States"" I've been trying to do that for what seems like years! (Hypnosadist) 01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Not if you're trying to make a POV fork. The U.S. stuff can be easily cut down to appropriate lengths within the current article. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1)As an inclusionist Nothing well sourced should be deleted when it can be Split. 2)To cut down the US stuff you would have delete most of it which would bring more weight issues. 3)This is a temporal fork not a POV one, those are common in history topics. (Hypnosadist) 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hypnosadist, if I could suggest, you should simply be bold and make a separate article. These theoretical deletionist/inclusionist articles don't really accomplish much; if you have a vision for the article, let's see it. Those who argue against splits in such cases are often persuaded when they see the quality of the resulting article. -Pete (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I was bold (2 months ago) and it got speedied before i could put more than a few lines in it. (Hypnosadist) 05:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't let a little thing like a speedy delete stop you! Set it up in user space. Tweak and refine, get some outside input before moving to main space. I'd be glad to help. It's a good idea, and should be given another effort. -Pete (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note This article had 465,000 views in February. With so many people looking at it, we should make a push for better quality. Jehochman Talk 02:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support. As a non-American, I am often surprised and sometimes amused at the squeamishness many Americans exhibit in these matters. I suppose it goes with the tendency towards such whiter-than-white "clean-hands" practices as extraordinary rendition. Look, if you see the need to torture citizens of other countries (including my own: Australia), at least call it what it is. Since when was simulated drowning – obviously risking brain-damage, long-term psychological damage, and death through clumsy practice – rationally classified as anything other than torture? When American and Australian troops did it Vietnam, it was torture, just as surely as when they had it done against them! If a citizen of your country or mine did it to a fellow citizen, it would be considered shockingly inhumane, and subject to the full righteous wrath of the law. But hey: war is war, torture is torture, and in war torture is used. Always has been. Mind you: I'm against it! But... Confucius was right! The rectification of names is the first requisite of good governance: first call things what they are.
Now, what's "point of view" about any of that? Calling things by names that you are not comfortable with is not, eo ipso, "point of view".
I have examined the article. It is perhaps defensive, quite understandably, in making its case so thoroughly, with such excellent documentation. There are one or two minor infelicities that a light copyediting for punctuation and style could easily fix. (I'll happily attend to that, if asked nicely.) It is a well-constructed article on a important theme, and it is hard to see how it could be managed any better, salva veritate. And let's face it: saving the truth is a paramount goal for an encyclopedia.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 10:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You are so biased, you don't even realize the things you say are debatable, and the conversation isn't divided between normal people and psychos, but intelligent people who can disagree on things. The article is written in a similar tone of "We're normal and right, and a few psychos disagree with us". The people defending this article desperately need to read up on W:NPOV. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You have personalised this, Judgesurreal. That is uncivil, and in this case amounts to a personal attack. I wonder what impels you to do that, when there is an obvious opportunity to deal with issues, instead? I have said nothing personal about any editor, nor any group of editors. You have said I am biased. I call on you now to justify that assertion, or (preferably) withdraw it immediately. This is no place for you to start such an exchange. You have not engaged with what I actually said. I said that there is a positive benefit in calling things what they are. Separate three issues, please: whether waterboarding amounts to torture; whether waterboarding is used; and whether waterboarding should be used. Failure to distinguish these issues makes reasoned conversation about the present article impossible. To let our attitude to one issue affect our treatment of other, separate issues is a prevalent and pernicious error of reasoning. You might like to read that Confucian link, Judgesurreal. Quite apt for our times, and for the conduct of the present discussion.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
None of those issues you raise are what we are talking about, the "issue", if you will, is not the issue. It is the attitude that "waterboarding is torture", and those who dissent are basically to be ignored or disregarded. Also, "calling things what they are" is not helpful at this point as exactly what things are is the fundamental question that is being debated, and to start an article with a statement of this sort is the same as starting the article on God by saying "God is the lord of the universe who loves his creation". I could use your same argument in that article too, saying "Sure atheists dispute this, but what are they, 10%? And most of the world is monotheistic, so that's a majority right? So that makes it true and indisputable. That is basically the treatment of the issue being given in this article, even the nominators have stated that is the way they view American conservatives on the issue, and that is the way it comes across when the article opens with a definitive statement over a very controversial topic. It is not the role of Wikipedia to make judgment calls about these issues, but present them for consideration in a neutral point of view. And finally, I say you are biased in that you fail to understand that just because you or a supposed "majority" believe something, in this case "waterboarding=torture", doesn't mean it is going to be presented that way (or that it should), and those who disagree aren't a bunch of fools or have bad motives. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Judgesurreal777 NPOV is acessed by looking at the RS. As you believe that this article is biased, help it by finding medical sources, any legal journal or non-american lawyer that say waterboarding is not torture. (Hypnosadist) 01:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a candidacy, I have not nominated it, and it is not my obligation to fix it. It is biased, as many have now pointed out, and what is needed is a rewrite not more sources, from what I can see. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Judgesurreal, if you had not wanted to engage in rational discussion, why didn't you simply say so, and save us from wasting time? Whether waterboarding is torture is not a matter of "attitude", any more than the true age of the earth is a matter of attitude. It is a blindingly simple question of definitions. We know that, if it is imposed as a technique of interrogation, intimidation, or punishment, any act causing extreme pain or distress, and the fear of loss of life or well-being, along with the actual risk of those, is an act of torture. We know that waterboarding qualifies by that definition. There may be borderline cases (like uncomfortably elevating the air temperature), but waterboarding is not such a borderline case. Denying or doubting this is like denying or doubting that the earth is many millions of years old. In each case, the rationally determinable answer to the question is so pellucidly clear that an attempt to lend credibility to any other answer amounts to bias. Attitudes contaminate rational process. Again, this is well captured long ago by Confucius, and hosts of other philosophers interested in the norms of well-founded inquiry.
Since you are immune to appeals to distinguish orthogonal issues, there is no point engaging in discussion with you. I will therefore not attempt to continue.
The article has my strong support.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 02:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying waterboarding isn't torture, in my personal opinion it probably is, but I am saying that the question is not settled one way or the other to such an extent that we can say a definitive statement on this topic, and that your opinion is not necessarily the only one, and that is the way the article sounds, and can't be featured that way. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I second what Judgesurreal777 just said.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Then find expert RS's that say its not torture, because there arn't any at the moment. (Hypnosadist) 14:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to agree with him but John Yoo is a legal scholar who claims waterboarding is not torture. He allegedly wrote most of the Bybee memo. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
John Yoo's legal opinions - along with his untenable philosophy that the president is a unitary executive, i.e. a king - are not worth the paper they are written on. His beliefs are so far distorted from reality that no serious legal scholar gives him a scintilla of credibility - his legal opinions are to the law what the flat earth society is physics. He's not a reliable source for anything where the law is concerned. Raul654 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am beginning to see why there are no opposing opinions in the article. Why is he being ruled out? It is cause he said that one crazy thing? Or is it because he disagrees with current liberal positions and beliefs? Or is there another reason? I am curious, because it seems like everyone who doesn't think waterboarding is torture is labelled a nut or unqualified. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
John Yoo's legal advice on If POTUS could order waterboarding is covered in the article. He does not say it is not torture just that POTUS can order it done legally (in his opinion). (Hypnosadist) 06:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This candidacy is far too premature. (The article isn't even good article status, mind you, so I would invoke WP:SNOW here.) I've voiced my concerns on the page, with minimal discussion but no changes to the article. As it stands, the article is far too American orientated. There also quite a few things that could and should be fixed with a simple proofread and copyediting. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Good article status is not required to become an FA. Raul654 (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That very well may be true, but the fact that the article actually got degraded from a good article ought to tell you something (like it's not a good candidate for FA status). ~ UBeR (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Touche. Raul654 (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Degraded? I don't think so -- it looks like it simply didn't pass its review, which was December 20, 2007. The nomination clearly describes the article's recent history. While there might or might not be stability issues, I don't think the GA review has any bearing on the present nomination. -Pete (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose primarily due to the article's current lead which states that "Waterboarding is a form of torture...." In my opinion, it begins by violating Wikipedia:NPOV. If this were changed to "Waterboarding is an interrogation method...." and then described it as sourced, I might reconsider my opinion. Wakedream (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Uh, no. It's pretty clear this has been discussed ad infinitum, that the vast majority of users agree that the intro is correct as is, and IMO it's pretty clear this is a case of calling a spade a spade. Raul654 (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That certainly doesn't seem to be the precedent: e.g. squassation, mancuerda, foot whipping, foot roasting, boiling to death, denailing, etc. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And also, a mountain of biased users and "experts" does not make a controversial topic any less controversial or disputed. If I have 100 liberal scholars and 5 non-liberal scholars, majority voting does not yield "truth" but strong armed bias. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There are ZERO scholars that say its not torture, as for political bias are ALL the military sources such as the JAG's and the head of the DIA "pinko commie scum" when they say its Torture. (Hypnosadist) 03:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment—overall this article has some good material and I think it would make a decent FA. I don't mind the first sentence too much, although I think that "is considered torture" would make it more neutral. But I have some other concerns (beyond those mentioned above).
    • This article is excessively bloated and the majority is dedicated to the case against the U.S. I think that needs to be moved to its own article and summarized here. The other historical usage receives only paltry coverage and may need more details.
    • What is a "third degree interrogation" technique? It is not clearly explained; only implied.
    • Why is the technique termed a "water cure" at one point?
    • There are some formatting issues with the citations, such as inconsistent date styles. For example, "Bush, George W. (2007-07-20)." and "Katherine Eban (July 17, 2007).". I see several bare links and some that only give the article title.
  • Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I proposed on the article talk page that it should be nominated. The article is exceptionally clear and informative. The points usefully mentioned by RJHall should be addressed, but there are potential drawbacks as well as advantages to splitting off the current debates into a separate article.Itsmejudith (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • If it isn't split off, then I still believe that the non-U.S. material is too brief by comparison. To be considered comprehensive, one of the requirements for an FA, it needs deeper historical coverage than at present. Otherwise the article appears unbalanced.
    • P.S. I find the number of "strong support"'s (rather than a simple "support") a little disturbing here. It makes me concerned about the objectivity of some reviewers.—RJH (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Just because a topic is controversial or will be difficult to manage NPOV does not mean that it should avoided and hidden. This is a valuable article which contains very good, verified information and could help educate many people on a topic relevant to contemporary society and current events. The effort would be worth the payoff.Helixweb (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And very biased, which should Never be featured in that condition. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Judgesurreal, I really have to come back here and express concern at what you doing. You've already made your position perfectly clear. Now back off, and let others have their say without you reflexly and raucously reiterating your dissent at every opportunity. You are one voice among many voices; be heard once, and then shut up.[Amended. See below.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T–]
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 07:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Noetica, keep a civil tone. Judgesurreal has every right to express his opinion and you have no right to censor him. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your remark, Gdogsimmons. It, along with the message you left at my talkpage, raises some procedural concerns. I may decide to take those up separately, elsewhere. Meanwhile, Judgesurreal (who interestingly enough agrees with your position on the article), has more than once accused me of bias. The supposed grounds for that accusation seem to be these: (1) that I regard those who disagree with me as "psychos"; (2) that I irrationally take it as demonstrable fact that waterboarding (as defined by everyone) is torture (as defined by every disinterested party); and (3) that I say a minority must not be right. Those are the claims he or she made against me, in effect; but all three are ill-founded. As I pointed out, it was uncivil of him or her to accuse me of bias; I suggested a retraction or a justification. But I got neither. Nevertheless, I now retract what I suppose you have objected to in the post I made before this one (see above). Again I call on Judgesurreal to withdraw the accusation of bias against me, and not to take every opportunity to counter a fresh comment supporting the article by repeating what... some may consider to be a militantly biased push on her or his part. Such stridency risks intimidating newcomers to the discussion, and is entirely unproductive. We have heard him or her; let's now encourage others to have a say, rather than browbeating them with blunt repetition.
If any of that is uncivil, I it put to editors here that I have been provoked by serious misrepresentation of the points I have made. Let me know precisely which phrasing you don't like, and again I'll consider striking it. (And then, please treat others the same!)
Finally, I have "censored" no one. There has, to my knowledge, been no overt or covert censoring in this discussion. Yet.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 08:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of POV and unstability. References 6, 9, 14, 28, 43, 49, 58, 64, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 104, 105 and 112 have formatting problems. References always go after a full stop or comma with no spaces in between. I also see a few short paragraphs and unreferenced paragraphs. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou Kaypoh for a constructive Oppose. (Hypnosadist) 08:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome. :) --Kaypoh (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed as many of the refs as i know how. (Hypnosadist) 08:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per above comments. 8thstar 02:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As bad as the reasons for it may be, the topic of whether waterboarding is torture is of worldwide interest in light of recent events. The lead takes a position on that. It is the correct position, but without offering any insight into why it is the correct position. But my reason for opposing runs deeper than this. I made the above argument on the talk page, hoping to spur some discussion and improve the lead. The response, in my view, reflects a community of editors that is still in a reactionary mode, following the major content battles of recent months. There's nothing wrong with this, I think it's a perfectly natural situation in light of recent events. But waterboarding is a living topic these days; international developments will require careful and dispassionate review for inclusion. The lead is presently insufficient, and I don't see a community of editors that is, at present, well disposed to deal with this or other touchy issues. This is no reflection on the individual editors involved. -Pete (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you unintentionally touch on something very important. The lead takes a position; THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD NEVER DO. It is not our place to make calls on issues, but to reflect, in a neutral way, the opinions that are yielded from reliable sourcing. Too many of the people that are pushing this article are arguing their personal opinions, and this is totally inappropriate to do especially in a featured article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that is what it is being used as in this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with what you say, Judge -- and maybe was sloppy with the term "takes a position." The fact that waterboarding is torture is not a "position," It's the truth, according to the definition of what waterboarding is, and what torture is. But that fact that is prominently and frequently called into question, resulting in a great deal of curiosity about its basis. This demands a lead that exposes why it's the truth, rather than merely asserting it. -Pete (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't my personal opinion, it is what wikipedia is about, encyclopedic content, not essay writing or a position paper. The people who read this encyclopedia aren't idiots, and we shouldn't treat them that way; they don't need to be bludgeoned with the "truth", let them decide based on a neutral presentation. And yet again, Pete, you like other supporters, throw out those who disagree with the articles opinion as irrelevant and unimportant, and that they only disagree because they are confused? We are not supposed to be propagandizing about what is "true", that's the whole point of "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Judge, it may be that you and I are not so far apart. I don't know. These semantic debates tire me out quick these days. As I said, the rigidity of the editorial community that has evolved around the article is the main reason for my oppose to FA; I'm going to let this drop for now, and may revisit it at some point in the future. Hope to see you around, and maybe work together on something where there's a chance of making a difference ;-) -Pete (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This article does not "take a position" on some american political debate, it repeats what the EXPERT SOURCES say, that happens to be "Waterboarding is a form of torture". I also understand petes reason for opposing this FA, and agree with it a bit but not to the extent of stopping the FA..(Hypnosadist) 07:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:25, 16 March 2008.

[edit] European Union

original FAC
Former featured article, has been on main page
previous FAC


Restart: old nom.

Article stats:

Lear 21 912
Ssolbergj 568
JLogan 429
Arnoutf 267
Sandpiper 148
SouthernElectric 114 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per previous nom based on types of sources used. Much of the article is attributed directly to the EU, and there is a remarkable dearth of books used as sources. I only skimmed the article, so there may be other issues.
    • Why is a template in See Also? That should go at the bottom of the page with the other templates.
      • I explained this last time. The single "Topics on the EU" template is there because it's standard practice to place templates which are meant specificly for an article about geopolitical entities, in the respective "See also"-sections. Like it is in the UK's "see also" section. - S Solberg J 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That's not standard practice for FAs. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • This is not a reliable source http://home.comcast.net/~igpl/Countries.html
    • A great deal of this information is sourced directly to the EU. Can alternative sources be found? It is generally not wise to base so much of an article on self-published sources. There are a lot of books listed in Further Reading - why are none of these used as sources?
      • Please don't ask these questions again. They were heavily debated in the old discussion page. - S Solberg J 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The external links section needs to be trimmed a great deal. The YouTube link has to go, and the others need to be looked at closely to see if they can go too. (Why does it need to link to multiple individual agencies when there is an overall link listed there too?)
      • It is trimmed and the YouTube link is gone. - S Solberg J 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: I revisited the article today. There is still an unreliable source, still a template masquerading as content, and still an overly large reliance on self-published sources. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Several of the external reference links are problematic. One needs you to log on, another is timing out and a third is dead. Not enough independent information in article, reads more like PR fluff.--Slicedpineapple (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Please give some examples of this 'PR fluff' you speak of. That might be useful. --Simonski (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
See contribs: Slicedpineapple (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Citing sources policy explicitly allows use of password protected, or even paid sources if no open acces sources are available. Arnoutf (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This restart is pointless. These are the same issues that were discussed extensively in the old discussion. If people think the discussion got de-railed last time, I'm sure it will get just as off-topic here if people point out the same things all over again. S Solberg J 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Off-topic discussion can be removed to the talk page as needed; please keep the discussion here on WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I've edited this article a lot, and I think it's got high enough quality now. - S Solberg J 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think its unbelievable that you question the use of links/sources from the organisation itself. Just thought I'd add that. Its mind-boggling. --Simonski (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't understand it either, to be honest. It's like saying you shouldn't use US government sources for US government related articles. Very odd. Carré (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't want to rely too heavily on US gov't sources for the US govt articles either, unless that information could not be found elsewhere. The point of our sourcing policy is to use secondary sources so that we make sure we get a comprehensive look at what other people think is important about the subject. By relying too heavily on self-published sources, you run the risk of being uncomprehensive or WP:POV, because the entity is likely to publish what it wants you to know about and not the rest. Most of this information can easily be found in third-party sources, and would likely contain analysis or other information that is not included in the EU sources. All I'm asking is that the editors of this article go look for those other sources. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I just don't get the feeling that this is "among our best work".
    • Take the opening sentence WRT to grammar and logic: "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states primarily located in Europe." Is it the states or the superstate that you mean are/is primarily located in Europe (needs to be clear—a comma could do it if the the latter). Why is it that we need to highlight the fact that ?Cyprus, is it, is a little way from Europe? Is this so important that it can't be said in the body of the text? I'd rather be told some other important fact, such as "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states that has emerged since the 1950s/the world's first superstate/blah blah")". Saying it's in Europe is an unfortunate repetition.
    • Second sentence: "It was established under that name by the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 and is governed by supranational institutions, able to make decisions binding upon member states, and intergovernmental bodies, forming unanimous agreements among all members." Might lead some readers to think that the whole thing started in 1993; avoid "established" here. So the institutions are only "able to", but don't actually, make decisions? "Upon" better as "on". "Intergovernmental bodies" might be better as a separate sentence, or after a semicolon (governed by two structures: supranational ....; and intergovernmental ...". The "-ing" is not good; make it "which form". Trouble is, often they don't achieve this.

That's the first two sentences, ahem. Tony (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Right, just a couple of quick responses to that - very glad you brought up the first two paras as they are being heavily disputed at the moment.
Firstly, I disagree and think the first sentence is fine. The EU is a political and economic community of 27 Member states. Would it be better if it read 'twenty seven nation states'? That could easily be changed.
I would also disagree on the point of 'located primarily in Europe' not being worth mentioning.. the fact that Morocco tried to join it and Israel have shown interest in joining.. I dunno, to me the located primarily in Europe is necessary. Could be dropped though if you are not convinced by this point
On your second group of points - the whole thing did start in 1993. Before then it was just the EC, an economic community. In 1993 the countries decided to create the EU on top of the EC - usually most language versions of the EU page have a diagram explaining this but its absent from our page for some reason.
You could solve a major issue here by giving views on the following actually (and whilst you think this may just be very minor stuff one of the most difficult aspects of the EU page is summarising it in an intro because of its unique/academically disputed nature..
Important Question - would the reviwers think it necessary to explain what supranational and intergovernmental refer to, or would it be valid just to mention the EU has both elements without having to elaborate. OR could we get away with just using "sui generis" (ie. no real definition). These are the sorts of issues that have caused real divergence of views between the editors and require an objective voice to give an opinion. --Simonski (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(see eg diff [29] for two comparison versions. Some editors feel the terms are entirely satisfactorily explained if linked to their articles. Others (including me) feel they need at least a minimal explanation if they are used at all. Similar consideration would apply to 'sui generis', or any other legal term. )Sandpiper (talk)
Sorry Simonksi but I do not completely agree with 1993 as the start date. Yes the name and the mandate changed on that day, but that is more an evolution than a revolution. Would something like "It was established ...... as an expansion of existing EC treaties" solve the issue? Arnoutf (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Strictly speaking though it kinda did start then surely. I mean there was no second or third pillar back then and it was all basically just about economics, surely in that sense Maastricht was a major overhaul and not just an evolution? But ok, obviously it'll be an issue of debate so your proposal would maybe work. --Simonski (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully this is now sorted as I have reworded it to state it started in 1993 under maastricht, but replaced the existing EC? Sandpiper (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It just happens that the first sentences are some of the most contentious in the article. I presume editors feel it is important to get the most important points in right away.
    • both the states and superstate are located primarily in Europe, it is the same area, whichever you are considering.
    • The reason for stating primarily in Europe, is that despite the name there is no reason membership is limited to Europe. It started in Europe and has been spreading at the edges, so will likely eventually extend in africa, asia, etc. There are various bits and pieces not in Europe.
    • Couldn't possibly say it is the worlds first superstate, because 1 it isnt the first, 2 it isnt a state.
    • Personally I thought 'upon' was better than 'on'. saying 'binding on member states' sounds like they are being tied up in rope or stuck in glue.
    • I'm afraid I agree the section about supranational institutions and intergovernmental bodies is incomprehensible. Please see diff above for example of how it read prior to return of Lear from editing ban, though the one you quote here is yet a third version somewhat a compromise between those two. In reality most institutions have both intergovernmental and supranational aspects, and decision making relies upon both acting in agreement. The term 'bodies' was initially coined by editors to indicate those parts of the whole thing not defined as 'institutions of the EU' within the founding treaties. It has become somewhat garbled in editing. In the original context it was introduced, the bodies in fact are generally somewhat supranational, whereas the institutions are a mixture. This lengthy explanation indicates that a complete explanation is considerably too long to go into the introduction, but I agree this one explains little. A number of editors feel the style guideline on creating an introduction is not sufficient to resolve this issue. (Wikipedia:Lead_section) Sandpiper (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Introduction contains various unreferenced, biased claims concerning the decision making procedures of the EU as an organization. The Layout and paragraph structure is not supported by Wikipedia MOSNUM. Lear 21 (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Lear21 is a frequent editor of the article with very specific views on the page. He has a history of being (almost) unconvincable of an approach to the article other than his own (whatever the argument). In the case of the intro the consensus was against him. Arnoutf (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Without specific examples of unreferenced claims or bias, and since WP:MOSNUM doesn't govern layout, this oppose is difficult to interpret. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:25, 16 March 2008.

[edit] Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

I'm nominating this article for featured status because it is well sourced, neutral and about an event of great historical importance. I believe it meets all FA requirements. --Zaindy87 (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Isn't the investigation into the assassination still going? It would seem that any major break in the case would lead to drastic changes to some sections of the article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 20:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • re:comment: Baitullah Mehsud has been blamed for the assassination, and it was carried out by Al-Qaida. This means that until Mehsud is caught, if ever, this case will not be closed. It is highly unlikely that the blame will shift to anyone else, just like Osama Bin Laden has always been blamed for 9/11, despite the conspiracy theories that it's an 'inside job'. Smaller Al-Qaeda operatives are being arrested and interrogated in connection with the assassination, but they do not have a place on this article because they have not provided any 'major breaks'. So it is unlikely that anyone other than Baituallah will get the blame for this, and most people involved in this are likely to remain in hiding in the border mountains or be killed by the Pakistani Army/Air Force. --Zaindy87 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom - well sourced NPOV article about an event of great historical and encyclopaedic importance. Pahari Sahib 04:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now This is an absolutely excellent article: well-written and well-sourced but because so little time has elapsed since the assassination that it cannot be compehensive. For instance, the wider political ramifications of the assassination will play out over the next decade or more and, as the assassination was primarily politically motivated, the legacy/aftermath, which is a essential part of it, cannot yet be written. I appreciate that this is a very technical oppose and I will be delighted to review it if a suitable solution can be found or compelling arguments against it are raised. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your comments. I think this article is about the assassination itself and the immediate aftermath. The thing with the 'legacy' and 'ramifications' of this event is that these cannot be quantified. In 5 years time an event might happen or what people want might not happen, and the general public would say "If Bhutto was alive, this (would have/have not have) happened". How can we know for sure what should be attributed to the absence of Bhutto and what would have happened anyway were she alive? The things we do know that happened as a direct result of Bhuttos death, such as the riots and election delay are already in the article. I would have agreed with your objections had the doomsday predictions after her death had come true and Pakistan had been thrown into a civil war or the elections had been cancelled, but everything that was originally supposed to happen did, albeit with a months delay. The PPP elected new leaders, the elections went ahead, and the PPP won on account of the sympathy vote (noted in the article). This was a tragic event, yet Bhutto was a single person out of 165 million citizens and the country has moved on. To attribute any event to her absence from now on would be mere speculation, or in the language of Wikipedia, "original research". Also, I have gone through the various assassination articles on Wikipedia, and none of them have a 'legacy' section. If we take a look at the Kennedy assassination (to which this event has been compared in the media) article, we don't see a legacy section. Legacy sections belong to the article about the person, in this case John F Kennedy. Similarly, the wider ramifications of her death do not belong in this assassination article. Our job here should be to list the background information in the lead up to Bhuttos assassination, the assassination itself, and the immediate aftermath, such as riots, changes in the PPP party leadership, the results of the Feb. 2008 elections, and the international reaction to Bhuttos death. And I believe this article lays down that information brilliantly, with sources for every statement and it is written in a neutral language. Therefore, I believe it would be highly unfair to deny it FA status at this point. --Zaindy87 10:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. The problem is that this article is little more than a summary of news sources. I'm not specifically recommending a legacy section, so don't get too hung up on that :) What I am saying is that it will only be with the passage of time that the analysis and context will be available from which a comprehensive and encyclopedic article can be constructed.
I was unimpressed by your attempt to dismiss this by suggesting that the implications of Bhutto's death will be unquantifiable. This is clearly not the case: it has already been a factor in the rise of the PPP; the descent of Musharraf; and a fresh awakening of international interest in Pakistan's internal politics. Even as I write the problems are still rumbling on. Today's Financial Times is reporting that internal wrangling about a prime minister are threatening "to split the Bhutto family political machine".
In short, only the passage of time will enable us to place this very complicated and momentous event in its correct context.
Otherwise, I do not entirely share your very high opinion of your work ("this article lays down that information brilliantly").
  • If I were being critical of the English, I'd point out that Peoples Party requires an apostrophe in all instances.
  • If I were being critical of the content, I would suggest that the "International reaction" section is thrown away, by reporting the entirely obvious. (Which members of the international commmunity are going to support the assassination?)
  • If I were being critical of its purported neutrality, I'd suggest that the political context is skimpy. For example, you mention the ISI in the context of the return but fail to mention its enormous power and influence within Pakistan. You also fail to examine suggestions, even though they were widely reported in the western press, that the ISI may have had a hand in the assassination. I'd also wonder why you refer to the "emergency room admission report" as alleged without citing a source indicating that it is believed false.
Finally, suggesting I'm being unfair in denying you the FA accolade is not going to win this particular heart and mind to your cause :)
--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What I was saying was that I don't think anything drastic will happen due to the assassination that hasn't already happened. The PPP was expected to restore the fired judges, but that is not happening. The PPP was supposed to impeach Musharraf, but that is not happening. Splitting up of parties is nothing surprising in Pakistan. Politicians split and form alliances all the time, and there is already a couple of breakaway PPP parties (one of them mentioned in the article). There are also multiple Pakistan Muslim League parties.
As for the apostraphe in PPP, the official website of the party itself does not insert one. Here is the official website. The international section was ballooning up with different users inserting the reaction by different world leaders, and an attempt to keep it down to reactions the US, India, UK etc was not working, so a new article was created for the international reaction section, and only a summary was kept for this article. Just like the assassination of John F Kennedy article. The reason the reaction section is important is because a reader many years from now might not have any idea how the world reacted to this. Did India blame the ISI? Did Japan cut aid to Pakistan? What did Israel say?
As for the ISI being possibly behind this assassination, it has been mentioned. The first and last two paragraphs in the responsibility section deal with this possibility. Since there is no proof of the ISI being involved other than the Western press speculating about it a few times, one can only do so much.
And, I can only find two instances of the word alleged occuring in the article, neither of them referring to any medical report. If you are referring to the medical report which the 7 doctors signed, the reason it dosen't carry the same weight as what the government said is becase none of those 7 doctors were pathologists. There were radiologists etc and they had not performed an autopsy on Bhutto before compiling that report. By the way, I did not mean to accuse you of intentionally being unfair, and I apologize if I came across as rude. I was simply having a bad day, and once again, I appreciate your comments in regards to how this article can be improved. --Zaindy٨٧ 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now- I think the article is very well written and I have no doubt that it meet all the standards of WP:FA?, but I think the need to change the content of the article may arise after a new probe is conducted to determine the cause and culprits in the coming days, by the PPP government who are very firm on their demand of UN probe. --SMS Talk 13:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Has it been confirmed that a UN probe is going to take place? What can investigators from the UN do that Scotland Yard failed to do? --Zaindy٨٧ 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Who can say what will come out? With the recent election, Pakistan is emerging from a period when, under Musharrav and the generals who backed him, it had many of the characteristics of a police state. The new democratically elected government, which has not yet got its feet under the table, might well uncover all sorts of murky secrets and it has publicly pledged to try to do so. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That may be true, but the possibility of the addition of new information is not a reason to fail an FAC, as demonstrated by the Obama article. If you compare the George W. Bush article with the Obama article, you will realize that if Obama becomes the next President, his page will change drmatically over time, yet he is an FA. --Zaindy٨٧ 13:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's no reason to rush an article like this. Give it at least six months, who knows what is going to come out. NTK (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's the very first one: "factually accurate, neutral and stable." It's certainly not going to be stable, and we have little idea if it is factually accurate at this point. NTK (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see the instructions at WP:FAC; your oppose must be actionable, that is, the editor must be able to fix the issue. That can be satisfied by giving an example of a factual inaccuracy or uncited material in the text or text that misrepresents a citations, an example of failed neutrality or WP:UNDUE, or proof of instability as defined by WP:WIAFA. Current events have become FA; the applicable stability definition is at WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if a UN probe is carried out, they are not expected to come to groundbreaking conclusions. They can do little else than examine how Bhutto died. The CIA has agreed with the Pakistani government that the perpetrators were Al-Qaida, and Scotland Yard has agreed with the government on how Bhutto died. I say again, the UN report is unlikely to produce any new information, since they cannot examine crime scene data (Scotland Yard couldn't, either) nor can they interview ISI agents and government officials in connection with this crime. The stability of this article is not threatened. Even right after the Scotland Yard report came out, the article remained largely as it previously was, with the addition of the Scotland Yard findings being inserted into the lead and cause of death section. Likewise, any UN probe will add a few lines, at most a paragraph to this article, which can be easily managed without threatening the stability of the article. And the neutrality is taken care of, since all views and possibilites are mentioned. --Zaindy٨٧ 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • To be honest, this is not a universally held view of the situation. The fact remains that we have no idea what will come out.
  • Your reply also highlights WP:BLP concerns about Baitullah Mehsud. He has allegedly been linked to the assassination by a phone intercept but he claims he has been set up. Significantly, he is supported in his denials by the Bhutto family who vigorously dispute his involvement. Until Mehsud has been tried, he remains only a suspect. As a powerful provincial leader, in a profoundly unstable part of the world, he has links not only with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but also with western intelligence. It is not for us to say that because the CIA claim he is guilty, he is guilty. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This article does not contain a biography of Baitullah Mehsud, it merely names him as the primary suspect. It also presents his denial in the form of his quote stating that his group does not target women. It is completely neutral.--Zaindy٨٧ 13:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this wait until the facts are better known? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Cause of death has been confirmed beyond doubt. Responsibility is blamed on Al-Qaeda by the US and Pakistan, so it is highly unlikely to swtich to anyone else. Proof has been presented against Al-Qaeda in the form of the intercepted phone call of Mehsud, who was discussing the attack with a junior Al-Qaeda operative. I do not expect any major changes to occur. The article, as it currently stands, meets all requirements of WP:FA? but it seems most people would rather have it wait for an indefinite period of time. If in the future its stability becomes an issue (unlikely), then it can always be delisted. But for now I think to oppose it based on what might happen in the future is not useful. --Zaindy٨٧ 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As the person who peer reviewed the article I thought I would weigh in. I think think the article makes a very strong case for FA status (well written, comprehensive, well sourced) and I am disappointed that the comments here are so negative only because the topic of the article is new and the information might change. Barak Obama has FA status; by the comments made here we should immediately delist it because he is running for President of the USA and *if* he wins then the article would change dramatically. Biomedeng (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Your analogy is not quite right. If a general article about Benazir Bhutto was a FAC, it would probably get through without too much opposition. But an article focusing solely on the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto is as premature as an article focusing on Barak Obama and the outcome of the 2008 presidential elections. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Clearly, quite a few Wikipedians have some issues with the article's future stability and factual accuracy. At first, I disagreed with the basis for the opposition, however, my view has changed since then. I find SandyGeorgia's reasoning and interpretation of FAs in general quite unrealistic. Checking if the criteria are satisfied is more complex, because in reality, editors cannot fix certain issues. If more reliable and solid information is required (such as from the UN report), but this will not be available for some time, then the editors here have raised a very legitimate concern (and reasonable doubt) whether this article is up to the standard of a FA in terms of factual accuracy (although the instability argument is questionable in comparison). While I appreciate that some editors may have put an enormous amount of time and effort into making the article what it is, and are of the opinion that it is accurate based on what information you have currently, this is not necessarily enough to achieve an FA. If this event happened long ago, then an argument like 'I don't think the blame will switch to anyone else' is something that may have been overlooked. However, this is very recent, and there is no validity in making such assumptions for the purpose of receiving some recognition so quickly or for getting the top grade achievable by an article. Unfortunately some things that are out of our control, and it certainly is not Wikipedia's concern if this indirectly means there is an period of waiting. At this stage, unless I find a valid justification to the contrary, I am likely to be submitting an oppose vote as well. I also dismiss the above argument about Obama as these articles are not comparible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I find SandyGeorgia's interpretation of the FA criteria to be quite accurate. Opposition to a FAC needs to be based on actionable issues within the article. As Biomedeng has pointed out, the Barack Obama article is an FA despite the fact the he could become the President of the United States, a situation which will drastically change the look of the article in the coming years and make possible the arising of POV disputes and edit warring. Yet, the article was promoted as an FA and in an FA review decided to be kept as such in July 2007, well into the campaign season. Why, then, should this article be kept from gaining FA status? Going by the arguments being presented here, the Obama article should be delisted until after the elections to see if he is elected, and if he is, it should be kept from gaining FA status for another 4 years because 'solid, reliable information' about his presidency will not be available until after his term is over. Yet, the Obama article, just like some other articles which will have new information added to them as the years go by, are FA's. Compared to the Obama article, this one is only awaiting the results of the UN probe (which might not even happen!), which is not expected to change anything in the big picture, whereas Obama's actions in the coming years will likely cause much more controversey/edit warring/accuracy disputes. The Bhutto assassination article is, at this time, stable and netural, well sourced and by and large representative of the highest standards expected of an FA. --Zaindy٨٧ 13:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it is no surprise that you would find in the way that favours your position. Perhaps you ought to try to understand what is being said instead of blindly attempting (and failing) to push your point at every opportunity. And again, these articles are not comparible. The article is about Obama overall, this is specifically about the assassination of Bhutto. In case you didn't notice, there lies a big difference. There is no consensus that this article is up to the highest standards expected of an FA so I doubt very much that this article is going to become an FA at this stage. And btw, you do no favours to the article's nomination by disagreeing with the opinions of others - the opinions that you asked for by nominating the article! I too am opposing now as I see no valid justification. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Perphaps you ought to read the line at the top of the FAC list page which states " Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it." Now you are saying that this article is not upto the standards required of an FA. Why? What's wrong with the article that I can act on? And you keep saying the Obama article is not comparable to this one, and you are wrong. We are talking about the potential for edit warring/POV disputes and the Obama article, an FA, is at much higher risk of that than this article. The page of the next President of the United States will change significantly from what it looks like right now. Yet Obama, who has a strong chance of being the next President, is a featured article on Wikipedia. Your argument against the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto article holds no weight because you have not pointed out anything wrong with the article that can be brought upto standards. Using your logic, the Barack Obama article should not be featured. But it is. --Zaindy٨٧ 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to realise that your sources are not sufficient in this article either. I doubt you can act on this because, as such, only a short period of time has passed between the event actually happening. I did not talk about edit warring/POV in my reply (if you actually bothered to open you eyes and read it properly). Nor has this article got any relation to the Obama article, yet you seem to be focusing entirely on talking about it and avoiding the issues on this article, and ironically, you aren't even aware of the circumstances under which the Obama article was kept as a FA. The Obama article is about Obama per se, this is purely about the assassination of Bhutto. If this was only a section of an article on Bhutto, there would probably be a different outcome. However, it isn't, and I'm pretty sure the FA director is compelled to ignore your long rants as there is clearly no consensus. Just because you don't have enough reliable information, except those from newspapers and the like, doesn't mean this article can be promoted to FA. These are questionable until/unless a more reliable report is released to maintain factual accuracy so Wikipedia's standards are not compromised. You can keep ranting away, but it won't change this fact, nor will it change this article's status. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What is your problem with the article, Ncmvocalist? Your objections have no ground in the FA article criteria, because you want the article to wait just because it's a relatively recent happening. That is no reason to fail an FAC. The article right now meets all FA criteria. You are the one continually ignoring the perfectly valid, logical point I'm raising against your objection. You want this article to not become an FA just because of one, single possibly pending UN report which is not going to change anything in the article except the addition of a couple of lines to maybe a paragraph. This article is stable now, and it will be stable in the future. This article is well written and well sourced now, and it will remain so. You have no proof that any UN report is pending, and you want this article to be held back because new information might be added in the future? You have not pointed out anything wrong with the Bhutto article that I can fix. You're the one avoiding the issues, not me. If this article has any issue whatsoever that can be fixed, tell me. Otherwise, your objection is just based on baseless speculation against an FA deserving article. --Zaindy٨٧ 05:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems you are incapable of understanding or accepting the fact people disagree with you. Reread what I have said. Your inability to understand the basic fact that your article is questionable in factual accuracy is not my problem. This goes to referencing too. Stability is something I didn't even talk about so I have no idea why you are ranting again, except that you are in denial. For example; if you can only use questionable sources, and have no sources that are considered more reliable, then it is not something that you can fix - it is out of your hands - sorry! Many issues have been pointed out in previous objections, particularly by Roger. The objections are valid, and if this article was worthy of FA status, there wouldn't be so much opposition. Clearly there is no consensus that this article is up to the standard of a FA - Wikipedia's best work. Stop trying to assume ownership over the FA-voting process by ranting that it deserves an FA when clearly, it isn't ready. You have 1 vote - you have no authority to change or seemingly add another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • First of all, please see WP:CIVIL. Your personal attacks against me are uncalled for. Secondly, what part of my article is "questionable in factual accuracy"? Tell me, and I will fix it. What refercing source is questionable? All sources are comprised of major world news organizations such as CNN, BBC, Reuters and major Pakistani newspapers. There is not a single questionable source there; but you seem to think there are, so please name them. --Zaindy٨٧ 13:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding stability, pls see this past talk page thread, and the stability criterion, which is:

1 (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, except for edits made in response to the featured article process.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for that, Sandy. I would like to point out that the two kinds of instability discussed on that link do not apply to this article. Information about this event is no longer changing rapidly. Nobody in the media is talking about this assassination anymore. All sources cited in the Bhutto article are from Dec 07-Feb 08. Huge chunks of information are not being made available about the investigation. Since the perpetrators were Al-Qaeda, and the killer blew himself up, there is unlikely to be anyone tried for this crime. The second type of instability is also absent from this article: there are no on-going POV edit wars, there never were. --Zaindy٨٧ 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked over the article again and think the only places that might change in the future would be cause of death (subsection) and responsibility (section). The rest of the article seems like it won't change much at all in the future. Back to the Obama article, *if* Obama were to become president there are definately some sections that would require changes in the article (or even brand new sections required), even though there are seperate articles regarding his presidential campaign. The same is true with this topic. There will likely be some additional investigations that should be included in the article. They may say what we already know about the assasination in which case they will only represent a few sentences to a whole paragraph. However, if the investigations uncover new information or overturn current theories they have the potential to dramatically change the two sections I mentioned previously. I truely appreciate what has been said here and I think that some of the comments made would be more applicable if this were an ongoing event (i.e. an on-going war, on-going political campaign, etc) rather than an event that happened and now a great deal of information has already been made available. So far it seems the only new information people expect to come later is the official UN investigation. Biomedeng (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the real issue, which is being lost under all the rhetoric, is whether it is appropriate to base an encyclopedia article for such a momentous entirely on news stories. Journalists disparingly call this approach "a clippings job". And, in this case, some of the clippings used are pretty tabloid in character. Where is the authoritative political analysis? Where is the historical perspective? Where is the discussion of its impact on the course of Pakistani governance? This article skims the surface: that is what makes it fail the test of comprehensiveness. This article is not unique. Wikipedia contains tens of thousands of articles which can not be properly written until the appropriate literature is published. I do not understand why this should be taken to FA with such unseemly haste. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The major cause of the opposes above has been Criteria 1(e), stability. However, the criteria clearly states that "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 ..." This article is definitely not part of any edit war, or, the content is not likely to change daily! So I request the reviewers to consider their opposes.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with many here that stability is not an issue, per FA criteria. We need more FAs on recent major historical events. That's one advantage of an online encyclopedia over a paper version - we can write excellent articles (as in 'FA') on recent events. This article is extremely thorough and looks to be well-referenced with Reliable Sources. Of course such a recent event will contain nearly all reliable news sources, so no problem there. There is some very minor copy editing needed, but that's all, in my opinion, that's keeping this from FA. I've fixed a few examples,[30] [31] [32] but there are more. ~ priyanath talk 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why do we need more FAs on recent major historical events? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news digest. I suggest the decision ought properly to be based on whether authoritative third-party analysis exists that gives the same credibility to articles on modern events as to any other major historical one. We wouldn't dream of basing an article on the Nuremburg Trials or the Assassination of Martin Luther King or the Battle of Gettysberg or the discovery of radium purely on newspaper accounts. Why should we do it here? --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Good article, with an well-sourced presentation of facts. I do not see anything that does not pass the list of FA criteria. Regarding the stability issue mentioned by the opposes above, I do not see any kind of concerns over stability of this article. Looking into the history of the article, it is as stable as it can get, and in the future, it is going to have couple of lines (or at the most, a sub-section) on UN report. This logic is applicable for almost every ongoing event, and as SandyGeorgia has mentioned above, there have been FAs on those topics. Given the state of the article, it meets the criteria and thats what matters. Very good job on the editors part, having maintained the NPOV on this apparently high-profile, and controversial topic! - KNM Talk 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Object per above. Also, the article has quite a few short bouncy sentences that should be merged together with a comma. Thirdly, many instances of PPP are not preceded by "the" where appropriate. Also, I think that al-Jazeera and Daily Mirror should not be used on FAs. Finally, the background section is not good and only tells us that she came back from exile. We need to know who here opponents were, what her policies are and why her opponents don't like her etc. At the moment there is no setting the scene as to the landscpe of politcal combat in Pakistan. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
eg, Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem explains why people wanted to get rid of him. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. One of the gaps is the failure to examine the longstanding feud between the Bhutto dynasty (including the execution of Bhutto's father) and the army leadership (which includes Musharrav, elements of ISI and the IB). Another is the failure to examine the awkward relationship between Musharrav and the United States in the "War on Terror" ("you're either with us or against us") and Bhutto's equally awkward relationship with the US and its agenda for Pakistani democracy. These relationships are at best contradictory and at worst incompatible. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think the editors here have dealt with an absolute torrent of press coverage very well. This is a good, balanced read, which notes all of the theories surrounding the event, without accidentally falling for any one story. Bravo. There are things I don't like, however:

  • The lead clearly does not summarize the article. It focuses on the cause of death alone, without mentioning the many attendant aspects that the article itself covers. I'd suggest someone pull up a blank user page, and then pull up the article in a second window, and try to craft a lead that could "stand alone as a concise overview of the article" per WP:LEAD. Try to cover in the lead what the body already covers well.
  • The article creates a sense of tension between "actually shot to death" and "hit her head on the roof and died" but never explains why that difference matters. (She was assassinated, in either case.) Living in the Middle East, I've gathered that the first can be presented as martyrdom, and the latter as, well, sort of an accident. Bro-Bhutto doctors may have wanted her to have been shot, because it would present a more heroic figure. That was my anecdotal sense, and even if wrong, the article needs to explain why it was such a big deal about whether she hit her head or took a gun wound... Tell us what the big deal is, please, because half of the article is fixated on this point. Marskell (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weakly opposed - I would like to see more information in the background which sort of hints at why it happened - what she did as a politician that made her unpopular, who disliked her, etc. Also, the short parastub sentences in the Responsibility and Pakistani government sections need work. Not sure if it's ready yet, as an article, or in a "time since event" sense (although I'm not that big on that point). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Object - needs more time to incorporate better, non newspaper, sources. Barack Obama could have deadtree sources added; this has not. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW? --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I think so, however this is a very good article and I do home the editors will come back some time in the not too distant future, and get it the start it will soon deserve. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think WP:SNOW is applicable here. First of all this is a continuing discussion with multiple editors on each side. CClosing this discussion abruplty as you are advocating will not help this article become better, a goal we should all want. I count 2 supports and 6 objects with several other people weighing in with comments. Also, although I have limited experience with FACs, it does seem fair to allow Zaindy87 to respond to some of the recent suggestions regarding the scope of this article. It would seem fair to allow Zaindy to address the specific comments raised by Binguyen, dihydrogen monoxide, and marskell as their issues all seem like they can be addressed (i.e. "An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable"). Not sure why you object to letting this FAC run its course. Biomedeng (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
To clarify:
  1. Partly because this article has been here six days and there's absolutely no consensus whatsoever for promotion.
  2. Partly because lengthy discussions over borderline articles draw reviewers away from other FA candidates and contribute to backlogs.
  3. Partly because the list of actionable objections is lengthy (including re-writing the lead from scratch) and there's no reason for the article to stay here while these are done.
  4. Partly because Zaindy has already had ample opportunity to address some of the issues but has not made any changes to the article since 9 March and those were trifling ones.
  5. Partly because it will be a nightmare addressing support or opposition to those changes and this may be better done in a fresh FAC.
Hope this helps, --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It is fine with me if you want to close the FAC as "did not reach consensus." However, I don't think WP:SNOW is applicable to this discussion since it wasn't one-sided. I think WP:SNOW would be better used in a situtation if I nominated a stub article for FA status and you closed it immediately because it was obviously going to fail. Biomedeng (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I can't close it, that's down to Sandy or Raul. I was just trying to simplify the issues in what has been an intricate discussion :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:25, 16 March 2008.

[edit] Thrud the Barbarian

Self-nominated. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've put a lot of work into researching the topic and received supportive comments when going through the peer review and GA processes. GDallimore (Talk) 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak support - Very good, but there isn't the section objections. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Not fully read it yet, so I will nor oppose nor support, but the lead is reading too short. Could it be expanded? Samuel Sol (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In what sense "too short". In terms of counting it's three paragraphs long (which is fine given the size of the article per Wikipedia:Lead#Length). In terms of content, it summarises what I believe to be the important points in the article: (a) nature of character; (b) history; (c) legacy. The only bits not summarised are the biography, recurring themes and merchandise sections of the article which, while probably necessary for completeness, don't actually contain particularly important information. I think the lead could support a bit more about his persona rather than just appearance, which I'll now add, but I'd be grateful for an explanation as to what is missing. GDallimore (Talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, I've now lengthened it a bit - hopefully by adding real content rather than just padding! GDallimore (Talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • More comments - A bit more comments on things I saw through the article.
  • A lot of redlinks. It is better to unlink those then leave the redlinks there.
  • Reply: I've reduced the number of redlinks to just four since I believe there is a reasonable chance of those four having wikipedia pages in the forseeable future. I think that complies with MoS.
  • I don't think the subheader with the comic reviews are needed in the external links. They would be better if worked on the footnotes
  • Reply: Agreed. Been wondering about those for a while. Since I've found no use for them in the article itself, I've just deleted them.
  • I think the fictional biography and Personage sections could be glued together and better worded. I will try to do something about it. But you probably can do better.
  • Same goes for the Recurring Themes. I think the article could be really improved by checking Padmé_Amidala
  • Reply: It's actually based on the Batman article in style. Going back over that article, I think I missed a trick or two and have renamed recurring themes "supporting characters" and moved the stuff about the pub and the catchphrase into the persona section. I think that helps balance the lengths of the different sections better. Thanks for prompting me to do that as it has been bugging me.
  • And one thing that kept me at loss while reading it sometimes. The article is about the character (I think so) or about the books itself.
  • Reply: Again, the style is based on the Batman article and I think works well. There will always be some overlap between the character and the publication history of the character's appearances. Hopefully some of the changes I've made ni response to the above will help.
Samuel Sol (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: Thanks for your thoughts. How's it looking now? I believe it's been improved. GDallimore (Talk) 09:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I noticed the comment above about the red links. Unless something has changed (& I bow to Sandy's opinion here), the number of red links is not a concern for FA status. I looked at this earlier draft, & the links you removed there -- to Arkensword, Dead 'Ard, & Euan Smith are all reasonably notable subjects for future articles. I don't mean to confuse you, but I suggest that you re-link these. -- llywrch (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks. It's a difficult call. I get the impression that "Dear 'Ard" was just a uni publication and Euan Smith a mate of his from Uni, although that's jut a guess. I haven't been able to find anything about either of them so doubt articles would be forthcoming. Having run a search for Arkensword, however, it seems bigger than I had originally thought so I'll re-add the redlinks to that. GDallimore (Talk) 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree with you about it being a difficult call. FWIW, the name Euan Smith looks vaguely familiar, which is why I spoke up about that one. In any case, if you can't find any information about a red-link after a reasonable effort, then I agree that the best thing to do is to remove the link. If later research reveals that the subject is notable, the link can always be re-created. And I found your article an enjoyable read! -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Is this an article about the character or the comic-book? I don't think one article can cover both, can it? indopug (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The article is about the character and therefore discusses the appearances of that character in different comic book foms. Since the character hasn't had a huge number of appearances, no separate article about those individual appearances is necessary or warranted. You'd only end up with two incomplete yet overlapping articles that way. GDallimore (Talk) 01:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A number of the references are missing publisher information. Author information if available needs to be listed also. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Really, which ones? Authorship is mentioned where it's relevant/important eg for books. GDallimore (Talk) 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah, do you mean I've not used the "publisher" field in the Cite Web template? I did that to make the references easier to browse - including the publisher in the title of the page so that all the references weren't just "Thrud Issue 1 review". I'm open to comments on whether that's appropriate or not. GDallimore (Talk) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yep, the publisher is pretty much needed to be stated for verifiablity questions. Authors, when known, also, for the same reason. Especially if there is a quotation used, the author needs to be mentioned (I dont' know if there are quotations or not in the article that need authors, I'm just giving the rule). Ealdgyth | Talk 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
          • The article already meets those guidelines, then. But I guess to make things easier to search automatically, I'll put the info in the relevant template fields rather than the title fields. GDallimore (Talk) 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Criterion three concerns:
    • I’m concerned about Image:Thrud cg.jpg, as the character is depicted in three other images, at least one of which is substantially the same pose (WP:NFCC#3A requires minimal usage and WP:NFCC#8 requires a significant contribution to our understanding). Moving it to the “Legacy” section, where the computer style is actually discussed, may allow it to pass WP:NFCC#8, but all NFCC criteria must be met to employ FU. The solution, I think, is partially related to my next bullet (i.e. a "computer style" image of a different character would be fine, and it would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak).
    • I’m concerned about the four “ink style” images on NFCC#3A and 8 grounds. As it stands, we have other images of Thrud and prose such as “Lymara is depicted with oversized breasts barely covered by an off-the-shoulder leather bra”, “[Croneman is] (d)epicted as resembling Schwarzenegger” and “The Black Currant is depicted in heavy black armour, wearing a helmet having a pair of exceedingly long, horizontally extending horns” is perfectly adequate to give us an understanding (i.e. images do not provide significant understanding above what is already provided by the prose – required by NFCC#8). I suspect a case could be made to keep an “ink style” image, but the article’s prose would need to be enhanced to support the importance/significance of that style. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Glad to see you join the party! :)
        • Concering the three different, very similar images of Thrud. I think they are all necessary for the very reasons you give: they show Thrud in three very similar poses but drawn using Critchlow's three different styles - thus illustrating in a way words could not the important underlying topic of Critchlow's developing styles. The part of the article where the CG image is located talks about how Critchlow used Thrud as a vehicle to get his new style noticed. Including the image there is therefore the most appropriate place. The legacy section, if it included any images, should include an image from his later works, not Thrud. Having the three Thrud images relatively close to each other also makes for easier comparison by a reader, which means it is appropriate given the purpose of including these three images in the first place. Crtichlow has three different styles, therefore three is the minimum number of images that is needed to contribute to a reader's understanding, and the contribution is clearly significant in my view. Therefore I am pretty firmly convinced that NFCC 3 and 8 are complied with. I'm guessing you're also referring to the picture of Thrud in miniature form. That picture shows something very different from the drawn images and I think contributes to understanding for those who may not understand what is meant by miniatures of Thrud and how different miniatures have been issued over time.
        • The justification for the images of the Black Currant, Lymara and Croneman is more tricky, but I think they are appropriate. Because this is far more shaky ground, though, I'd be grateful for other viewpoints to try to reach a consensus.
        • Essentially, this whole section of the article is there to point up the parody aspect of Thrud and his comics/strips. Fun is poked at the ridiculous armour worn by fantasy characters (Black Currant), the huge breasts of female fantasy characters (Lymara), and Arnie's muscle-flexing posturing (Croneman). The text tries to get this sense of parody across by its more light-hearted nature compared to the rest of the article, but I believe the accompanying pictures contribute significantly to that understanding. Also, because we have three different parody targets, I believe three different images represent the minimum. I haven't included pictures of To-Me Ku-Pa or Carl since the elements of parody are not as strong there and pictures would not contribute significantly. If it is felt that this is not enough, I suggest that an absolute minimum would be the picture of Croneman/Arnie, since Arnie is regularly held up in the sources as being a prime target of the parody. But I personally think the remaining two pictures also contribute significantly without being excessive use of copyrighted images.
      • Thanks for your time! GDallimore (Talk) 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment On the images: Elco touched on it above, but I think that per FUR the three Thrud images are defensible, but the other characters aren't. Much more weight in the article is given to discussion of the artist's style, so those are helpful; on the other hand the characters are fairly well developed in prose form, so I think it's more eye candy in that regard. Is there any image that has them together? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In view of these comments and Tony's comments below about the formatting, I've removed all the images except the one of Croneman/Arnie and highlighed that Arnie is a satirical target to explain the presence of the image better. Does this resolve your problems?

It's OK, but a few things I picked up:

  • Inspiration WAS drawn, surely?
  • The list of comics—it's normal to use en dashes, not hyphens.
  • Choppy effect of big black subtitles for each character, when there's not all that much text. Is there a smoother, more attractive formatting?
  • "Tooth & Claw was praised for its character designs and nice colours"—nice? And no attitudinal epithet for the ch. designs? Remove "nice".
  • "was said to be recognisable from a mile off with its "volume, colour and verve".[10]"—I wouldn't repeat the wording of ref. 10, if that's the source of "from a mile off". Why not more formal? "is easily recognisable by its "volume, ...". Tony (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Responses:
    • Although no new comics have been issued in a year, I don't think it's yet appropriate to use the past tense.
    • Thanks for giving me an endash to copy:) done!
    • Two of the images have been removed in light of numerous objections to their presence.
    • For your last two comments, I was trying to strike a balance between better prose and quoting the comments made. I see there are two ways this article can go to improve it. I can stick with the quotes, but use quotation marks more often when I am quoting (eg around the "from a mile off" of "nice colours"), or I could improve the prose. Any guidance on which would be the more appropriate? I'm inclined to go with your suggestions of improving the prose, but was nervous of re-writing the sources too much in case it was deemed unverifiable or OR. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments I like reading about comics I read before. OK, prose looks ok at first glance, I'll post some tweaks below:
When Critchlow saw an advertisement in White Dwarf magazine asking for cartoonists, he submitted some of his Thrud strips in response. - last two words are redundant
In 1987 a collection of Thrud strips was published... - needs a comma after first two words.
Once the Thrud strip ran its course in White Dwarf, - 'ran' should be 'had run', pluperfect tense here is better as this clause precedes the following one.
Critchlow found that, by organising distribution through comic shops and a devoted Thrud website, he was just able to break even financially - needs a comma after last word, and can remove 'just' as it disrupts flow
as well as starting to develop appreciation for his new style. - not sure what you're gettting at here, a following?
The cover images for each of the first four comics -bolded bit redundant
For issue 5, Critchlow also used his new technique for the cover image. - but this sentence, if in opposition to previous, should have a 'hovewever' or something similar.
At the age of 5, Thrud is sent to Crom the Destroyer Orthodox Pagan Infants School, -if you place first clause after "school" then you have one less comma, which is desirable in this sentence of commas.
..mutterings of "Kill! Death!.. - comma after "of"
.. largely a vehicle for making jibes against the fantasy genre. - erm, odd phrase. "making fun of" or "poking fun at" or even "satirising"
..blissfully unaware of the unfolding storyline. - sounds odd, being unaware of a storyline. Howabout "events around him" machinations/motives/developments, take your pick
Long term fans of Thrud were excited and nostalgic to see him return in.. - bolded bits redundant.
but were concerned that the idea would not stretch to 24 pages. - I must say I am not keen on this construction. I'd say "but feared the material would not stretch to 24 pages"
considered the comic a success that was more than just a single joke spread thin - erm, you need to reword this, comes over as ungainly
Critchlow was also commended for the risky decision - risky could be replaced by a better adjective 'bold', 'brave', or something halfway between these and risky
The high production values were also praised, with the glossy cover and high quality paper used for the inner pages - how about "With the glossy cover and high quality paper used for the inner pages, the high production values also won praise"
Legacy section can all be one para

I'll read more from characterisation and below later. have to go.Looks good otherwise Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of these points are related to the final couple of issues raised by Tony1 above - imperfect prose used in order to stick closer to the source material. If I could have feedback on my queries, I'll be able to make the most suitable edits all in one go. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 12:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I'll keep an eye on the page. I am happy to hear reasons for not addressing any of the points I raised as you've read the source material, so we can do that as we go :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand my comment as meaning "go away until I've had a response from someone else." The idea was to gain consensus from several editors as to where to strike a balance between good prose and faithfullness to source materials. Please do let me have your thoughts on this point! My position is that I chose to stick to the sources more closely than I might have liked if I were writing it all myself because I'm a fan and didn't want to inadvertantly introduce my own bias or OR into the article. I think I can represent the sources fairly without following them as closely as at present - and can write pretty good prose when I choose to (honest!) - but would appreciate guidance on whether I should. GDallimore (Talk) 14:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments:
    • Why all the citations in the lead? Per WP:LEAD, you should only cite controversial or challengable statements in the lead. Otherwise, they are repeated and cited later in the article.
    • "Since October 2002, Critchlow has continued to develop his new artistic style in several different 2000 AD stories, contributing to the success of Lobster Random in particular." I had to go read the source to figure out that Critchlow's artwork has make the Lobster Random series of 2000AD stories successful, not the character itself. Please clarify this in the prose.
    • In the Initial publications heading, you wikilink The Black Currant but it goes somewhere else in this same article. I'm not crazy about that, although I can't find anything about it in WP:MOSLINK.
    • You hyphenated "full-length" in the prose but not in the heading.
    • When we get to the full-length comic, you say that the first four covers were hand-drawn, but then you show an image of the cover of Issue 1 and say it illustrates Critchlow's new computer art style(?).
    • The prose in the Fictional character biography is not up to standard - please copyedit. There is too much "in-world" language: "...dark secrets of fighting and drinking beer."
    • Intelligence of a "garden snail" should be in quotes as they are not your own words.
--Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Taking your points in turn
      • Disagree with this one. The discussion in the lead is more general than and not quite the same as in the article. For example, I refer to the Golden Age of White Dwarf in the lead as I decided it was a good summary phrase but expand on this in slightly different ways in the article itself using a range of different sources. A citation is useful to identify where that "Golden Age" comment came from. Your also misrepresent WP:LEAD by your comment, in my view.
        • We'll have to settle for agreeing to disagree. It's not a dealbreaker. --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Missing italics added. Thanks
      • I see nothing wrong with this, and it could be useful for a reader to know that this character is discussed in more detail.
      • Fixed, thanks.
      • I think you must be misreading something somewhere. The picture to the side of this text is from issue 1, but is not the cover of issue 1 and is not related to this particular bit of text but to the discussion of cg art in general.
        • I did misread, apologies. --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The "in-world" language is there for a purpose and is kept to a minimum throughout the article, in my view. Thrud is all about satire and parody, and certain sections of the article are written in a style that highlights that. I think that helps give a better flavour of the character and his comics. Do you still feel that is inappropriate.
        • Even discounting the language concern, I feel the prose could be improved. Is there a second pair of eyes you can grab from the comics WikiProject or anywhere? --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Not sure I understand why this needs to be in quotes. It's a description of the character based on a reference, like every other description of the character: "eight-foot tall barbarian", "exaggerated physique", "small head" "wielding an enormous axe", "caricature of Scwharzenegger". Should they all be in quotes? Again, this partly goes back to a point raised by Tony1 that I am still waiting for comments on.
        • Well, "intelligence of a garden snail" is a unique turn of phrase that is a direct quote from the source. So it should be written as a quote, not presented as your own words. Make sense? --Laser brain (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your thoughts. GDallimore (Talk) 16:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing a pattern here - better prose rather than sticking to source material. I'll do an appropriate copyedit which will hopefully respond to comments by Tony1, Laserbrain and Casliber. GDallimore (Talk) 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that's necessarily true, I haven't seen the third party sources - my only contact is the original comics in WD. At least some of the material I pointed out is simple redundancy. Anyway, what is also important is ensuring the meaning is not changed from the original sources too, which you're the best judge of. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:38, 15 March 2008.

[edit] Cluj-Napoca

The city of Cluj-Napoca. I worked very much to bring it this way, and i wait for your suggestions, if there are any corrections to be made. --Danutz (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -

  • Large sections are unreferenced (the History section, the Education section) or mostly unreferenced (Sports, Architecture, Arts and Culture, Administration among others).
  • Gallery in the middle.
  • Overlinking - meridian and parallel in the location section, boars, badgers, foxes, rabbits, squirrels, etc.
  • Prose is clunky and is unencyclopedic .. expample is "Historic rock bands from 1970s, like Compact, modern pop musicians, like Cristina Rus or Andra, underground sounds like Luna Amară as well as a large pallet of electronic music seem to mix quite well within the city's eclectic music scene." but many others could be put forth.
  • Peacock terms - "The Gallery of Folk Art is also distinguished, as it promotes the authentic products and art of the Romanian culture, in the field of interior decoration." "Iuliu Maniu street is considered to be an important landmark of the city, as it is built completely symmetrically after the Haussmann urbanistic trend." etc.
  • Lead is short for an article of this length
  • Personal preference, but I would like to see more english language sources, if at all possible.
  • References need a consistent format.
  • Lists of redlinks?
  • I got at least one dead link in the external links checker (It tried to time out on me at some point).
I have my doubts that this article as it stands can be brought up to FA standards in the usual time FA candidates are allowed. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I recognize that it was translated from another language Wikipedia, but the FA standards require inline citations of any information considered contentious. There are LOTS of parts that could be considered contentious that are lacking inline citations. Starting at the top:
  • The theories of the origin of the name. Who came up with those theories? Without attribution they are considered Original research.
  • "This castle was designated on many ocassions as the "Transylvanian Versailles"".. by whom?
  • "This monastery hosts the renowned wonder Madonna of Nicula." and the sections following it.
  • "The locality was later raised to the status of a colonia, probably during the reign of Marcus Aurelius." Probably? Are there other theories?
  • "In 1270 Kolozsvár (the castle and the village) was donated (so thus degraded) to the bishopric of Transylvania. In 1316 received town privileges from Charles I of Hungary and to the memory of this event they began building the Saint Michael Church." Why was is it "thus degraded"? Why do we know it was in memory?
I could go on, but it's pretty much the entire article that needs referencing. (I was just picking out the most glaring on a quick glance) A good rule of thumb (and it's a rule of thumb, but it works well) is that every paragraph (at least) should have a citation. And all the prose is pretty much needing a good copyedit, probably by a couple of editors. For an idea of a recently promoted town FA, look at Bath, Somerset. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • the section tourism must stay in the section economy, not in the geography
    • the subarticle History of Cluj-Napoca is un-referenced
    • "heavy" prose
    • many redlinks (this is for the graphic) [7]

MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes
  1. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Groening
  2. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Mirkin
  3. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Cohen
  4. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DVD
  5. ^ Reardon, Jim. (2005). The Simpsons The Complete Sixth Season DVD commentary for the episode "Treehouse of Horror V" [DVD]. 20th Century Fox.
  6. ^ Smith 2007, p. 1.
  7. ^ This donesn't mean that you can delete they, maybe you do they.
OK. Finally, I can answer. I modified the article so it can meet your requests.
  1. I referenced all affirmations I thought someone could think that are dubious. But please pay attention. The History section, the Etimology section, and a part of the Geography section are referenced in the bibliography list at the end of the page. There is there a list of 13 books from where the information was collected. It is rather impossible to search for every information and reference all. Anyway this sections were translated from the Romanian Wikipedia, where the pages had this bibliography (references), so I added them all.
  2. I moved the gallery at the end
  3. I removed overlinks
  4. I modified the prose where I considered it unencyclopedic. If you find more examples, please put the forth.
  5. I also modified the peacock terms
  6. I find the lead rather long but I will include some more information if necesary
  7. Unfortunately English sources are not so abundent like the Romanian ones, that's why I used many Romanian sources
  8. Usualy I tried to only make internal links to articles that have a corespondent in the Romanian Wikipedia. In some time this red links will become blue. However, red links are not included in the FA criteria, so I expect you to be objective and understand that with the time this article will appear, and it should not affect the main article.
  9. I saw the dead link, and I replaced it with another source.

Now responding to Mojska. The subarcticle History of Cluj-Napoca is translated from Romanian Wikipedia, where it had references, so I inserted them into the English language article. The prose might be heavy, but this in an encyclopedia, so it should not be written in simple English. Besides, we already have such a wiki.

--Danutz (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another problem: look at the section #Transport and wikifich the titles of the subsections. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 15:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I changed that, and I also converted all notes, so they use a unitary system of reference, as per Template:Cite web/Template:Cite book. --15:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danutz (talk • contribs)

Comment Per WP:MOS#Images, “sandwiching” of text between images is to be avoided. The number of images appears to be well beyond superfluous. Wikipedia articles should not be image depositories; that’s what Wikimedia Commons is for. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I updated the sections Cluj-Napoca#Etymology, Cluj-Napoca#Geography and Cluj-Napoca#History, by improving the prose and adding very many citations. Also I reduced the sizes of the pictures, so that the text won't be literaly sandwiched between pictures, as their combined width doesn't exceed 300px (a width common used in other articles for one picture). I also allignated some pictures to the right, avoiding the combined use of left and right image in some cases (see Cluj-Napoca#Administration, Cluj-Napoca#Contemporary architecture. I also added a trivia section. I wait for your new repplies, if you think I should do anything more to the article. --Danutz (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You've addressed some of the reference concerns but the prose issues still remain. It very much reads like what it is, a translation from another language. I highly highly highly suggest finding at least two copy-editors who speak English very well to read over and thoroughly massage the text, as it is very clunky through out. I could point out examples, but the whole text needs work, and it isn't a FAC reviewers job to do that, honestly. It has the basis of a good article, but it needs a LOT of work. I am not knocking the work you've put into it, but practically every sentence needs work, which is well beyond what any reviewer is expected to point out. Examples within the first four sentences include "The city lies in the valley of the Someşul Mic river and it used to be the capital of the historical province of Transylvania." which is clunky and combines two different subjects into one sentence, and "The population of the Cluj-Napoca metropolitan area, as proposed by the current project is estimated at 360,000." which has the very odd "proposed by the current project" which is totally unexplained and odd connected with the population. That's a mere sample. The very next sentence is "Finally the population of the influence area (periurban area) counts over 400 thousand residents." Finally? Why finally? Periurban? Influence area? counts over? That sentence is awkward. Once again, I highly reccommend taking this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors for help. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry. The prose is very poor indeed. Here are some random examples from the Lead:
"as proposed by the current project" by the current project?
"Finally the population of the influence area" What's final about it?
"The city spreads circle-wise from" Circle-wise ?
"due to come to international spotlight"?

There are dozens more like this in the article.--GrahamColmTalk 17:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per criterion 1a. This article needs a serious copyedit or three. There are numerous typos (vecinity, consuquence, ciurcumsription, trolleybuss, ensambles, ocasion), mis-translated words (terasse, petrified, suveranity, interrogatories, novation, questionated, beggers), and sentences that simply don't parse in English. Further oddities (note that not all of these are strictly WP:WIAFA breaches):

  • The History section is nearly as long as the linked 'main article' history, and really needs paring down.
  • Text is sandwiched between images in many places.
  • Some images are left-aligned directly after section headers.
  • There are so many redlinks that it's difficult to read past them.
  • The table in the Sports section would be better rendered in prose.
  • Trivia and Gallery sections should really be worked into the article, not separate sections.
  • Reference formatting is really inconsistent. Some online sources lack retrieval dates.
  • This article relies so heavily on Romanian sources that it is very difficult to assess the reliability of the sources or to confirm what is cited.
  • The layout of sections does not follow the guidelines at WP:LAYOUT, particularly with regard to order of the sections External links, Notes, Footnotes, and References.

Maralia (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on prose grounds (I've looked no further than this). The prose needs considerable work by an uninvolved copy-editor. A few examples:

  • The first written mention of its name was in 1213 under the Latin name Castrum Clus. Despite the fact that Clus as a county name appeared earlier in 1173 as Thomas comes Clusiensis, it is believed that the county's designation derives from the Roman camp (castrum) and not vice versa. I've read this three times and still don't fully understand what the vice versa refers to.
  • The area surrounding the city is vastly covered with forests and grass. Vastly covered?
  • Rarely species of plants, like venus's slipper or iris, are to be found here. Rarely or rare?
  • epigraphically attested Inadvertently humorous.
  • Typos: instutions, finaly, latter etc
  • Inconsistency of formats: "400 thousand" and "504,000"; "2nd century" and "12th century" but "tenth century".
  • Commas used in percentages instead of points.
  • WP:ENGVAR mixes British spellings (neighbourhood) with American ones (skeptical).
  • Date format: "October 11th" > "October 11" and again "October 16th".
  • Also: distances need converting into yards/miles etc.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 20:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 15 March 2008.

[edit] Benazir Bhutto

Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it is very well written, has many references, has no grammar errors (that I noticed), and is extremely important. If you think I'm crazy, this is my first nomination. Mm40 (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Question You don't seem to have made any contributions to this article and have only been on Wikipedia for a few weeks? Were you aware that it is customary for major contributors to nominate so that they can deal with any problems arising and shepherd the article through? --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Why is the article under semi-protection at the moment? Are there any concerns from a vandalism/edit-war standpoint that have recently impacted the article as it relates to 1e of WP:FACR? AreJay (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of the references are lacking publisher and/or last access date. That is the very minimum needed to verify sources. Authors and other information should also be included when known. I'd also really like for the "Book about.." section to be broken down into the more usual "Sources" for books used as sources, and "Further Reading" for works that aren't used as sources for the article but yet would add more information to the reader. I'll try to return to check the reliability of sources after the references have been formatted. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment leaning towards oppose (based on a very quick read though).
Family
  • Various WP:NPOV concerns. (1) The suggestion is that Al-Haq executed Bhutto's father as an alternative to elections. (2) Pleas for clemency by world leaders are fairly standard.
  • Failure to identify the Bhuttos as one of the world's most famous political dynasties. Describing them as "prominent" is massive understatement.
  • No mention of the five years she spent mostly in solitary confinement following her father's death.
Prime minister
  • Content seems to focus on her first administration in the context of the West rather than her domestic policies. Why the lengthy sub-section on the Taliban? Why the chunk on women? What about her other modernisation initiatives? Why not one section on each of her administrations. ie First administration 1988–1990 and Second administration 1993–1996?
Charges of corruption.
  • Undue weight concerns. This section is twice the length of the section on Butto's administrations. Much of it concerns her husband. It shows fails to distinquish between accusations and charges (in the legal sense).
ENGVAR
Bhutto was Pakistani and the official language is Commonwealth English, therefore per WP:ENGVAR British spellings (honour, fuelled, Westernisation etc) instead of American ones {honor, fueled, Westernization etc).
--ROGER DAVIES talk 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sorry, but this article needs lots of work. Citation style is very messy. Also, an article on such an important figure cannot rely almost solely on internet sources. There needs to be an incorporation of books and scholarly articles. Hopefully that will also improve the article and fix some of the more substantive issues listed above. gren グレン 00:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:45, 14 March 2008.

[edit] Kagome Higurashi

Nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it's a very interesting article about an anime character. Goldenphoenix2007 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Goldenphoenix2007, it doesn't appear that you've contributed to the article. Have you contacted the primary author(s) to determine whether they feel it's ready for FAC? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Fails numerous FA criteria including 1, 2, 3 and 6.
    • Lead does not adequately summarize article, see WP:LEAD.
    • Article appears to be entirely devoid of real world context, see WP:WAF.
    • Article is not comprehensive, e.g. no discussion of character development process or reception of fans, media, etc.
    • Article has little or no "reliable third-party sources", see WP:V.
    • “References” refer us to “in the manga” or “in the anime”. This is not appropriate formatting.
    • Article is not well written (e.g. multiple instances of sentences beginning with “this”; the subject needs to be properly reasserted).
    • Apparent Fair Use violation: three images of the same character, see WP:NFCC#3A and 8.
    • Article appears far from ready and, frankly, I recommend withdrawal. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lead section issues, no real world context, no development of the character discussion, lack of third party sources, lack of discussion of fan and critic reaction, lack of discussion of where the character appears. Prose is clunky, and large sections are just lists of powers or other characters. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. Why was this even ranked as a B-class article in the first place? The article contains no real-world information—character development, reception—or third party sources. The article has a long way to go to even reach Good Article status. --Farix (Talk) 22:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everything stated above. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yep. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the article doesn't respect some criteria for a featured article. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't waste our time by nominating horrible articles like this. The lead section sucks, the article is too "in-universe", referencing is not FA standard and I see no external links section. This article is not even a GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:45, 14 March 2008.

[edit] Mr. and Mrs. Iyer

Nominator. This article is on an award-winning Indian drama feature film depicting the journey of the lead characters (belonging to two different religions) in a bus through a sectarian violence-stricken land. This article gained Good Article status recently following a detailed GA assessment (available in its talk page).

The article was massively improved and upgraded to GA status by the User:Mspraveen singlehandedly. There may be some issue with the images. However, the two non-poster images used in the article are for (1) Depicting the two lead characters, and (2) A critical moment in the film. Please express your opinion, and help this fine article gain featured article status. Thanks. Dwaipayan (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments: The first two images must have better caption, introducing the characters like, Rahul Bose and Konkona as Raja Chowdhury and Meenakshi Iyer respectively in Mr. and Mrs. Iyer moreover the sound track section can be in the form of a table rather than in list form. Other wise the article is good, well referenced and follows other rules of a FA. Amartyabag TALK2ME 11:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Amartyabag Hi! Excelent suggestions. Have improved the image captions. Please see if it suffices. Will work on the table later (won't be difficult :) ) Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments:
    • "They begin interrogating passengers about their identities and when in doubt of a passenger's religious identity, they even check if circumcised." may need citation as "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film. An exception to this rule may be films containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources." fromWikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines
    • "It is not recommended that the phrase "award-winning" be used in the first sentence of the lead: it provides insufficient context to the reader, and subsequent paragraphs in the lead can detail the major awards or nominations received by the film."--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Redtigerxyz: The circumcision sentence has now been referenced, along with an explanatory quote from the source. "Award-winning' has been removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - I haven't had a chance to read it all through thoroughly yet it looks a good article but offhand it looks like it needs a copyedit and general polishing. For one I don't think the block quotes are necessary here and the cast section isn't in the style that WP:Film has set as a general guideline. See films such as KANK for a cast section. It looks tidy but I believe it was agreed before it is best to leave cast sections open. Even in the intro the sentence "it was met with widespread critical acclaim upon release, and won several national and international awards" needs to be exercised with caution. What is widespread? India and United States? and it might help to mention some of the most notable awards it won initially. Just glancing at the references most of the sources seem adequate and reputable but may need filling in a but more with details on date published on the various sites etc. There did however seme to be a couple of sources which may not seem all that reliable, offhand Redhotcurry.com. and "Village Voice" -I don't know whether these are noted sources but they looked out of place compared to some of the other mainstream sources. I've just given one or two sentence a bit of a copy edit. It is important to make sentences flow and construct them in the best way possible -avoiding short stubby sentences. I would also frown against a section encompassing both Filming and music. The paragraph on music should be moved to the soundtrack section I think unless it is specifically connected to how the director made the film and the filming process. Has this been peer reviewed before the nomination? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Blofeld Thanks Blofeld for pointing out the shortcomings. Those will be taken care of. Please visit the article again soon. Missing the publication dates is a bad fault. Will do that first. And de-tabling the cast section will not be difficult. Thanks for pointing out the KANK article.
Now, the copyedit. I will try. Please improve anything you think necessary.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Blofeld contd Added names of 2 awards in the lead. The Award for best film on national integration deserves mention. But the Hawaiian Film Festival award, I don't really know how notable it is. Please feel free to replace with some other award if you feel so (if at all needed). And to answer your query, no, the article has not been peer reviewed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Article is very well written, with extensive details, all the images are as per wiki standards and above comments are being resolved quickly on this page. Article is very stable with no controversy (even though the film is on very sensitive subject, atleast in India). One suggestion: Rupees 7.3 million as its box-office collections is mentioned way below in article and one has to scroll down to see the figures. I think the infobox is provided for this very purpose and these figures should in infobox to give the reader a quick update. gppande «talk» 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply Box office collection added in the infobox.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Shahid
  • The casting section says, "Konkona Sen Sharma's abilities, as a sensitive actress, fetched her the role of Mrs. Meenakshi Iyer" seems to be a bit POV, and we have to remember that her mother is the director of the film actually.
  • The film is more of an arthouse picture. I think it should be mentioned.

Will go through it now and comment further. Shahid • Talk2me 15:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Shahid—"Konkona Sen Sharma's abilities, as a sensitive actress, fetched her the role of Mrs. Meenakshi Iyer", this sentence is based on an interview of the director Aparna Sen in Rediff.com, and the interview has been cited. So, I think, this does not amount to be a POV of the author. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I saw the link, but she's her mother you know. I would suggest you to quote Mrs. Aparna, so that nobody questions its neutrality. Anyway, I personally agree with that statement, she is amazing, only that I don't want new accusations.
  • What about the film being an art film? It's a neo-realistic film, and in India, as you know, it belongs to the parallel cinema genre. I think it's worth a mention, especially considering Indians always have that difference in mind.
  • Most importantly, from our own experience, we have to assure that all the links apply the WP:RS conditions. Shahid • Talk2me 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose by Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC) - I was the GA reviewer of this article, and clearly stated that this article was not ready for any grade higher than a GA. As the main member of the WikiProject India Assessment Dept., I cannot endorse this as the best work of WikiProject India, or indeed, as Wikipedia's best work. FA is the highest grade that can be achieved, and articles that achieve such a grade need to be outstanding, featuring professional standards of writing and presentation. My main concern was that the prose is not up to the professional, brilliant engaging standard that is expected of FAs. I was excited at the article being merely well written - good - but it certainly is not the best, nor at the peak of its potential. Comprehensiveness is a criteria that was gradually indirectly being addressed, although, is it comprehensive like other FAs? I will leave that to another reviewer to consider. "Aparna Sen said that they both were good friends and after their correspondence regarding his role, he got into the act" - is this brilliant, outstanding, engaging, professional prose you would expect to see in an encyclopedia? Of course not!

It is perhaps ironic that after an article achieves GA status, the most distinguishing features of an FA are the prose and comprehensiveness. One could go so far as saying that after GA, these two criteria make up the essence of an FA assessment. The fact that these criteria cannot be properly addressed overnight suggest that these are also the most difficult criteria to satisfy. While I have always been optimistic of the potential this article would have with the time that was invested in it to begin with, this is certainly not Wikipedia's best work yet, or up to the stand of a FA, especially with respect to these criteria, especially prose. For these reasons above, I oppose/object. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply - I'm sorry, but "this is certainly not Wikipedia's best work yet" is not part of the featured article criteria. As for comprehensiveness - it seems to be comprehensive, and prose, could you please give more examples of bad writing? We cannot base ourselves on "it is not brilliant!". I think it's better to say, "it's not brilliant because...." so that we can reach a FA status. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 16:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Ncmvocalist Thank you Ncmvocalist for your comments. Since you did the GA review of the article, you are much more aware of the status of the prose than I am. So I request your help. The particular example of the sentence you gave definitely falls short of excellent prose. And it is our fault we could not improve it. Thanks for pointing it out. Will change not only that sentence, but many more, as the authors go on copyediting. Since you have the ability to use a professional level of English I'd like to request you to point out more faults/improvable language, as you find. Meanwhile. we'll try to improve the prose status. Please review the article once again after a few days.
Regarding comprehensiveness, IMO the article is fine. We'll try to find out more info that may be added.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Shshshsh I'm sorry, but it seems you do not know what an FA is beyond its attributes. Perhaps relook at the link you have given and read what is above the attributes. The prose is not brilliant because it generally (sometimes on rarer occasions, other times more frequently) is vague and unprofessional for the standards of a FA. This is why I time and time emphasize that editors who wish for an article to be an FA, should try to look through other FAs, to have a feel for what to expect (even though there are occasions where certain other FAs get through when they shouldn't, which is also the case with GAs). But usually, a peer-review sorts a lot of these issues out instead of being stuck here.
Reply to Dwaipayanc Thanks. As I have stated even before I began the GA review, I am of the opinion that this article has the potential, but the gap between a GA and FA is relatively large. As with many GA reviews I conduct, I indirectly ask editors to begin satisfying FA criteria to make the job seem slightly less tiring when they are ready to nominate FA. There is an issue with references - although I noted that they were satisfactory for the purposes of a GA, whether they are for an FA (Wikipedia's best work), is another concern I have. I don't know if you should have worked towards shortening the lead, as the previous introduction was apt as I noted somewhere (probably in the GA review). The reviews section of the article also is rather disorganized in comparison to the reviews you might see in FA cinema articles, don't you think? Comprehensiveness I still have doubts over. I will have a look again after a couple of days or so, as you have requested.
Prior to nominating any other articles for FA status, please ensure that such candidates are peer-reviewed. This often eliminates a lot of the trivial issues, and again, helps in addressing some of the FA criteria, without having to go through some of the more basic issues including references/referencing, and images, and you may even find more to write on. While a peer-review isn't essential, it means you wouldn't have to put an excessive amount of work in a limited span of time and the issues are dealt in a much more detailed way. If no one responds to a peer-review request and it is erroneously archived as being completed, it wouldn't be a bad idea to try to find and request editors who have previously peer-reviewed other articles, to do yours. Still, it is encouraging to see your enthusiasm in improving the article - I wish you all the best in meeting this end. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Prose definitely not up to snuff. I've spent a little time on it just now, and some of it is improved, but the entire plot summary section is a thicket I don't want to tackle by myself. Relata refero (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Ncmvocalist - I definitely agree that the prose is not brilliant. But please relook my message to you, and you will see that I just asked for examples. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 13:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - entirely based on prose issues, for example:
  • Mixes American English spellings ("traveler", "traveling", "rumors") with Commonwealth English ones ("criticise", "rancour", "analyse"). Should all be in Commonwealth English, India's official variant.
  • Inconsistency of italics: Mr. and Mrs. Iyer' should be italicised for the title (it isn't always) and in roman for the character names (they aren't alwas).
  • Dashes. The choice is spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes. This uses spaced emdashes.
  • Ellipses. Usage needs checking against MoS.
  • Some strange phrasings. Example: "A detailed review by The Hindu analysed that".
  • Comment: missing definite articles ("the"). It's common to drop these in Indian English but not in standard English. I don't have strong views on this either way.
  • Needs a close copy-edit by an univolved editor.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 06:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to ROGER DAVIES
Thanks for the excellent review and pointing out the mistakes.
  • American English has been removed, as far as I could do. There may be some instances of American English still left. Those will be removed as further checks are done.
  • Italics use has been made consistent.
  • Dashes. emdashes without space, or, endashes with space (in the "Cast" section) has now been used properly.
  • Ellipses. Here I had some trouble understanding the MoS. Tried my best. Please have a look at the Review section. In case you see some faults, please let us know.
  • Some strange phasing. Yes, there may be some strange phasing, as the main authors are not native speakers of English. Please let us know in case you see more of such strangeness.
  • missing "the". Hmmm, have tried some. As you have noted, it's common to drop that in Indian English; so, there may still be many instances. I hope it won't amount to major objection.
  • Close copyedit by uninvolved editor. Relata refaro has done wonderful job. Hope to rope in some others, too.
Thanks once again for the detailed review. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this. I'll wait until copy-editing issues have been fully addressed before re-visiting my opposition. Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolved criterion three issues ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support. A very good article on a very important Indian film. It looks like the more serious prose concerns have already been addressed. The fair use concerns are not fair comparing this to other comparable movie articles, let's not be paranoid. You can't replace these images with free images because they don't exist (unless you can convince the movie companies to release them, good luck). NTK (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The criteria are clear - just because another article has overlooked it, does not mean that all articles can overlook it. If there is a valid criteria based concern, and it has been raised here, then it needs to be addressed. If it isn't (based on your reasoning or the like), then your 'vote' would be disregarded. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
NTK, please read WP:NFCC. Replaceability is one of eleven checks for Fair Use, all of which must be satisfied. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks NTK for your support Mspraveen (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware of the criteria for fair use. Two low-res images of promotional material and two very low-res screenshots within an exposition of the film are not even close to exceeding fair use. It is unfortunate that your objections led to removal of helpful fair use images where no free alternative exists for the subject matter. I agree with the policy of not using fair use images where free ones exist, but this is not such a case. NTK (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support. As the prime contributor, I'd strongly support the article now with the vast amount of prose improvements. I've further ensured comprehensiveness to the article. I don't deny that there can be further additions later just as there are/would be for present FAs, but the article has extensive coverage. Along with Dwaipayanc, I'd be more than happy to address any further concerns. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The reference formatting needs work (News India-Times, Times of India, and The Hindu should be in italics). There are a lot of redundant interwiki links (English, Tamil, Brahmin, Muslim). Most importantly, though, this article has major copyedit issues. Just in the lead and the first sentence of the body, I've found the following:

  • "Zakir Hussain, an Indian tabla maestro composed the background score and music for the film" - add comma after maestro
  • "The film features Aparna Sen's daughter, Konkona Sen Sharma (as Meenakshi Iyer) and Rahul Bose (as Raja Chowdhury) in the lead roles." - add comma after Iyer)
  • "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer premiered at the Locarno International Film Festival, Switzerland" - ...Film Festival in Switzerland
  • "The film opened to the Indian audiences on July 19, 2002." - to Indian audiences
  • "and won several national and international awards, such as Golden Maile award at the Hawaii International Film Festival and Nargis Dutt Award for Best Feature Film on National Integration in India." - and won several national and international awards, including the Golden Maile award...and the Nargis Dutt award
  • "The film begins with an audio-visual collage of news reports of contemporary wars and terrorism." - no reason for awkward of..of; change second to on
  • "Reports of major incidents from the September 11, 2001 attacks, murder of Daniel Pearl, Iraq War to the 2002 Gujarat violence and terrorism in India flashes across the screen." - Reports of major incidents from the September 11, 2001 attacks, the murder of Daniel Pearl, the Iraq war, the 2002 Gujarat violence and terrorism in India flash across the screen.

This article needs exhaustive copyediting. Maralia (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review. Well, I have addressed all your above samples. Please tell us about other points as well. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 07:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Maralia for the review, and thank you Shshshsh for the rapid response. However, I understand from Maralia's review that merely correcting the highlighted points won't be enough, right? We are trying to get a fresh pair of eyes for exhaustive copyedit. And, Maralia, if you have time, we'd like to request you also to do as much copyedit as possible. Thanks a lot for the scrutiny. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Update Reference formatting done (all newspaper sources and website sources are in italics; all available publication dates mentioned). Excessive interwiki links reduced (have retained "Iyer" and some other not-so-global terms a few times, so that the reader does not have to go up to find the link while reading a particular section). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't commit the time for an exhaustive copyedit right now; there are nearly 50 FACs open and reviewers are scarce. To be frank, I personally would not have passed this article at GA due to basic grammar and punctuation concerns. I can see that a lot of work has been put into it, and I really appreciate the constructive manner in which you're all taking criticism, but given that it's been written by non-native English speakers, it would really be wise to take advantage of all the review processes available. Highly suggest putting it through a peer review at WP:FILMREV, and applying to WP:LOCE for a copyedit. Best of luck! Maralia (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Ealdgyth
  • Once again, the big IMDb debate :) Per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, "IMDb can be considered an acceptable source for things such as release dates, technical specs, credits, and anything else of this nature." In this article, IMDb has been used for such information only (the production company, and the rating for teh film in Germany). So, I'd like to request teh reviewers to consider its reliabilty in this perspective. If it is not acceptable in this case, it will be removed.
Thanks for educating me. (All of my work is either on horses or with English medieval bishops and history, so you can see that the IMD isn't exactly something I use a lot...) Ealdgyth | Talk 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • thecia.com.au—replaced.
  • mybindi.com—This is a website on South Asian community, headquarterd in Toronto. This site is not very popular though (Alexa entry). An interview of Aparna Sen in this site has been used as source. The question is, it is an interview of the director in a lesser-known website. It's not a review or commentary or blog. So cannot this interview be regarded as acceptable source?
I didn't have an issue with the review, I thought (and my brain my be misremembering so feel free to thap me with a trout) that mybindi was used for something else. Can't see it now though. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • ibosnetwork, and, italkis—Will reply/replace.
  • Footnote duplication—fixed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it again, and I'm afraid my view hasn't changed. I do acknowledge that there has been significant improvement though, but still not enough. In any event, please (somehow) peer-review articles before bringing it here as an FAC in the future. Still, I wish the involved editors good luck with improving the article. Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You say, "but still not enough", and that's fine, we can keep working. You are already talking about the next FAC, and in doing so, you automatically invalidate the chance to reach a FA in this FAC. I'm not the editor of this article, but I definitely believe in its potential, and much of work has gone into it. I believe, with some detailed comments of bad prose and problems, it can reach FA status here in this very FAC. My request is thus, could you pease give some additional examples? it will help us. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 06:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
...much of this would've/should've been resolved had it been peer-reviewed, and perhaps, this would've been the FAC in which it achieved FA status. However, this is not the case, and the criteria upon which the article failed cannot be satisfied overnight, as I noted earlier. With the question-mark existing over comprehensiveness, and prose still in need of copy-editing, like I said, it needs to be peer-reviewed and copy-edited. Bring it back after this, ensuring that it is closer to the FA standard, and especially myself among other editors would gladly agree to awarding the article the FA grade for reaching its potential, and representing Wikipedia's (and WikiProject India's) best work. For these reasons, even after reviewing my decision to oppose, my objection has not changed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I took a look, and unfortunately, I dont think the prose is great. It really needs to be improved before it can get close to FA status. For one, a lot of the paragraphs seem to be badly organized, in that the sentences within them seem out of place or disjointed. Then, there are tiny uses of adjectives or places which earn a risk of being construed as POV. More important than teh POV is that these sentences lack information. Also, more background information about the shooting and the creation of the movie could be added. Overall, prose, prose, prose. T/@Sniperz11editssign 06:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Also, more background information about the shooting and the creation of the movie could be added" - prose and comprehensiveness - the two criteria upon which I based my objection. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - as per above discussion, it would be pertinent to note that WP:CIMDB was rejected (as the page itself says), and a quick perusal of the talk page will show that the consensus was that it generally was not to be regarded as a reliable source in any regard, due to its content submission processes. As for the prose issues, I would strongly suggest having a long look at this page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 00:10, 12 March 2008.

[edit] Joey Barton

I believe this article is now up to FA status; it is well-referenced, comprehensive and as far as I can see meets all the required criteria. It has already been through a Peer Review and been worked on by copyeditors. Sir-Nobby (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Yeah, per the link above, check for dead links, you've got at least five right now.
  • Four short paragraphs in lead should be more like three fatter paragraphs.
  • Infobox has no year information for his time at Everton. Any chance of finding some?
  • "attended football matches as a supporter" - sounds a little too formal...
  • "various sports" - such as?
  • "YTS" expand the first time it's used for non-expert readers.
  • "His first reserve team appearance" - against whom? Any idea how it went?
  • under-17 and under 19 - consistent hyphenation needed.
  • "He was promoted to the first-team squad in the 2002–03 season." - do you have a citation for this?
  • " had his shirt not gone missing after leaving it on the substitutes bench at half-time." - this sounds bizarre! So he couldn't play in a plain shirt? What prevented him?
  • "with a run of seven consecutive starts." - citation?
  • "Barton left the City of Manchester Stadium in anger on April 17, after not being named in the team to play Southampton.[21] He completed the season ..." - these sentences don't make for good prose, just feels like a collection of facts in a paragraph at the moment.
  • "paid £120,000" - was this also a record (since the last fine, 60,000 was too)...?
  • Sporting Chance is for men and women.
  • Expand FA on its first use.
  • "publicly showed his disapproval." - how?
  • [73][75] could be moved to the end of the sentence.
  • Are five external links, including one to an unofficial fansite, really necessary?

Hope these are of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to comments

  • Replaced all dead links.
  • Changed lead to 3 paragraphs.
  • It seems impossible to find any year information for his time at the Everton Academy.
  • Changed to "Barton went to football matches as a supporter".
  • The link just says he represented his school at eight different sports, can't find any information on what sports they were specifically.
  • No further info on his first reserve appearance.
  • Now has consistent hyphenation.
  • I don't think players can play in plain shirts. It certainly is bizarre, but that's what happened.
  • Changed to "Barton left the City of Manchester Stadium in anger on April 17, after not being named in the team to play Southampton.[21] However he featured regularly in the 2003–04 season, which he completed with 39 appearances and one goal", so the two sentences link.
  • I've just removed the word "record" altogether, regarding the fines. Maybe at the time it was a club record but the link doesn't fully explain. Changed Sporting Chance so it's now described as for both men and women.
  • Expanded FA and YTS to "Football Association" and "Youth Training Scheme" respectively. *Changed to "publicly stated his disapproval".
  • Moved references 73 and 75 to end of sentence.
  • Removed two external links - the unofficial fansite and the premierleague profile. Sir-Nobby (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Neutral Support - Well-referenced, can you add the bibliography? And the section about the career is only a label... MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The grammar needs attention and I have made some suggestions. [33]. Also, when I read the article I felt the neutral point of view was allowed to slip with the use of words like "bizzare" and "even". I would also like to know "After impressing" - whom, and what is wrong with driving a car at 2.00 a.m.? I reserve my vote for now.--GrahamColmTalk 16:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestions. Would "unusual" be a better word to use than bizarre? He impressed Kevin Keegan (the manager at the time) enough for him to offer Barton a new contract at the club. The article doesn't suggest there's anything wrong with driving a car a 2.00 am, (although as a professional athlete he'd probably be expected to be resting at that time) but it's not unusual for the time of incidents such as these to be stated. It's also additional information. Sir-Nobby (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, sorry. This is a good article but it's not at FA standard yet. The prose needs some work, (it's often tabloid-like and non-encyclopedic), and I'm still concerned about the neutral point of view. For example " who had provoked Barton by verbally abusing him and kicking his shin" (my italics). As it stands, I would not like to see the article on the main page.--GrahamColmTalk 12:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of these questions are due to my ignorance of English football websites, so please excuse my ignorance! Ealdgyth | Talk 20:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well I'm pretty sure 4 the game, square football, soccer base, the guardian, premier league and sky sports are all reliable sources. Buc (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, great start but prose doesn't meet 1a. There are lots of grammatical issues and some jargon problems. I've called out some examples below, but the whole article needs a copyedit.
    • Jargon alert: "His appearances in the senior side gradually increased over the following five years and he made more than 150 for the club." What does senior side mean? Likewise, "made more than 150"? Write to a general audience, not a football audience.
    • Ditto for "club level". I'm assuming that youth, senior, and club are different levels of competitive play, but please at least wikilink them for the ignorant masses.
    • "...including a fight with teammate Ousmane Dabo that caused the end of his City career." Whose career? Barton's or Dabo's?
    • "When Barry Poynton, an ex-Everton scout, heard that his former club had released Barton, he invited him to trial at Manchester City." He.. him.. who?
    • Many sentences begin with "he" or "his", many times concurrently.
    • Jargon alert: "Over the next two years, he successfully made the transition from the under-19s to regular reserve football."
    • "His first senior goal came two weeks later in a 0–2 win..." I have seen this in other football articles. Do you always give scores like this in the UK? I mean, in the states, "your" score is always given first. So you would say you won 2-0 or lost 0-2.
    • Lots of stylistic but ungrammatical comma use - do not use commas to separate clauses that don't stand on their own.
Many more exist - please get a thorough copyedit. --Laser brain (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:10, 12 March 2008.

[edit] Heuschrecke 10

Other types of review that review against the FA Criteria : 1, 2, 3, 4.
Self-Nom: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it fits all of the criteria and it is overall a very good article. ~ Dreamy § 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Well written, well cited, and therefore well within FA required parameters. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Well written, but the article is composet to two-long-labels and it needs more references. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: article has serious issues, especially criterion 1A and 1C
    • Article is extremely disorganized, which greatly impairs readability. Article talks about specifications (i.e. “Development” section really only discusses turret), then competition, then background (Sd.Kfz.165/1), then back to specifications. A logical, more-or-less chronological structure should be utilized (e.g. Background, Development, Specifications, etc).
      • Done
        • I've reorganized it to a more logical flow (e.g. what came first, why was it developed, what was developed, etc.) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Summary style: why is there a whole section on weight? How is the weight of other vehicles pertinent to discussion of the H10? Why is the weight of the H10 important to know?
      • Changed to Sub-Section, I thought it pertinent to mention something about the differences in weight from other countries' versions of self-propelled artillery. ~ Dreamy § 22:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Unless the weight had documented implications on design, usability, etc., I suppose I don’t see the relevance of such detail. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • German terms should be consistently italicized (e.g. Geschutzwagen). Also, regarding German terms, this vehicle should probably not be refered to as a tank. A tank, in my understanding of the English phrase, would be a vehicle with the PzKfW designation.
      • Done
    • Jargon: German abbreviations get complex and should be elaborated upon for English readers (e.g. leFH = leichte Feldhaubitze = Light field howitzer, Sd.Kfz. = Sonderkraftfahrzeug = Special purpose vehicle). I did this partially for leFH in the GA, but cleanup is needed (e.g. redundant definition in Turret and Sd.Kfz.165/1 Variant sections).
      • Done, I think. ~ Dreamy § 23:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Eh, not what I had in mind. Just want to explain the abbreviation once in full detail (see precursor section), so we can use the more convenient abbreviations later on. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Incorrect German: “weapon-carriers, or waffenträgers [sic]”, nouns are always capitalized and Waffenträger does not add an "s" to become plural.
      • Done
        • I'll double-check this, too, once rewrites/CE has been completed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Better context is needed for Guderian. His name is just “thrown out there” (not even given first name). Use of “innovative” is a peacock term.
      • I used him as an example fore someone that wanted these to go forward, regardless of use of materials. I gave his first name, and removed the word “innovative”. ~ Dreamy § 23:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Content is now clear, but I’m concerned about the Guderian statement. According to another source (Perret, Bryan (1999). Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank 1936-1945. Osprey Publishing, p. 12 ISBN 1855328437), “Guderian thought they were interesting, but hardly worth the disruption of tank production”. Did he support these or not? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I’m concerned about phrasing such as “perfect replacement”, “making it great for artillery and attached it was a good equivalent of the already proven Panzer IV tank” and “making it a good ammunition-carrier”. Even if these “goods” and “greats” are the wording used in the source, it seems unnecessary to the discussion (i.e. needless NPOV violation) and highly speculative, given that these did not advance beyond prototypes. These could have been horrible as artillery, for all we know.
      • Done for where I could, without removing whole sentences, not POV there anymore, I believe. ~ Dreamy § 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Missing information: e.g. why was the H10 production so disruptive, why did Guderian want to keep them?
      • It was disruptive because of the use of materials, that was already written in there. I have clarified it, I think. ~ Dreamy § 00:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Grammar issues, e.g. “interested was Guderian a military theorist” should be “interested was Guderian, a military theorist”
    • Some sources lack publisher and author information.
      • Which ones? ~ Dreamy § 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
        • All but number one. Every last one of them, actually ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Questionable sources (per WP:V/WP:RS), http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/, http://afvdb.50megs.com/, http://www.onwar.com/, http://ww2armor.jexiste.fr/
    • I know we’ve been over the legitimacy of the images before, but I won’t be totally comfortable with them until the all the steps at WP:COPYREQ have been taken.
      • I am trying to find all of this, please be patient. ~ Dreamy § 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I suspect I have more concerns, too, but these will give you a start. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the moment. I agree with ЭLСОВВОLД on most points. I am sorry I didn't get round to it at the A-Class review. The prose is a bit choppy in places with a copyedit really needed. I would only copyedit it though once the chronology is sorted out. It jumps around a bit and needs specific sections that don't wander out. I also wonder how comprehensive it is, the article seems quite short, though I am no expert on tanks. If others say it is comprehensive then it is. There are also reference issues with author and publisher needing to be listed. So, good work, just needs quite a bit of refining to be FA. Woody (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you like to copy-edit it now? I have done a lot, I think. ~ Dreamy § 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I have given it a copyedit, you need to check the facts. There was a lot of redundancy in places, especially the cancellation section. You need to make sure that all of the weights in the weight section use {{convert}} (or do it manually). I also agree with Elcobbala that there are a few too many abbreviations in there.
      • I have removed most of the see also section as it just contained duplicate links. I will give it another run-through tommorrow. Woody (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Nicely written, and well cited. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mostly sourcing issues:
    • Concur with elcobbola that the Reference section needs serious attention - cannot support in its current condition.
    • General citation comment - unless a statement is likely to be challenged, it really does not require more than one citation. Statements in the lead should not require citations unless they are really controversial, because the information should be repeated and cited later in the article. The first sentence has four citations!
    • The organization is a little confusing.. wouldn't Precursor be part of History?
    • "The design phase of the Heuschrecke began in 1942, when Krupp began designing..." Redundant use of "design".
    • Avoid beginning sentences with the word "this" referring to a previous concept: "This was because it possessed thicker armour..." Restate the concept you are talking about.
    • "The Heuschrecke consisted of a welded steel hull, with a width ranging from 10 to 25 millimeters..." Surely you mean thickness?
    • Again, are four citations necessary for the tank weighing 23 tonnes? Unless this is the most hotly contested topic since global warming, one will suffice.
    • I'm unclear how the Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig "competed" with the Krupp.. were they competing for the government contract?
    • In the caption of Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig photo, you call it a Heuschrecke 10. However, the whole setup of this article indicates that the Krupp tank was the Heuschrecke 10, like a model name. Does this mean that Heuschrecke 10 actually refers to a class of tank? If so, shouldn't the article be more balanced in its coverage? The whole thing is about the Krupp design with the Alkett/Rhinemetall-Borsig mentioned at the bottom. --Laser brain (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:26, 11 March 2008.

[edit] I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

I'm nominating this article for featured article because although it's only been rated as B so far, I think the editing I've done makes it at least a consideration for FA-status. It's short, but I believe it's a good example of an article about a novel. I would love to see this article reach FA before Maya Angelou's 80th birthday on April 4, and even have it placed on the main page, as a way for the Wikipedia community to honor such a great person. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It's a decent start, but I think the article needs to be significantly expanded. The major sections (plot summary, literary significance, and criticism) need to be expanded. A "critical reception" (you can merge lit significance into this section) also needs to be created. I recommend you take a look at some other literature FAs for an idea on subject comprehensiveness. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 07:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree completely with Nishkid64's suggestions. This book is one of my favorites and I remember doing a Peer Review for this article a while back. It has improved from where it was but it's still not comprehensive enough for a Featured Article. There are statements that are in the lead article that are not mentioned in the body (violation of WP:LEAD), the "Criticism" section is somewhat skimpy, and I would love to see something on the book's narrative style and literary technique; there's a lot to play with here. I would suggest removing this nomination and trying for Good Article status before setting your sights so high. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 13:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - but it's very short. I don't know if it's a famous book, can you enlarge it? MOJSKA 666 (msg) 13:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • An article must be comprehensive to meet FAC criterion #1b. If the article is short, then it fails this part of the criteria. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That is actually not true Nishkid64 - whether an article is short or long is irrelevant when it comes to 1b. If an article is short but addresses all areas of the topic in a comprehensive manner, then it actually meets 1b. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, wrong choice of words. This article is short but does not cover all areas of the topic, so it not comprehensive. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Nishkid64 and Maria. This article is not yet comprehensive; the sections it does include need to be expanded by doing further research and new sections, for example on "writing style" and "genre", need to be added. The article does not yet "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" (criteria 1c). I quickly checked the MLA database and found 56 listings for I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings alone (not including all of the work on Angelou more generally that will include information on this book). This article also uses CliffsNotes, which is not a reliable source. Here are a few literature FAs to look at that might provide some guidance: Le Père Goriot, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. I look forward to reading this article again when it has been revised and expanded! Awadewit | talk 14:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I also agree with Nishkid. This needs expansion. Wrad (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This article is comprehensive enough. Wikipedia is not a literary review, and a featured article does not need to be in final form. It covers all aspects needed for an encyclopedia entry and it is in fine form. NTK (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Without a comprehensive summary of information related to the subject, this article is not comprehensive. Wikipedia is not strictly a literary review, but if it is dealing with a literary work, it should cover scholars' literary analysis of it in order to reach FA. It simply isn't comprehensive otherwise. Wrad (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No, it is not in "fine form", I'm afraid. The article isn't in terrible shape, true, but to say that it is "comprehensive enough" for Featured Article status when it does not even go into detail about its genre or narrative style is dead wrong. The information is available, it just needs to be researched and written. NTK, I strongly suggest that you rethink your ideas about comprehensibility in regards to this article. María (habla conmigo) 00:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Alright, I've rethought it given these specific deficiencies you point out I withdraw my support. Narrative style and genre are pretty important, and it is rather uneven given that it does include trivia like a Simpsons reference. I don't think that discussion of scholarly analysis is needed, but more on substance as opposed to mere pop culture references is important. NTK (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think the editors who are remarking on this article can assist you in making the article better. I agree with previous editors who have opposed on the grounds of lack of information about genre and style. The book made a significant impact on later 20th century and African American literature, and so far the article seems well-written. However, in order to do the subject justice, it deserves more information. An exhaustive search on everything related to the book is in order. However, if you enjoy the book, that should be fun. Time consuming, but fun. Good luck with it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:35, 10 March 2008.

[edit] Characters of StarCraft

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all the Featured Article criteria. FightingStreet (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

According to articlestats and the article talk page, S@bre and The Clawed One are by a long mile the significantly principle editors of this article; are they aware it has been submitted to FAC, do they agree it's ready, and do they agree that it should be submitted to featured articles rather than featured lists? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's an article, not a list. See Characters of Final Fantasy VIII for an article with roughly the same layout. And I did post a message on The Clawed One's talk page as his name appears on the Template:Maintained of the article's talk page. FightingStreet (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a list. The most recent VG characters article of featured status is List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow (a featured list), which had its nomination failed because it wasn't an article and was subsequently sent to WP:FLC. I thought this was already decided upon. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts both passed FAC without trouble, and the nomination of Castlevania: Sorrow apparently didn't affect them (one could easily have launched FA reviews). I disagree with you that it was "decided upon": on the contrary, users acknowledge that the definition of a "list" is still pretty blurry (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#FL Category). Until "list" is clearly defined, this probably shouldn't affect this nomination. FightingStreet (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The nomination for List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow didn't affect them because the discussion at WT:FAC took place after both Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts had already passed FAC. I find having a featured article nomination failed on the grounds that the article was actually a list to be fairly authoritative. Consistency is important here - having articles with practically the exact same structure and going through different processes that depend on an arbitrary decision by one user is not a good thing. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks really good, I've wondered why they haven't nominated it already! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - great read, looks great. Although I think the links to subsections in the lead should go away.Samuel Sol (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: As one of the principle authors of the article, I've got to say that this may be a bit early. I'd imagine that the article's quality may decrease significantly after the release of SC2 until that the information can be properly and encyclopedically implemented, and I was also hoping to give a thorough copyedit before submitting to FA as well - the review for good article for Sarah Kerrigan made me think that the wording in this article may need tweaking for a bit less of an in-universe style and better context before FA. Oh, and we've been treating it as an article, not a list. Hell, we were following Deckiller's advice and using the featured article Characters of Final Fantasy VIII as our exemplar. However, if consensus here goes that this should be promoted in its current state, that's fine by me: I'll address my own personal concerns with the article whether it becomes an FA or remains GA.

By the way, give me a little while to sort out the external links in the references. I'm a little hard up on time for major editting to articles at the moment. That, and my local BT transceiver thingy has been down for over 24 hours, meaning I have no Internet connection at home at the moment - with luck it should be up again by the time I get home, but if it isn't, my ability to address any concerns in this FAC are obviously severly limited. -- Sabre (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral - good, but I don't like the graphic: little images without thumbs, many bolds... MOJSKA 666 (msg) 13:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - The writing is fine, but the images are too small and there are around 40 dead links. --Slicedpineapple (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please fix all 30 or so references from sclegacy.com. The current links show up as 404 errors. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The dead links are an obvious issue, as is the grammar and timeliness (I suggest waiting for Starcraft 2 to come out.) However I believe this article can stand as an article, not a list, as pointed out earlier. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • Oppose Prose and external links issue highlighted above. Others have addressed the latter, so here are some examples of where the writing needs improvement:
    • "The universe also contains a whole host of minor characters, but these characters are of much lesser significance within isolated areas of the general story." "Lesser significance" conflicts with the next phrase: "isolated areas". I'm guessing what is meant here either "are of much lesser significance in the general story" or "are significant only within isolated areas of the general story."
    • "However, as Phinney was not involved in StarCraft: Brood War; Chris Metzen alone is credited for the development of the plot in the expansion." Why "however"? Seems pretty unnecessary, since readers will be searching for a contradiction and won't find one. Also, is there a reason why it's "is credited"? Is there doubt about this? Finally, spot the wrong punctuation mark.
    • "Despite the series' success globally, particularly in South Korea, Blizzard Entertainment has not made any major comments regarding the development of the characters and the storyline of the StarCraft series." Again, the sentence sets up a contradiction, but none is made. Why would global success (by the way, "series' global success" is to my ear more elegant than "series' success globally", especially to break up the "s" sounds) necessarily imply the latter part of the sentence? Further, spot the ambiguity concerning "development of". Finally, what are "major" comments? Are you sure you can be so definitive in that Blizzard not made any major comments? Or does more research need to be done for this section?
    • "...interviews with the two of the voice actors..." "the two"?
    • "Clotworthy also stated how the concept art for the game - usually used for the visual development of characters and locales in games - was used by him in order to develop the personality of his character." Link concept art, rid redundancies, and use active voice to shorten this to: "Clotworth used the game's concept art to help develop his character's personality." Note that em dashes should be used, not hyphens, for parenthetical clauses.
    • "It is also implied by some of the authors of the novels that the development of the characters in their books was also influenced by Metzen[6][7] as well as Andy Chambers and Evelyn Fredericksen. This is particularly notable for characters later appearing in the games, such as Valerian Mengsk." Confusing. Who are Andy and Evelyn? Explain what "influenced by" means. "Later" appearing? For the books, are these new characters, or ones already in the game? The passive voice (is/was...by) and the repeated (and unnecessary) use of "also/as well as" mar the first sentence. BuddingJournalist 02:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, it looks as if Starcraft Legacy's site was been down only recently (maybe it's a temporary issue?). Google's cache shows that it was able to crawl it on March 7. BuddingJournalist 02:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I'm working on the images, aiming to replace the thumbnails with one or two screenshots of multiple characters, and I'll get to work on the issues highlighted above as soon as possible, which unfortunately won't be until next Thursday when I have a new modem delivered to replace my previous one that just fried itself - until then I'll be unable to make any substantial edits: I can't do it from my college computer. As for the issue of SC Legacy, when boiled down, it is essentially a fansite, but its news content is verifiable as it usually sources it. The other references are for the story side of things, and they're directly transcibed from the game and as such its far more convienient than quoting entire conversations in the reference template itself to make a point on the plot. The references are dead here because the urls moved and I've yet to update them. Personally, based on the extensive issues above and my current inability to get online at my home computer, I'd prefer to have this nomination withdrawn until I am in a position to address concerns with the article, as well as my own personal concerns that I raised above. -- Sabre (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:35, 10 March 2008.

[edit] The Corrs

Self-Nominator - I am nominated the article for FA status because through the peer review of User:Dihydrogen Monoxide, I've expanded the article significantly - covering many aspects to this topic. This article has grown significantly since is GA run and I feel it meets the WP:FAC criteria. σмgнgσмg(talk) 13:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose support for now. Please see Tony's guide to reducing redundancy [34], and the few example edits that I have made. Also, please check for consistency, for example, at the top of the article we read that their mother is a homemaker, at the bottom we read that (sadly) she has died. Also, the Corrs were not the Corrs when they were teenagers; they were the children.--GrahamColmTalk 16:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I still think the general quality of the prose needs improving.--GrahamColmTalk 11:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've copy-edited the article and have followed the criterion aided by [guide]. Please take a look and see what still needs improving. σмgнgσмg(talk) 23:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to see more expansion about their "Musical style", especially since their style changed with different albums, and also their "Musical Influences". These are essential for any article about an artist, more for an FA. RaNdOm26 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded the article based on your recommendations. I created a new section on their musical style and influences. σмgнgσмg(talk) 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Neutral per issues below/prose - as per my GA review. One thing I've noticed in a skim through the article is that the "sources" section should probably go above "footnotes", that seems to have precedent. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 22:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Addressed, thanks for your support! σмgнgσмg(talk) 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The first sentence should include as general a genre as is possible; "pop group" or "folk rock group" will do here. indopug (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose... all done now. σмgнgσмg(talk) 09:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
THe Fair-use rationale for Image:Corrs-mbe.jpg is wrong (it goes on about their parents.) indopug (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, I copied the template from the previous picture. Sorry about that. σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Object Seems rather skimpy on text. The lead has 8 refs, the lead if a true summary of the body, will need few if any refs and the refs would be in the body. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you mean, can you please elaborate so I may improve on it? Cheers, σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Object. There are seven refs in the lead. A good lead won't have all that detail and instead will be a summary of the body, where the details and their refs should be. Also, the Awards section is only 1-2 sentences long. It should be more of a summary of the separate list.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment: Sumoeagle has already !voted on this nom further up. Chwech 16:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Commment Seems not a lot of change. Still 5 refs in lead (borderline IMHO) and the awards section is not significantly changed. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I can see what you're saying, so I've relocated the last 2 sources to 2006–present section, because the sources weren't necessary. However, in regards to the awards section, as I've explained to Chwech, the information in the article mentions notable awards. The rest are either not notable or they aren't verifiable. That is why the award section is so short. σмgнgσмg(talk) 03:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think this is a reliable source as it seems to get its info from Wikipedia. Epbr123 (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If you felt that was the case, then I'll delete it. σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to find an alternative source for her son's name? Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no need, because the source right after it, Source 75 also mentions her son's name. σмgнgσмg(talk) 05:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine. Epbr123 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments:
  • "Republic of Ireland" in the opening sentence seems unnecessary when the country is referred to as "Ireland" everywhere else.
Done
  • "honorary MBEs": per WP:ENGVAR, in an Ireland-related article, British/Irish English should be used.
Done
  • "Additionally, they were taught...": "additionally" invariably looks dodgy; might be worth rewording and using "also".
Done
  • "While Caroline and Andrea were still attending school, Jim and Sharon had begun playing...": "had begun" should be simply "began".
Done
  • "The band enjoyed success in Ireland until 1994, when the band became known internationally.": no need to repeat "the band"; it also looks like they were unsuccessful in Ireland after 1994, should be reworded.
Not sure about addressing this one, so I just deleted the sentence.
  • "The concert was aimed to raise funds to build...": doesn't read well, should be reworded.
Don't know how to change this sentence. Can anyone volunteer to help me?
See my Edit (GrahamColm on a public PC).--88.16.170.166 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "The album went straight to #1 in the Irish Albums Chart, and has the third highest sales...": you could probably remove "and has the" altogether.
Done
  • "Nevertheless, the album was not as successful as their predecessor albums, where it only managed to reach silver status in the United Kingdom.": remove "where", connect using a semicolon; "only" is a weasel word.
Done
  • "...taking over for Caroline...": should be "filling in for Caroline".
Done
  • "It also includes two songs in Gaelic...": "Gaelic" is ambiguous; use "Irish" instead. The song titles should be "Bríd Óg Ní Mháille" and "Buachaill Ón Éirne"; perhaps poetic licence was used here, but to my knowledge, "Éirne" is not Ireland, it's the river Erne.
Done. By the way, the song says "Buachaill Ón Éirne".
  • "The latter song was released": "song" is redundant, there isn't anything else it could be.
Done.
  • "Borrowed Heaven had returned to the folk rock genre, but placed heavier emphasis on guitars. Home was regarded as a traditional Irish album, where the band covered many traditional Irish songs taken from their mother's songbook. The album had included songs that spanned the history of Irish music, from the 1,000-year-old "Return to Fingal" to the 1982 song "Old Town", written by the late Phil Lynott.": these sentences are almost exact copies of sentences earlier in the article. That looks odd to me.
Done.
  • "The Corrs was awarded an MBE for their philanthropic activities.": "was" should be "were", I think; "an MBE" should be "MBEs", judging by what's written further up.
Done.
  • "The Corrs consists of...": same thing here; is it singular or plural?
Done.
  • "The Corrs have collaborated with several artists, but have had Jason Duffy temporarily joining the band as drummer when Caroline was pregnant.": "have had" should be "had" (see my final comment), "joining" should be "join".
Done.
  • "...but their achievements have only been partially acknowledged by the music industry.": seems a bit POV for me.
Done.
  • "...have been nominated twice for the Meteor Music Awards, in 2005 and 2006.": just "Meteor Music Awards", no need for "the".
Done.
  • In the "Personnel" section (and elsewhere, actually), it switches to the perfect tense and back again, e.g. "had recruited" versus "approached".
Done.

Hope that helps. Good luck. Chwech 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a few more copyedit issues to go. σмgнgσмg(talk) 02:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to weak oppose having copyedited the article: I'm still concerned about the amount of repetition in the article, and whether it's comprehensive. Repeating what's in the lead is obviously not a problem, but the descriptions of the album styles in the main bio are repeated almost word-for-word in the "Musical style and influence" section. It also mentions Jean Corr's place of death and that she was waiting for a lung transplant twice. I echo Sumoeagle's comments below about the awards; there's a long list of awards in the main article, most of which could (and probably should) be mentioned. Chwech 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. So, I've reworked the lead, rather than outlining every album, I've summarised it and placing notable information in the lead. As with the awards section, there isn't much to say because they have only won a few major awards, and the others are either not really notable or they aren't verified by a reliable source. So, what do you suggest I do? σмgнgσмg(talk) 06:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've changed some other bits in the body of the article too, and I think it works better now. I can see what you mean about the awards section: to my eyes (I have no idea, mind) the World Music Awards look fairly major, but apart from that you're right about them not being particularly notable. Switched to support. Chwech 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand, but there is no use putting it in the article if there isn't a source to verify the information. σмgнgσмg(talk) 09:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Many non-reliable sources are used as sources here, and many publishers aren't identified. Did any of the editors supporting this candidacy review sources for reliability? Please locate reviewers familiar with Wiki's WP:V and WP:RS policy to review and assist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a look at some of the sources and fixed them. Some were dead and some were, unfortunately, unreliable. Nevertheless, do you feel that there are still unreliable sources? σмgнgσмg(talk) 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
A very large portion of the article is cited to non-reliable sources. Just a few examples (there are more): http://www.famouswhy.com/submit_article/ http://www.everyhit.com/about.html http://www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608002865/The-Corrs.html http://www.bandbiographies.com/ That's only from the first few, without even checking all of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I've addressed the source issue. Take a look please. σмgнgσмg(talk) 04:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose until properly copy-edited and the references are audited. The keen eye of an unfamiliar word-nerd is required to iron it out and remove the awkward patches and the fluff. Here are random examples from the top:

  • "The Corrs bidding a concert audience farewell in 2005." Change "bidding" to "bid" and you'll have a real sentence, not just a nominal group, and the dot will be consistent with MOS requirements. The change would make it grammatical, too. Pity that the year overhangs.
  • "The Corrs are on hiatus as Sharon, Jim, and Caroline are raising families, while Andrea is pursuing a solo career." —"On hiatus" is very odd. "As" could mean "while" or "because", so disambiguate to save the readers the trouble of going into reverse to do so. The statement on UK/Ireland/Australia and platinum status is inconsistent with the information further down. Add "the Irish ?folk musician" before "John Hughes"; readers shouldn't have to hit links to decipher the general meaning.
  • Do we really need "United Kingdonm" blue-splotched? And "Canadian"? Hello, it's the English-language WP. Same for the United States. Both could be abbreviated.
  • "The following year, The Corrs received a BRIT Award for Best International Band.[31] Subsequently, they performed live on MTV's Unplugged on 5 October 1999 in front of an audience at ..."—Remove "subsequently"? Remove "in front of an audience"?
  • The authority of some of the references looks rather dodgy. Music Remedy at Ref 65, for example: no author specified, starts with attitudinal epithets such as "sensational", and heck, there's an animation in the middle of the text that tells me that Bush's IQ is as high as 125 ... hard to believe, frankly, and no reference for it, so you wonder whether the rest of the text is more reliable. This is unacceptable. Tony (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've addressed the issues raised. Could you please check the article yourself, because I think that there will be the degree of bias within me that believes it meets the featured artice criteria. σмgнgσмg(talk) 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've requested the article to be copy-edited. σмgнgσмg(talk) 04:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • The image in the infobox lacks a source and has been tagged as such.
    • The image Image:Celine-andrea-pavrotti.jpg has got two incompatible licenses.. which is it? If it is copyrighted, it needs a source and a fair use rationale. If it is Creative Commons, it needs a source.
    • The lead is too short - it does not summarize the article well.
    • Albums don't "reach" platinum, they are certified platinum.
    • I think you want "Sources" to go under "Footnotes".
    • A general copyedit is needed for minor issues such as stylistic comma use - however, overall I would not say the prose is compelling per FA criterion 1a. --Laser brain (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, in regards to the image issues, I've addressed them as such. Some of the points raised clashes with other users. Sumoeagle (from above) wanted the lead to be concise and still contained a summary of the article, which I feel does that. You want me to expand it... what should I do?
Secondly, Dihydrogen Monoxide suggested that sources go before footnotes, and you want me to do the opposite, again, can I have a third opinion on this please? Cheers. σмgнgσмg(talk) 04:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The Pavarotti image still needs a fair use rationale. You have the license tag where the rationale should go. Sumoeagle's comments confuse me a bit. I agree that the lead should contain few or no footnotes, since any statements made in the lead should be repeated and cited later in the article. I think that's what they meant. I don't agree that the lead should have been shortened - but it doesn't look like they were suggested that. Regarding the Sources/Footnotes thing, please see WP:LAY. Sources should always go second unless there is a compelling reason to ignore the style guide. --Laser brain (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There are still non-reliable sources like celebrity baby blog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:29, 10 March 2008.

[edit] St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it's a good candidate for featured article status. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose This article will not get by without a lot of hard work. I would not pass it as a Good Article. Only two references for the entire article? It needs more. Gary King (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: unreferenced, short sections. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 13:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not enough references and this link: The Express (weekly newspaper, now discontinued) - is dead. --Slicedpineapple (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Lead way too short. Large sections unreferenced. Short stubby paragraphs give the prose a very choppy feel. Linked years, surely not all of those dates are significant? Heavy numbers of lists. Given the size of the town, it feels lacking in coverage. I didn't even look at the reliabilty of the (very few) sources, or dig into the prose. I suggest as a start a Peer Review, then try for Good Article, before bringing it to FAC. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:05, 9 March 2008.

[edit] Dirty Dancing

This article is already at Good article status, and I've been meaning to nominate it for FA for awhile. The recent sad news about Patrick Swayze reminded me, so I am proceeding with the nomination at this time. I hope it meets with everyone's approval.  :) Elonka 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The plot section is too long, reads a little to much like an ad, and seems to have some unsourced interpretation added in, which goes against WP:OR. The article format needs work, particular the image placements and the cast table (which goes against the Film MOS). Biggest issue would be that whole chunks of the article article are completely unsourced. Only 25 sources, including several in the lead (content not present in the main article)? See WP:LEAD for more on why this generally shouldn't happen. The ELs also need clean out. Side note, I hadn't heard about Swayze. :( Collectonian (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I agree on the External links, and thinned those down considerably. I also did some other copyediting to address the tone issues you mentioned. As for the sources, some paragraphs were drawn from the same source, which is why only the final paragraph would actually have a ref. I've added duplicate refs so that each paragraph is tagged now though. The sources in the lead are necessary, because the information (especially the "goosebump" language) was repeatedly challenged as a personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor, rather than what it is, actual quotes from news sources. The cast list seems clean and neat to me. As for the image placements, I am not sure what you're talking about, could you please be more specific? --Elonka 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The jump scene image is running into the next section, when its section has plenty of room to not need that. The stage version's poster is running into the section above, again for seemingly no reason when its section has plenty of room, and it could also easily be resized if needed. The three bulletted items in the music section have no sources. Some statements from that section have no obvious sources either. Ditto in the stage section and other versions and in legacy. Also, do the tragedies mentioned in the second paragraph actually have any relation to the film at all? Did the film cause Max Cantor to quit acting and where is the source for that? Does the director dying of AIDS have any relation to the film? Ditto Jennifer Stahl. A lot of that seems like stuff to note in the actor's articles, and not anything really related to the movie. The third paragraph is also completely unsourced.
The cast list is not neat in appearance to me, nor does it follow the prescribed format from the Film MOS, which prefers a list format. There also seems be a very heavy reliance on the 4th reference. For this film, I would think other references could confirm much of the same things, or at least back them up. Particularly with the production section. The Ultimate Edition DVD has tons of commentary, interviews, etc yet none of it seems to have been used at all? Collectonian (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The images have been fixed, I removed the cast list section, and am working on adding other references, including for the "Legacy" section. The work in Dirty Dancing really defined the careers of many of the participants, and the "where are they now" is included in many of the sources that provide retrospectives, so it seems appropriate to include a paragraph on it here. You're right that there's heavy reliance on the 4th ref. That's because it was a really good source.  :) As for why there's no mention of information from the Ultimate DVD, it's because I don't have a copy, but I'll see what I can do about locating one. --Elonka 20:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Image:Dirty-dancing-coverx-large.jpg and Image:Dirty-dancing-corner.jpg do not meet WP:NFCC criteria 10c - the fair-use rationales do not mention the article the images are used in. The fair-use rationales present in the image do not have the all the neccesary components as specified in Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Guest9999 (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Issue dealt with. Guest9999 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and fixed.  :) --Elonka 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose In agreement with Collectonian. The legacy section strays too far from the movie. Both Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze found themselves heavily typecast, with the latter being parodied in mainstream media well into the 2000s. This surely needs to be referenced and examples should be provided. Plot section still drags on too long & the production section indulges in excessive and trivial details. The reception reads too much like a laundry list - maybe move some of it to the notes section. In fact, the entire article is simply a bit too long - could be reduced and tightened which I think would improve it significantly. This : Many people list the film as one of their all-time favorites, and it proved popular across all types of social demographics, but especially among women. needs to be sourced generally and the claim about popularity among women substantiated by a slightly more reasonable source. Otherwise, the claim should be reduced to conform to the limitations of the London poll. Eusebeus (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral.: As a fan of Dirty Dancing, I really enjoyed reading this. However, I felt some of the staements were too 'personal' to the author. Eusebeus quotes a good example above: Both Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze found themselves heavily typecast, with the latter being parodied in mainstream media well into the 2000s.--Slicedpineapple (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The plot section needs a rewrite to address all the original research. Baby is the socially conscious member of the family, Johnny is by all standards a bad-boy rebel, the snobby waiter, tempers flare and sparks fly between the two of them, Baby's selfless act, the film's most famous line, her parents see her for the first time as more than their innocent teenage daughter, exciting dance sequence, snobby upper-class patrons, and all other instances where the feelings of the characters are attempted to be summarized. As a rule of thumb, any adjective should either be omitted or sourced. The rest of the article was an interesting and enjoyable read, but it felt at times too personally invested (WP:NPOV). – sgeureka t•c 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • How would you recommend this be addressed? The terms are not OR, as they are exactly the way that the plot tends to be described in major sources, such as the "bad-boy rebel", it's an "ugly duckling" tale, etc. Should I include sources in the plot section itself? I can't recall seeing that done, but I can definitely do that if it helps. --Elonka 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Pure plot does not need references, however as Sgeureka note's this article's plot doesn't just tell the plot, but includes interpretation and NPOV. The plot should probably be cut down to pure plot, and such descriptions left to the review section with proper sourcing. Collectonian (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • There are three main ways to address this: Either find a highly regarded reliable source and write Baby is the socially conscious member of the family<ref>John Doe of the New York Times</ref>, find a direct or semi-direct quote and write her parents see her for the first time as more than their innocent teenage daughter<ref>Jake: "Wow, you aren't as innocent as I always believed you to be."<ref>, or just remove Baby's selfless act and let the reader come to the same conclusion because of the previous sentences. To make clear what I meant with "personally invested" tone - imagine you are a viewer who saw no chemistry whatsoever between Baby and Johnny. I.e. make clear that only the producers and some of the reviewers saw this chemistry and don't write that as if it is set in stone. This would help WP:Neutral point of view a lot. But my main issue is with the tone of the plot section. – sgeureka t•c 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Poorly written and (in terms of the requirement for professional formatting), a poor approach to linking. Needs a proper clean-up, preferably by someone unfamiliar with the article. Here are random examples from the top.

  • MOS breach in ...movie history." (Dot position)
  • MOS breach in space after "$US". In any case, MOS says "US" is unnecessary in a US-related article. As in the infoblot.
  • "Best selling"—hyphen.
  • Both occurrences of "one" in the lead would be better as "a".
  • Why the comma after "including"?
  • Too many amplifiers: " which won both the Golden Globe and Academy Award for Best Original Song, as well as a Grammy Award for best duet"—Remove "both" and make it ", and a Grammy ...".
  • Unsure why "Toronto" is suddenly linked.
  • Unsure why readers are forced to "bump" over the bright blue "goosebump". If they don't know the word, they should key it into the search window. But there are worse examples of trivial blue splotches below—"Suburban"? Hello? We do speak English. Audit the whole text for these ungainly distractions from the high-value links.
  • I glanced through the rest to see lots of flab in the prose.
  • Hate the "min dot" in the infobox. Spell it out? Tony (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:05, 9 March 2008.

[edit] Neil Peart

Self-nominator After being elevated to Good Article status, I am fairly confident that Neil Peart is a prime candidate for featured article status. At the very least, consensus should be achieved after any outstanding issues that I am missing are addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose - Article gets excessively listy towards the end. Why are there both Equipment and Gear sections? The Gear section and the Awards sections can go IMO. The lead is too long; what happened to him at age 13 isn't suitable for the lead. Lots of uncited stuff in the Equipment section. The Books section needs to be reformatted to make it less listy. What is that Video section supposed to be? External links should only be in the references and external links sections. "After eighteen months of dead-end musical gigs, disillusioned by his lack of progress in the music business..." - cite? "Peart's drumming is distinguished by an ability to shift effortlessly between standard and irregular time signatures..." - ditto. Its POV calling him the most important drummer ever (attribute the statement to somebody if you have to). Also, you have Geocities and IMDB as a reference multiple times; both are unreliable. References need to be properly formatted. indopug (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the gear, it's essentially a superfluous reiteration of what is already in the equipment section. However, I maintain the significance of the award section. As a stand alone, it doesn't disjoint the flow/prose in the rest of the article. Although this is just my opinion. Besides it's sourced. About the lead, this is more of a stylistic preference. I feel it's on the border regarding size. Besides, in its current state it is, per WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY, doing what it is supposed to: Adequately summarizing what is to follow in the main part of the article. Regarding the video, yeah, perhaps they would be more suitable/appropriately placed under external links. However, they are not WP:COPYRIGHT violations - so, just in case, that isn't an issue. They will be moved. The first quote is cited elsewhere in the section, however I'll do a refname for clarity. I'll also work on the references and dig up some which are more concrete. Thanks for the comments. I shall return. Wisdom89 (T / C) 14:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I trimmed the lead down and removed the irrelevant info.
  • I expunged the gear section as it was an obvious rehashing of the other section, peppered with a listy eyesore of unnecessary equipment detail.
  • I've moved the videos to the external link section, as that is exactly what they are.
  • I reformatted the book section so that it is less listy and disjointed, more cohesive in prose format.
  • I removed the POV statements that you alluded to.
  • I will work on obtaining reliable sources for the equipment section and the quotes you provided. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Delete the bolds in the end of the page and write the articles about the books. The graphic isn't sadisfactory... MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup, done (for now). I'll create the stubs when I get some time. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Nice work, the article is looking pretty good. I fixed a few small MOS issues, and added some commas here and there. I do think the lead has a bit of extra info - the second paragraph could read somthing like:

Peart grew up in Port Dalhousie, Ontario, Canada (now part of St. Catharines), floating from regional band to regional band and eventually dropping out of high school in order to pursue his career as a full-time drummer. After a discouraging stint in England to concentrate on his music, Peart returned home, where he eventually joined local Toronto band Rush in the summer of 1974.

I'm not sure the childhood info is needed there. Also, I know Rush has a huge history, but the article skips from Hemispheres to 1997, and the death of his daughter/wife. More substance could be added - without detailing every album. Maybe even info from the equipment section, like info on his electric drums could be added to the Rush section. Also there seems to be a lot of links in the External links section that aren't really needed. Other than that, great work! Skeletor2112 (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your version does justice to the summary style one would expect from the lead. I like it. I was initially loathe to remove his childhood, as it's featured pretty prominently later on, but it doesn't appear as necessary. I'll make some changes. Regarding the gap that you encounter after 1978, the problem is that most of the biographical information available for Neil Peart is with Rush, and would just overlap with the history of Rush (band). Would just be redundant. Perhaps I could fork using a "for more information" link at that point in the article? I'll see what I can do though with some sort of reorganization once I get home from work later. Thanks for the comments! Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I still see Geocities, Song Facts, IMDB, Rob Pagano's fanpage, Amazon.com (even professional reviews from this site aren't acceptable as it could be argued they would be positive to sell more copies)... I assume a number of books have been written about Rush, why haven't they been referred? indopug (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Saying that professional reviews for this article aren't acceptable is a tad extreme. I can make an exorbitant list of FA that have them. Maybe I'm just not understanding your reasoning here. Could you elaborate? Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I mean that editorial/professional reviews (of albums etc) from Amazon.com cannot be used as it is arguable that the site would intentionally write positive reviews to help with sales of that product. Could you please list the "exorbitant list of FA"s that use Amazon.com as a reference for reviews? Thank you, indopug (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I misunderstood, I thought you meant professional reviews in general, not from amazon.com. Sorry about that. I can't work on the references at the moment, but I plan on doing it tomorrow evening. There are transcripts of books on Rush, yes, but they're either online excerpts or incomplete transcripts. Also, about some of the refs themselves, the geocities site is being used because it actually provides quotes from Neil Peart from magazine interviews and such that are difficult to/cannot be found. Amazon.com is being used to illustrate things that Peart had said in the instructional DVDs from those customers who purchased, viewed and commented on them. Know what I mean? Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Surely you understand that whatever customers say cannot be taken as verifiable information for a serious encyclopedia article! As for those Geocities sources, I think its cool if you just cite the actual magazine (author, issue# etc) making no mention/linking to Geocities, for threat of linking to a copy-vio site. As for books, why don't you just check them out of a library or maybe even buy them? A biographical article needs very solid referencing, way better than SongFacts or customer reviews from Amazon. indopug (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - the graphic is sudisfactory and there aren't the bolds, but there books has got three redlinks. I'd like that you create that articles, not stubs. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Criterion three concern:
    • Image:Ghost_Rider_book.jpg‎ has no Fair Use rationale. This seems, however, a moot point, as the license explicitly requires use “to illustrate an article discussing the book in question”. This is an article about Neil Peart, not Ghost Rider (which has it’s own article). Further, WP:NFCC#8 states that Fair Use is allowed “only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic”. As Peart is the author, it seems any significant understanding to be gained would derive solely from the book’s contents. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Poorly written. Let's look at the opening.

  • "best known" requires a hyphen in all varieties of English.
  • "floating from regional band to regional band and eventually dropping out of high school in order to pursue his career as a full-time drummer"—Remove the fuzzy "eventually". Remove the totally pointless "in order". Change "his" to "a". Remove the another "eventually" in the following sentence, which is tagged with a year anyway.
  • "style of playing"—not wrong, but nicer would be "performance style".
  • Comma required before "where", but make it ", from which".
  • "As time progressed however, he began to absorb the influence of ..."—Clumsy temporal units: "began to absorb" --> "absorbed". "However" needs a comma before and after, but better to start the sentence with it.
  • "In terms of music, Peart has received many awards for his recorded performances and is regarded for his technical proficiency and stamina." Oh no, remove the opening phrase and add "musical" before "performances". "Highly regarded"?

The whole text needs careful attention, preferably by someone new. Tony (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 02:05, 9 March 2008.

[edit] Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I can't think of any more ways to improve it, frankly. I've been working on it for over two years, since production began on the film, and have been following its development very closely. I believe it to be a well-written, interesting, comprehensive article that I think deserves to be a FA. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 03:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support with one condition. I think the lead should be expanded more to include some more details on the production and on the reception. Currently there are two rather meager paragraphs summarizing the production and reception, which I find rather unsatisfactory. Otherwise, I don't see any problems. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 03:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I will expand it in the next 24 hours. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per bibliomaniac comments on the lead. Plus:
    • "Harry Potter and his cousin Dudley are mysteriously attacked by two Dementors" why mysteriously? and why does Harry get his full name but Dudley doesn't?
    • "Steve Kloves, the screenwriter of the first four Potter films, had other commitments, and Michael Goldenberg wrote the script for the film." needs ref
    • Not sure we need a Cast section when each character has there own article.
    • I don't think previsualisation is a word.
    • Music would be a better scetion title than score.
    • Not sure about the Differences from the book section. seems a bit trival.
    • Some refs dates in backets while most are not.
    • "* Malaysia, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Africa, Philippines, United States — 11 July Puerto Rico, Singapore, United Kingdom — 12 July Republic of Ireland, India — 13 July" this should be in the infobox.
    • "Currently, it is nominated for six awards at the 2008 Sony Ericsson Empire Awards, organised by Empire, for Best Film, Actor (Radcliffe), Actress (Watson), Director, Best Sci-Fi/Fantasy Film and Score." get rid of this and add it back in when the winners are anounced.
    • "Warner has noticed that the Blu-ray release has sold more. Warner decided to support Blu-ray because of the sales." needs ref.

Buc (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Thanks for your comments. I've addressed each of your points in a respective bullet below:
      • I've just removed the offending adverb and added his last name.
      • There was a reference sitting on that for the longest time. I don't know what happened to it. I added it back.
      • The Cast section is very very brief, limited to just the main trio of kids and the five most important adults in the film. I would say that it is a good summary of the cast, with a link to the full cast at the List of Harry Potter cast members.
      • It's a link on Wikipedia. Perhaps it contains a hyphen (pre-visualization).
      • Music just didn't sound right to me. I understand how score could be ambiguous, so how about "soundtrack"?
      • I have included many references in the Differences section to prove that it is not trivial. Previously, we had a listing of every single difference, minute or great, until we decided that was too much. By incuding the references (which are links to articles that note differences, not just links to articles which establish that certain facts in the book or film are true), we have tried to show what is key about the changing from the source material to the screenplay.
      • Sorry, not sure what you're saying here. Are you referring to the difference between, say, refs 12 and 13 (one by "Haun, Harry" and the other a press release from WB)? That would be because the {{cite news}} template does not put dates in parentheses when {{cite press release}} or {{cite web}} (I think) do put dates in parentheses. It's part of the make-up of the citation.
      • Per WP:FilmRelease, we actually should not do that.
      • Okay, I've commented it out. I don't quite see why that's necessary, but if you think its timely nature detracts from the current state of the article I guess that's understandable.
      • Will search down for a ref for that last statement. Thanks.
      • Hopefully, with the changes I made and the comments I gave you'll consider supporting the article. Thanks! --Fbv65edel — t — c // 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Minor Support since I helped with the GA nominations, and the article only needs to fix a few parts. igordebraga ≠ 17:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Like Buc; there isn't the section objections, the prose isn't very good. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I don't understand your concern. There isn't a section called "objection"? I'm confused. And when you say the prose "isn't very good," could you point out where specifically you think it is weak? I didn't think it was; then again, I wrote a lot of it. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral, at least for now. I see there are some concerns and I would like to see them adressed first. Untill then I don't have any feelings towards either side. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  • It was directed by David Yates, produced by David Heyman's company Heyday Films, and the screenplay was written by Michael Goldenberg. It is the fifth film in the Harry Potter film series. It follows - reptition of 'it', the last two sentences can be merged film series, and follow Harry...
  • The first two sentences of the plot summary in the lead are ok, the third however, doesn't really sumarize anything - She slowly becomes an authoritarian figure in the school,
  • Post-production on the film continued for several months afterwards - well months of post-production takes place on every film after filming, thus rendering this sentence pointless. Useful information on the production would be good such as budget as an example
  • It was the sixth-highest grossing film of all time, and a critical and commercial success - It is the sixth, how about the gross mention in the lead? or that huge $333 million gross in 5 days, some quotes from notable critics wouldn't hurt
  • he was approached because of one of his previous projects, the television drama Sex Traffic, and because the studio saw
  • and finished in the end of November 2006
  • The film's budget was reportedly between GB£75 and 100 million, can you expand on this? is it the biggest budget for a HP film?
  • Third paragraph of production is just a list of credits in a paragraph, Bob was the ..., bill was the ...
  • Stuart Craig returned as set designer, having also designed the first four films' sets
  • expensive set yet built for the Potter film series. - Until one is more expensive there is no need for yet
  • Why are there mentions of awards in the production section? That's what the awards section is for
  • One sentence paragraphs does not make great prose
  • Tim Burke was the visual effects supervisor, John Richardson was the special effects supervisor, and Nick Dudman was the creatures special effects supervisor. - Poorly written
  • While this is indeed a positive score
  • The New York Daily News gave the film four out of four stars, - No, Colin Bertram of The New York Daily News gave the film four stars, all the quotes in the review section need to be attributed to the person who said them
  • the third-biggest opening of all time, behind only Spider-Man 3 (2007) and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
  • white space between references and awards
  • Lots of italics missing from references such as Rolling Stone, New York Daily
  • HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX - capital references should be lowercase
  • No need to link Box Office Mojo three references in a row
  • Why the External link to the WB harry potter website when there is one for the film?
  • Why the DVD talk EL? Shouldn't the section on the DVD cover the features?
  • What relevance is the last link? There are probably 40+ interviews
  • Is The Leaky Cauldron, a fansite, reliable? M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Me and Fbv fixed most, except for the "list of credits" and the lack of production (will look for articles to improve those parts). As for Leaky Cauldron, maybe it's reliable. igordebraga ≠ 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I would without a doubt trust the Leaky Cauldron. They are in direct communication with Warner Bros. Rowling has publicly declared it her favorite fan site and has recognized its integrity with her prestigious Fan Site Award. I could offer a few more references besides the one Igor gave, but I would definitely trust Leaky. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 22:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: The external links and references need looking at ASAP. I just found four dead links, and three that timed out on me. There was also one flagged up as a "expiring news links."--Slicedpineapple (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Poorly written throughout. Needs massaging throughout. Here are random samples from the top. (Also assumes too much specialist knowledge of the reader.)

  • Opening sentence: why not splash bright blue on just "novel" in your piped link, rather than on five words? Same for "series", perhaps. It's very linky at the top, and thus messy and hard to read. I see other large phrases piped entirely: same issue. For heaven's sake, delink the dictionary word "bureaucrat". Hello? Remove the link to US$ and GB pounds (see MOS on this), those obscure currencies. There are tons of them to weed out.
  • Remove "the" before "second".
  • Remove "on the film" as quite unnecessary (wrong preposition, too).
  • Perplexed as to why we need little flags and country names in the infobox, especially when it leads to US colon ... nothing. Why oh why? Do we respond with nationalistic arousal? Should we? Are we incapable of understanding the names of the countries? The currencies are linked again in the infobox (US$ twice again ...).
  • "Dementors"—readers shouldn't have to interrupt their reading and hit the link to learn what they are. Needs an epithet or two, such as "evil beasts, Dementors", ... Don't assume the reader knows anything about the Potter phenomenon; this means explaining things a little at the opening of the plot (about five terms). What is "O.W.L."? Tony (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:41, 8 March 2008.

[edit] Navenby

  • Comment: I would like to withdraw my self-nomination of this article. It is obvious I have a lot of work to do on it, so I'll go and nurture it some more before taking it through a peer review at some point. (The images are fine I think, but I've probably made a mess of the licensing aspect - something else I'd better check up on!) I just want to say thankyou for all your suggestions. Could someone remove this for me, because I'm not sure if it is against regulations to do so? I have, however, removed the FA template off the Navenby talkpage. --Seahamlass (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn. Please see WP:FAC/ar and wait for GimmeBot to update the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Self-nominated. I have worked extremely hard on this article over the past few months. I created it from scratch, as there was nothing on Navenby in Wikipedia before this, and have learned many, many Wiki processes - from designing graphs to working with figures - along the way. Several editors, including Rodw, Jza84, Simply south and Keith D have helped enormously with practical suggestions for referencing etc and it would be a huge honour both for me, and Navenby, to get FA status. Thanks! Seahamlass 12:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - there are many images. A gallery under the page's good. And further reading and bibliography is the same thing. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 13:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Re: Comment: Hi MOJSKA, just fixed the "further reading" and "bibliography" section. Thanks for the tip!--Seahamlass 14:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)
Further reading and bibliography are not the same thing, a bibliography is a list of the books used in writing the article, further reading lists books that are relevant and may be of interest but are not actually referenced in the article. As such, the bibliography section contains a book that hasn’t been referenced (Burgess, Neil. Lincolnshire's Lost Railways. Stenlake Publishing. ISBN 9781840334074) this should either be removed or put into a new Further reading section. I however agree with Mojska that a gallery would be useful since there are perhaps a few too many images in the main body of the text, for instance I don’t think WP:IMAGE likes text being sandwiched between two images. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I understood that Galleries were to be avoided. I'm sure there is guidance on that somewhere? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Well written, the references all check out fine too. --Slicedpineapple (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm not happy with this user's support. Slicedpineapple has just joined the project today and (putting WP:AGF aside for a moment) looks like a potential sock puppet. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Since Navenby has been nominated here, will Seahamlass remove it from WP:GAN? Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC}
  • Re Nev1 comment. Done.--Seahamlass (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There are alot of concerns for me here. I think the article would've benefitted from going through the formal peer review and good article process first to iron out most of the issues. My concerns, mostly WP:MOS related, are:
    • Lots of grammatical redundancy here. There are too many instances of "also", "some", "many", "several", "has"; word that can be omitted without losing meaning within sentences.
    • Inconsistent use of dates. There are instances of stand-alone years linked in the article.
    • Notable people is stubby and includes people of dubious or unclear notability (see WP:NOTABILITY).
    • I'm still very concerned about the copyright of some of the images. Can you (User:Seahamlass) explain how and why you've released Image:Patpicfen.jpg to a Creative Commons licence? Simillarly, you've released Image:Kingheadnavenby.jpg to a CC licence despite the author being explicit he/she does not want it on non-commercial licence (see comment number 12). I'm not sure the rationale on Image:Mrssmith1.JPG is permitted too, though I could be wrong.
    • In Public services there are external links mid-prose.
    • There are lots of stubby, listy sections with single sentence paragraphs. Things like "Navenby offers a range of activities for villagers of all ages" is "estate agent" talk.
    • Lots of the images have thick black borders around them. Can these be cleaned up?
    • Linguistics is a fork of the material at Lincolnshire. The source being used does not mention Navenby specifically.
    • "The street names of Navenby often hark back to the past, and give a good indication of historic places, uses and even problems in the village" has some weasel words and the claim is not supported by the reference.
    • Reference 48 is not entitled "Navenby dialect" nor does it include any material on it.
    • "Although house prices have traditionally been low in Navenby, they have been rising quickly in recent years" - needs a copyedit. "Traditional" and "recent" need defining much more tightly.
  • There are other issues, but that's it from me for now. Clearly a much loved article, but quite some way off from FA upon scrutinisation. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose—1a. Needs a proper massage—a few hours' worth. For example, just in the lead I see "covers over 2,100 acres (8.5 km²)"—>more than. "long distance footpath" requires a (piped) hyphen to correct its absence in the title of the destination; but why not remove the epithet altogether, since 237 km is hardly short? First "however" is illogical. MOS breach in hyphen used as an interrupter; "such as" is nicer than "like" in formal registers. "Names ending with 'by' meant homestead or village, and were often the earliest Viking settlements." So often they were, and less often they weren't Viking? Lots to do ... Tony (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to withdraw my self-nomination of this article. It is obvious I have a lot of work to do on it, so I'll go and nurture it some more before taking it through a peer review at some point. (The images are fine I think, but I've probably made a mess of the licensing aspect - something else I'd better check up on!) I just want to say thankyou for all your suggestions. Could someone remove this for me, because I'm not sure if it is against regulations to do so? I have, however, removed the FA template off the Navenby talkpage. --Seahamlass (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment (2) - the article's structure's good, but the section internal links must be before the section external links and the sections economy and sport aren't part of the culture of a town, so they must be indipendent sections; there are, in the section culture & subsections, much bolds: the title's only must be bold. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 14:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)*:Y Done
  • Response to Jza84: Re: **"The street names of Navenby often hark back to the past, and give a good indication of historic places, uses and even problems in the village" has some weasel words and the claim is not supported by the reference." Well, weasel words aside, the so-called "claim" is backed up by the reference. If you click on the reference, it brings up a map of Navenby's roads. Click on the Clint Lane one and it tells you what and why that used to be called. The same if you click Gas Lane etc. As to some of your other suggestions... well I've taken out the linguistics and notable people, cut down the number of pictures etc - and I have WRITTEN permission to use every photo on that page from every photographer/group involved. --Seahamlass (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 8 March 2008.

[edit] S.S. Lazio

previous FAC (02:34, 13 December 2007)


Good voice well-written.--Lãzîalë93 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Very Strong Support --Lãzîalë93 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose None of the concerns from the previous FAC have been addressed. The article has many unreferenced sections, has prose issues, and it is complete (the it.wiki article is 120KB in length and includes much more detail about the club's history). Please consider submitting this for WP:GA instead of WP:FA, as it clearly does not meet the featured article criteria. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose actually there's a lot to improve. Consider first to improve it into Good Article status, rather than losing time in opening FACs (this is the second time you're pushing it here without to make any improvement in the article). --Angelo (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Wow... —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs lead extending, inadequate referencing, short, stubby sections with short paragraphs, and POV list of notable players. Peanut4 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose can I suggest you initiate a peer review which would hopefully give you a more complete list of issues that need to be resolved with this article? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not chance from the previous FAC. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I found 8 dead links in the reference section, which means a clean-up is needed. --Slicedpineapple (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment to Laziale93 - what's the voice? A new word? Whould you say good article, well-written... MOJSKA 666 (msg) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 8 March 2008.

[edit] Britney Spears

previous FAC

Nominator. I feel that this article meets all featured article criteria. Yes, the subject is in the news a fair bit, however, as a precedent, Barack Obama is in the news more, and his article was promoted to Featured. I believe this article is stable. This article has an elite group of people who maintain it. Vandalism on the article is low. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose there are several very questionable sources that seem highly inappropriate for a BLP: including at least one user YouTube video, several forum postings, and some sites which appear to be fansites and that do not meet the basic WP:RS criteria. I'd also question the use of so many TMZ references, considering its a tabloid and not the best of sources for making claims about a living person. Can't better references be found to validate those claims? Collectonian (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I will look into finding more reliable sources and/or remove claims that a reliable source cannot be found for. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the Youtube video as a lot of other sources were cited, I've also removed the fansite refs and replaced them with reliable sources from places like People magazine, CNN etc. I've also replaced the TMZ sources with People/CBS refs. If I missed any, let me know. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Only other two I spotted were "mariah-charts.com" (which I can't find anything on to show its a well researched site and not a fan-run thing) and Ancestry of Britney Spears which is a self-published work that admits to not being authoritative and calls itself a draft. Also, what are the Amazon.com references for? Can they be replaced with non-retailer refs? Beyond that, the only other thing I noticed is that some of the references need formatting fixing for consistency, such as #34 and #35. Also, what is with the references after 164? I think there may be an error in 164 or 165 because the formatting goes wonky around there? Also, the references for Peak Positions (#167), need to be separate refs, not 7 grouped into one ref tag. Collectonian (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ref 164 is fixed. Oidia (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay thanks for the comment. I'll get to work on fixing them. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 20:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Done the mariah-charts.com ref, split up ref 167 into 3 refs and removed 3 of them as they were either invalid and/or broken etc. Removed Ancestry of Britney Spears ref. Will look for replacements for Amazon links. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 21:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Replaced Amazon sources with Google Books sources. Anything else? Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 21:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I think that's about it, but let me give one more quick check this evening. Collectonian (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I appreciate the feedback. I hope I have convinced you to change to a support. :P Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Tenative Support pending a copyedit. Everything looks good, but there are several places using colloquial phrases and where the flow is a little awkward. I'd recommend having LoCE or an independent copy editor give it a go over. Very suprised to see such a nicely done article, especially for this particularly person. I don't envy y'all the vandal patrolling you must have to do! Collectonian (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! I'll get a copy editor go over it as I'm not great at that sort of stuff. Mind telling me who "LoCE" is? :P Thanks! Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The League of Copyeditors  :) Collectonian (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The article has been listed for copyedit there. In the mean time, I'll go through and use what limited copy edit skills I have to remove some. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Collectionian, you have a bolded support pending and a bolded oppose; pls clarify, and unbold one of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Woops, sorry, forgot to strike the oppose. Collectonian (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Article seems very well done, with extensive details, and issues above have been resolved. Hello32020 (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Another comment: I've just fixed up all of the fact tags that were put into the article, and either removed the unsourced statment, added reliable source or reworded and added reliable source. I've also added an additional image to the article Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 07:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll try to provide a more thorough review in due course but currently you have about ten dead links - use the link at the top of this FAC to help you find them so they can be replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah ok, I wasn't quite sure what that was. It seemed to go on forever. I'll get those dead links replaced ASAP. Thanks! Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 17:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed all the dead refs. There were a few that the connection timed out on, but I think it was just because my internet connection is being wonky today. When the links are clicked, they work. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea if we archive those web pages? Online news outlines have a habit of deleting/pulling off news article when it becomes old. Though archiving all those web pages might take quite a long time to do. Oidia (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it'd probably be a good idea to archive them.. it would take forever though. I think we should make that a long-term project. Most of the broken links were from People, which moved from people.aol.com to people.com so all I had to do was fix the domain. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Great job as usual. Cheers! Oidia (talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be really nice if people provided a bit more feedback on the tool. The tool doesn't use javascript, the links are checked from the server. I know the people generally don't like to read, so I've tried to make the tool uncluttered. But it only goes so far, before who are confused at what the different colors mean. According to the log on the server most users are unaware that the tool is capable of updating the link. So if you have some feedback drop me a line. — Dispenser 22:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Well-written and well-referenced, a featured article for a good singer ;-) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support :) Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose based primarily on sourcing issues.
    • In several places, the article mentions a controversy but doesn't really expand on what that was. For example, The tour's choreography generated much controversy and criticism, with the presence of young children in the audience. I guess I'll assume that the controversy was that the dancing was too explicit for young children to see, but that really ought to be spelled out. There are a few other instances of this too.
    • " The compilation did not include "From the Bottom of My Broken Heart"" - is there a reason why it should have? The song hasn't been mentioned in the article before, so for people unfamiliar with her career, this doesn't really make a lot of sense.
    • A lot of the names are wikilinked multiple times (album names, magazine names, etc). They don't need to be wikilinked that often.
    • Please wikilink month-day combinations and full dates so that people's date preferences will work.
    • Blogs are no considered reliablesources
    • Some references don't have publishers listed (13, for example)
    • I would not use ancestry.com, as there is already a note there that the info is only as reliable as the information they used. If they used the information that other people uploaded rather than primary sources, then it is absolutely not reliable
    • About.com is not a reliable source
    • Are these sources reliable?
      • Always celebrity (alwayscelebrity.com)
      • mediatraffic.de
      • rockonthenet.com
      • songfacts.com
      • allyourtv.com
      • afterellen.com
      • beautyfeast.com
      • Hollywood Rag
    • This source: Spears's career biography from the booklet of Greatest Hits: My Prerogative is essentially self-published and should be left out if possible
    • There are several biographies of Spears listed. Why are none of these consulted? They would make much better sources than many of the websites and might contain information that would make the article more comprehensive.

Karanacs (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will attempt to resolve these issues ASAP. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 21:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. All the external link refs seem to check out OK now, but I still think it could do with some copyediting.--Slicedpineapple (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • "The RIAA ranks her as the eighth best-selling female artist in American music history, having sold 32 million albums in the U.S." Hmm, so the RIAA sold 32 million albums, did it?
  • "Her success as a recording artist has allowed her to work in other media; she has acted in film and television, has written two books, and ..."—I don't quite see the causality here: why should the recording success allow her to act and write books?
  • "followed by an ongoing legal battle"—What does "ongoing" add here?
  • Comma after "London", please.

I won't go on: please let me know when a copy-editor has gone right through the article, fixing the fuzzy logic and ensuring a professional standard of prose. Tony (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Closing note; the issues with non-reliable sources are substantial, and combined with the copyedit needs, indicate that an extended stay at peer review might help better prepare this article for FAC. Our WP:BLP policy demands the highest quality sources for biographies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 8 March 2008.

[edit] No Way Out (2004)

Self-Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel its meets the FA Criteria and is a Good Article. TrUCo9311 02:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The article needs a section about the objections. It's a good-good article. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment-What do you mean "objections"?--TrUCo-X 21:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Reference 40 is invalid. A little bit of copyediting wouldn't go amiss either. --Slicedpineapple (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply, I've fixed the reference. Nikki311 20:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:25, 7 March 2008.

[edit] Tax protester constitutional arguments

Self-nominator - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. Currently a GA and rated an A-class on the Taxation WikiProject, this article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. It has had two peer-reviews and follows the style guidelines. The article is long (67k of readable prose) but I feel the length is appropriate for the scope of the topic and justifies the added reading time. The lead is the proper length for an article of this size and the TOC, while long, seems to be appropriate. All images are free and have acceptable captions for the topic. We'll work to address comments, suggestions, and any FA requirements that arise during the process. I appreciate the review. Morphh (talk) 17:41, 03 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose Way way too long, and almost entirely original research--the references go to the cases and the code, but not to protesters actually using these primary sources to make their arguments. For example, "Some tax protesters have cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Stratton's Independence, Limited v. Howbert[65] for the argument that an income tax on an individual's income is unconstitutional." The [65] goes to the case itself, not any tax protester using it as support. The entire article is like this. Mangostar (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • See comment below - added References Morphh (talk) 14:18, 04 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - agree with Mangostar. I can definitely see how much hard work went into this article. It's good that you quote from the cases, but you also need references that those cases and those quotes are actually used by tax protesters. You might want to review Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Renata (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • See comment below - added References Morphh (talk) 14:18, 04 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are a number of sources available which confirm that these arguments are, in fact, used by tax protesters, and perhaps we should reference these sources. They include the IRS report on "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments", the Anti Defamation League handbook of "Idiot Legal Arguments", the Quatloos sections on Tax Protesters, and of course Dan Evans' "Tax Protester FAQ". I've also come across a few law review articles with good coverage of some specific arguments, including Danshera Cords, Tax Protestors and Penalties: Ensuring Perceived Fairness and Mitigating Systemic Costs, 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 1515 (2005); Kenneth H. Ryesky, Of Taxes and Duties: Taxing the System with Public Employees' Tax Obligations, 31 Akron L. Rev. 349 (1998); and Christopher S. Jackson, The Inane Gospel of Tax Protest: Resist Rendering Unto Caesar - Whatever His Demands, 32 Gonz. L. Rev. 291 (1997). Cheers! bd2412 T 08:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added all these as References, which should cover pretty much every tax protester argument in the article. We can then start adding them as footnotes as needed but this should satisfy the above concerns. Morphh (talk) 14:18, 04 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The title of the article should have "United States" in it somewhere Bluap (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've considered this as well. If we have others that concur, I'll make the move. It has been discussed and I think the thought was that the title only applied to the U.S., since the term tax protestor as used is predominantly U.S. and particularly when applied as an argument regarding constitutionality. Morphh (talk) 14:49, 04 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. (Disclosure: I wrote a significant part of this article.) Regarding the comments by editors Mangostar and Renata, I have also thought about the point that we should have sourcing to texts where the tax protesters themselves have cited a particular case. That can certainly be done -- with the understanding that citing to a particular tax protester web site is being done only for that specific purpose. Regarding the separate point on "original research," I respectfully disagree. This article has virtually no original research in it, as that term is used in Wikipedia. What this article does have is plenty of citations to primary sources. In a legal subject of this type, the preponderance of primary sourcing versus secondary and tertiary sourcing is going to be more likely, and perhaps more appropriate, than in other areas of Wikipedia. "Original Research" as the term is used in Wikipedia relates to doing things such as taking statement A from source A and statement B from source B and having the Wikipedia editor reach his or her own novel conclusion C - a conclusion not reached by source A or B. By contrast, the extensive use of primary sourcing in a Wikipedia article is not "original research", per se. The proper test is: Does the primary source material actually stand for the proposition that is stated in the article? In the case of this article, every single statement that cites a primary source (e.g., a court decision) is an accurate quote (or paraphrase) of the holding, etc., in that particular case. That is not original research. That is source-based research, and that is what Wikipedia is about. Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the cases do not support the propositions stated. (E.g. Limited v. Howbert does not support the proposition that "Some tax protesters have cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Stratton's Independence, Limited v. Howbert[65] for the argument that an income tax on an individual's income is unconstitutional.") If this article is cleaned up to reference actual times tax protesters have used these arguments (which I believe is possible and looks as though it is in progress), I'll reconsider my oppose. Mangostar (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Mangostar, I added a reference section that should cover this throughout the article. Is this acceptable for the moment or do you require footnotes? Thanks Morphh (talk) 16:27, 04 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess the original research (OR) comment came about because I linked to WP:OR page. Well, I never actually said the article is OR. I linked to the page only because that's the only place that I know that talks about primary vs secondary vs tertiary sources. And the prime reason for my oppose is over-reliance on primary sources (which is so common in law) when preference on Wikipedia is to go by secondary sources. BD2412 found some good secondary sources and those should be converted to footnotes to meet FA requirements. Renata (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear Renata3: Point well taken. Tonight I will be looking to add some more secondary source material. By the way, part of the reason there is so much reliance on primary sources in law-related articles may be just the nature of law. "Primary source" in Wikipedia parlance is roughly analogous to Primary authority as that term is used in law, especially in U.S. law, while secondary and tertiary sources (in Wikipedia) are both roughly analogous to the residual catch-all category of Secondary authority in the legal world. In legal publications, "Primary Authority" is of course your first choice over Secondary Authority, everything else being equal. So, lawyers who edit here may have the tendency to treat primary sources and secondary sources (the Wikipedia concepts) the way they treat Primary Authority and Secondary Authority (in the legal world). In Wikipedia, of course, I realize that the rule is the opposite: Secondary sourcing is preferred over primary sourcing. Therefore, I need to dig harder for secondary sourcing. Thanks, Famspear (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, part 2. I see what editor Mangostar is saying. Citing to Stratton's Independence itself does not support the statement that the tax protesters themselves have cited that case -- good point. Along this line, I would like to clarify that there are, in a sense, two kinds of citations to court cases in the article. One kind -- the kind mentioned by editors Mangostar and/or Renata, are cases like Stratton's Independence and Evans v. Gore and Coppage v. Kansas. These are old U.S. Supreme Court cases --usually pre-1945 -- that were not "tax protester" cases themselves - they are just old cases that tax protesters began citing when the tax protester movement really took off. These are the cases I believe editors Mangostar and Renata are talking about when they say that we need to provide sourcing that shows the protesters are citing a case for "argument X," etc. Instead of citing to the case itself on that point, we need to cite to a place that supports the statement that the tax protesters have cited that case, etc. By contrast, the second kind of case is exemplified by Parker and Perkins in the section on taxation of wages. These -- generally the post-1945 cases -- are the cases where tax protesters actually were the litigants. By definition, the citations to the cases where tax protesters were the litigants (i.e., where tax protester arguments were raised and rejected) do support the assertion that the tax protesters made the arguments they raised in those cases, and that those arguments were rejected by the court (also, in many or most of these cases the judge either uses the term "tax protester" to describe the litigant or uses the term "frivolous" to describe the litigant's argument -- right in the text of the decision). If I am understanding editors Mangostar and Renata correctly, the need for further citation applies to the first category -- places where protesters are citing the old, pre-1945 cases, but were not actually the litigants in those cases. Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with Famspear that cases in which tax protesters actually raise these issues (including cases in which they raise prior cases) should be considered very strong support for those contentions. However, I would add that the secondary sources I cited above are also very good for these contentions. For example, the Jackson article published in the Gonzaga Law Review states that "Protesters argue that requiring a person to file and sign a return under penalty of perjury violates the Fifth Amendment because it forces protesters to witness against themselves" (p. 308); that "Protesters contend that paying taxes is a form of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment" (p. 310), and that "Many protesters contend that they are not citizens of the United States but rather are one of the following: (1) freeborn, natural individuals; (2) citizens of State X; or (3) nonresident aliens. As a result, protesters claim they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' tax laws" (p. 310-311). bd2412 T 17:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In addition to the articles mentioned by editor BD2412, I believe I can find specific examples in the texts of numerous court decisions rendered in the "modern era" (say in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, etc.), where a tax protester specifically cited Stratton's Independence or Lucas v. Earl or Coppage or some other pre-1945 cases (as described above). So, I think we can find and add both primary sources (e.g., actual texts of court cases) and secondary sources (e.g., the law review articles noted by editor BD2412) to address the points raised by editors Mangostar and Renata), if desired. I will try to begin work on this by tonight. Famspear (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Moved long list of citations to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I will try to add some more secondary sourcing this weekend. Famspear (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - it's length is definitely a problem but other than that the article kind of has a pervading "pay your taxes or else be convicted" type of message, and POV, that I don't really believe should be the fundamental point of the article. The reason I believe this to be true, is that many tax protesters do knowingly risk conviction and incarceration to battle against what they would deem as a miscarriage of justice, IMHO. I believe that is that main issue and purpose of protesters in general and should be better represented in this wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkygravity (talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:25, 7 March 2008.

[edit] Anfield

Self-nomination After a thorough peer review, I feel the article meets all the criteria necessary to be a Featured Article, this article is based on Portman Road and Priestfield Stadium, which are both Featured, so hopefully this article can join them. Thanks in advance for your time NapHit (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Addressed comments by Buc
I don't think that really matters to be honest, if I changed them to be the same, it would make the article bland NapHit (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
consistency if important. Buc (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
alterd NapHit (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Referenced NapHit (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "in 1994 after the Taylor Report" wasn't the Taylor Report in 1989?
yes, but this is referring to the development of the stadium finishing after the Taylor report
Needs to be explained
done NapHit (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "The gates are a tribute to former Liverpool manager Bob Paisley" how are they?
this really does not need to be expanded,the gates being built in his honour is enough of a tribute
How are they a tribute to him?
Corrected NapHit (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Buc (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest why have you changed the section in the lead relating to the new stadium there was no consensus in the peer review to replace it, and you removed it without discussing it. Also they are plans at the moment, construction has not begun yet NapHit (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose
    • All dates in the history section are month first, yet in the other sections date first. Can you revert to one style.
done NapHit (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Doesn't seem referenced enough for me, particularly large chunks of the history.
This is mainly because most of the history section comes from one source, so the whole paragraph is referenced at the end NapHit (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • News sources need the dates of the report, and book sources should cite the pages used.
cited the pages used, and added dates NapHit (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Does the Outline of Anfield image, need to be so detailed to included numbers? It looks like a copy off the back of the ticket, and the numbers don't mean anything to me.
I can see where you're coming from but as I don't have a image editing programme on my pc, or a free alternative there is not much I can do about it NapHit (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • visitor's centre. Is this right? One visitor?
I'm not sure what you mean by this NapHit (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think it should be visitors' centre. Or maybe no apostrophe at all. But I'm sure visitor's centre is wrong - it implies there is only one man who goes to it. Peanut4 (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Some poor or clumsy uses of English. I've corrected some but sure there are loads more, including
      • "Original plans for a new stadium were initiated by Liverpool to replace Anfield in May 2002."
      • "Original plans for a huge double decker stand were forced to be scaled down, due to financial constraints."
      • "Bolton Wanderers and Huddersfield Town met in 1929, with Bolton winning, they went on to win the final, becoming the first club to win a semi-final at Anfield and go on to win the FA Cup."
      • "They also won all their home games during the 1893–94 season. From January 1971 to January 1981, Liverpool did not lose a match, this encompasses 85 games, in which Liverpool scored 212 goals and conceded 35."
done I think NapHit (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The commemorative gates are mentioned in more than one section. Is this necessary?
Well the mentioning in the structure anfd facilities is just a sentence or so , i think it is alright.
    • Was Anfield used during the 1966 World Cup?
Surprisingly it was not NapHit (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Aggregate attendance in the 2000-01 season was more than 1,328,482. I suspect it was 1,328,482 rather than more than, because this seems an exact figure. But if it was more than that what exactly was it?
removed more than as it was 1,328,482 NapHit (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The whole records section seems very dry to me. It reads like the list.
I'm not sure if I can make it less dry to be honest, it's pretty similar to the same section in Portman Road, which passed FA NapHit (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed you're correct. Ignore that comment then. If I can think of a way of making it more engaging, I'll either get back to you later or try change it myself. Peanut4 (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Overall I think the article needs a very good copy edit and much better referencing. Peanut4 (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Couple more problems.
    • "From January 1971 to January 1981, Liverpool did not lose a match at Anfield, encompassing 85 games, in which Liverpool scored 212 goals and conceded 35." Liverpool must have played more than 85 home games in ten years. It should be at least double this number.
you're right after re-checking it was from January 1978 to January 1981 NapHit (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • While I agree with Buc, the scores aren't necessary for other uses, these sentences have become terrible. "Anfield has hosted five FA Cup semi-finals, the first was in 1888 when the ground was still being used by Everton. The next semi-final was 20 years later in 1908, followed by another semi-final in 1912. The semi-final in 1921, was watched by the King and Queen. The last FA Cup semi-final at Anfield was in 1929, Bolton Wanderers won that particular match, and went on to win the FA Cup, becoming the only club to win a semi-final at Anfield and the FA Cup." Peanut4 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok I think I've fixed this particular problem by turning it into a sentence instead of a long-winded paragraph NapHit (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Still oppose

  • Most of my points have been addressed, but I would still rather see the history section better referenced (though I do appreciate your reply above Naphit).
  • Perhaps send it for a good copy-edit from either the League of Copy Editors or from an independent editor (maybe one from WP:FOOTY). It's good, I just think it could be tweaked and made better.
  • One other point. The future section doesn't explain why Liverpool want to move away from Anfield. Peanut4 (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:25, 7 March 2008.

[edit] Titanic (1997 film)

Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is well written and well sourced, and Is good enough to be FA-class. Limetolime (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment You might want to put a internal link for quote: "1912 maiden voyage of the ship" --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Object - the article goes into excessive details and mentions minor facts and gives off an amateurish feel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC) --Hadseys ChatContribs 20:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please expand. A minor detail to one person is another person's information goldmine. Alientraveller (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Now that I look over it again, yes, it does have too many details. But I don't think that means some good rewriting can't improve dramatically this article. Plus, forget about my earlier comment. And you seem to be missing contents that would make this truly a FA.--Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Like what? The number of DVD releases? Representations of historical figures? Alientraveller (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • To be quite honest, I haven't the faintest idea what it could be. It just seems the article is missing something. That something, once put it, will rocket this article to FA. A unique article to go with a unique movie. Maybe some interesting fact that not many knew before. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean. Sometime last year, I was heavily rewriting the article, and then I just stopped. I was tired after getting Jurassic Park and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial to FA, and I had a lot of current and upcoming films to attend with. It might be a good idea to close this. Alientraveller (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment- I see that the last edit was the 25th of last month. I suspect that this is done? --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 23:25, 7 March 2008.

[edit] Discovery Expedition

I'm nominating this article for featured article because no major issues had to be resolved during peer review and I believe it is now ready. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Self-nominator Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm a little worried about the sourcing. The entire first section, Forerunners, has only one reference, and that reference says that one expedition was British-financed. The rest of that section needs sources. Most of personnel is sourceless, as are some other portions of the article. As a rule of thumb, there should be a reference at the end of every paragraph. Additionally, I noticed some prose that did not seem very professional, or was awkward.
I haven't put many in-text citations in the Forerunners section, this being background information obtainable from the various polar histories listed in the Sources section. In the Personnel section, all the main players are wikilinked to their biographies. I am happy to add further citations to these sections, though I can't for a few days because I am away from my polar library at the moment. On the question of awkward and/or unprofessional prose, can you indicate the parts you are referring to so that I can give them attention? Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ...to set a Furthest South at 79°17'S - why is Furthest South capitalized, and more importantly, what does it mean - furthest south for that expedition, or furthest south on record for a human? I'm assuming the latter, but it should be cleared up.
Furthest or Farthest South, (or North), is standard terminology in polar history for the highest latitudes achieved before the poles were conquered, always capitalised. I am happy to clarify this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There are a few quotations in the article, but there are no indications of who said them. I recommend integrating them into the text, or specifying who said it.
I may be misunderstanding you, but every direct quote that I can see in the article has a citation attached. Can you help me by pointing out the ones that don't? Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like a modern inflated estimate of some of the prices in the article
This can easily be done, but I'll wait until I'm back with my polar library before doing it Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All in all, it looks pretty good, but I'd like some more work done to it, and, ideally, a copyedit from a fresh set of eyes. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. I would welcome a copyedit from a fresh pair of eyes. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am now able to address your points more fully.

  • Sources and citations: I have revised the text of the Forerunners section, and included a significant number of footnotes and references. I have added further references and notes in the Personnel section and elsewhere. I've also used a more reliable coordinate for Borchgrevink's Furthest South.
  • Furthest South: I have included an explanatory footnote for this term. I've also noticed that the term is not always capitalised & have mentioned this in the note.
  • Quotations: I've checked all 11 quotations in the article. So far as I can see, every one is properly referenced, in most cases the text explains who said what, and in the others there are explanatory footnotes. So I really don't know what you mean by saying that there are "no indications of who said them". Can you explain?
  • Inflated costs: I've done this.

I hope that a copyeditor will check the article over before long. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Slight Oppose mainly due to some prose issues, it can be a bit wordy at times. It could really use a good copyedit by someone who is better at it than I am. I don't claim to have caught all the awkward bits in my list below.

  • Quibble, but I slightly prefer the wording "summer of 1841-42" "1841-42 summer". The second just sounds awkward to me. Feel free to ignore this though.
  • Forerunners section, second sentence of the first paragraph seems awkward and wordy.
  • Same section, second paragraph, second sentence is a run on and awkward. The switch from the whaling trip to the 1899 expedition is awkward.
  • Same section, third paragraph, I'd say "...at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century..." The rest of the paragraph might be better expressed as "Four other expeditions were in the Antarctic at the same time as Discovery, one from Germany led by Erich von Dryglaski, one from Sweden led by Otto Nordenskjold, an expedition from France led by Jean-Baptiste Charcot, and the last one led by William Speirs Bruce from Scotland." The "See List of Antarctic expeditions."can be dropped. You might consider putting a Further information blurb at the top of the section that links to the list.
  • The first paragraph of the Royal Navay, Markham and Scott section is awkward and definitely needs a copyedit.It is very wordy and awkwardly phrased at points.
  • Last sentence of that section, the "whole-hearted backing" part of the sentence makes it necessary to have a citation on that sentence.
  • Personnel section, first paragraph, second sentence is very wordy and awkward.
  • The last parts of the second and third paragraphs of Personnel need citations, as there is opinion there. "lifelong soulmate, a steadying influence and one of the most acute of Antarctic observers." is definitely opinion as is "..debutant who would later make his name..."
  • Not being British, who are "Bird's, Bovril"? I have no clue what they might have contributed (I love the touch of noting they got free mustard and chocolate...what an odd combination!)
  • Again... missing context ... White Ensign? Blue Ensign? Why is it significant that Discovery couldn't fly the WHite E? And what did flying the Blue E mean?
  • Objectives section - I may be quibbling here, but you say "The Discovery, like Ross and Borchegrevink before it, ..." and I find that jarring. You're equating a ship with two explorers. Maybe say "like the Ross and B expeditions before it.." since I think you're using Discovery here as shorthand for "the Discovery expedition"
  • Same section, might consider a citation for the last sentence in the first paragraph.
  • Okay, I get to the First Year section and the third paragraph and read "experimental balloon flights"... err... what were they using balloons for? Nothing has been mentioned before this about balloons, surely this was one of the earliest balloon usage in the Antarctic...were they manned balloons or just scientific? I'd love to see a bit more about this rather than what seems like a throwawy sentence here.
  • Same section, fifth paragraph is lacking all source citation.
  • Same section, sixth paragraph, why is Southern Journey capitalized?
  • Same section and paragraph, the last sentence is a bit awkward, do you mean that they were only able to revise the sledging rations somewhat? Needs a citation too, I'd think.
  • Same section, last paragraph, last two sentences could use citation.
  • Arrival of the relief ship, last sentences of the two paragraphs could use citations.
  • Second year in the ice section, last paragraph needs a citation.
  • Same for the last part of the first paragraph in Aftermath and the second paragraph there and the last sentence of the fourth paragraph in this section.
  • Also last sentence of the first paragraph of Some consequences, as saying someone became addicted to the ice is opinion.
  • Some consequences section, the second and third paragraphs are very wordy and have a number of awkwardly phrased sentences. One I noticed in particular was "It outdid Scott's Discovery efforts in polar exploration terms, but Shackleton's achievements were preceived as with horses, not dogs, and did not alter Scott's prejudices." which leaves me a bit mystified about what the horses have to do with anything.
  • Last paragraph of the article, the last bits need a source citation.
  • Sources section, they need publication places and could be consistently formatted. I assume "pb" means paperback?
  • Pictures -
    • Discoveryboat.jpg lacks source information on Commons, it's unclear whether it's Public domain without that information.
    • Scott Statue.jpg While the picutre itself is certainly released, you need to investigate the copyright status of the statue itself also. If the statue itself is still in copyright, it can't be released under a free use license.
  • I strongly urge at least one copyedit by someone better suited to that task than myself. I'm not an expert on grammar and can't say that I caught all the awkward and/or wordy phrasing.
It's a very good and interesting read, I enjoyed learning about it quite a lot. Will be happy to support when the copyedit has been done. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:19, 7 March 2008.

[edit] Philippine Idol

Self-nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is recently promoted to WP:GA, and this would serve as an inspiration for other Philippine entertainment editors of Wikipedia. Starczamora (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I just did some preliminary work copy editing the article, and I don't think it's very close to FA status. Here are a few of the issues I noticed:
  • There are a number of basic grammar and style issues throughout. I have corrected some, but there are plenty left.
    • Still some issues, but I'll try to take care of them. --Kakofonous (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think these problems are mostly taken care of, but I'd like someone else to take a look. --Kakofonous (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Notable events" section reads like a trivia collection. Necessary information should be combined into prose paragraphs, rather than remaining in that list. Extraneous information should be removed.
  • Image:PIFinal12.jpg is too large for fair use. It should be uploaded again in a smaller size.
  • Image:Pinoy idol title card.jpg has no fair use rationale or description.
  • In many places, there are extremely small sections and paragraphs, which probably should be merged in some cases. I noticed this quite a bit in the "Controversies" section.
  • I ran the article through peer review and the BOT program recommended to remove excessive use of articles like a, an, and the. Apparently, it does look like unstructured.
  • I've edited the 'Notable events' section by removing no-longer-necessary paragraphs and copyediting the remaining ones.
  • I've replaced the Pinoy Idol logo with the one with FUR provided.
  • I've reuploaded the Philippine Idol finalists image in a smaller size.
  • I've merged small paragraphs in the 'Controversies' section.

Starczamora (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC) --Kakofonous (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I am concerned that a large number of the article's sources come from official websites related to its content. From this page: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."--Kakofonous (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of the contents were actually sourced from INQ7.net, a tie-up between Philippine Daily Inquirer and GMA Network, but it is no longer available and would have to rely from the official website. I will try to look for more independent sources. Starczamora (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: numerous criterion three violations:
    • Image:Philippine_Idol_Logo.jpg‎ – no fair use rationale
    • Image:Philippine Idol Advertisement.jpg and Image:Philippine Idol Final 12a.JPG – incomplete fair use rationales (see WP:RAT) and redundant logos from Image:Philippine_Idol_Logo.jpg‎. Per WP:NFCC#3B, “An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice”
    • Image:Yova Alonzo.JPG – per license tag and NFCC#8, fair use of this image for Philippine Idol article does not appear supported.
    • Image:Czarina Rosales PI PDA.jpg - incomplete fair use rationale, although moot, as image does not appear to significantly contribute to our understanding (required per NFCC#8).
    • Image:PinoyIdolLogoLarge.JPG – no fair use rationale for Philippine Idol article. Per license tag and NFCC#8, fair use of this image for Philippine Idol article is not supported. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
All images have been edited with respective fair use rationales, but with certain arguments...
  • Image:Philippine Idol Advertisement.jpg cannot be cropped as the date below the Philippine Idol logo is also used as a valid source for the program's original premiere date.
  • Image:Philippine Idol Final 12b.JPG has been cropped from Image:Philippine Idol Final 12a.JPG.
  • Image:Yova Alonzo.JPG depicts how Kakaibang Idol is presented as a "valid" singing competition rather than a presentation of odd talents.
  • Image:Czarina Rosales PI PDA.jpg is an illustration on Philippine Idol's accusation of talent piracy against ABS-CBN, who owns Pinoy Dream Academy.
  • Image:PinoyIdolLogoLarge.JPG is used as the Idol franchise's "transition" from Philippine Idol. Thank you. Starczamora (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:19, 7 March 2008.

[edit] Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots

Self-Nomination - This is an article about the said video game which highlights the game play, development, and reception of it. I have been working on this article recently and I believe it is well referenced, detailed, comprehensive, and is of featured quality. Hello32020 (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

  • "It has a variety of new features, such as new wonders, nations, and governments, but retains the essence of the original game." You've jumped in here in the lead with specifics assuming that the reader knows what you're talking about, especially with "new wonders". What's that supposed to be?
  • The lead should be expanded to mention more of "Reception", "development", and possibly give some basic context about gameplay.
  • "The Korean War during the Cold War campaign as played in Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots". Make captions as succinct as possible; "as played in Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots" is redundant as that is to be assumed, considering it is an image in that article.
  • Please conform to WP:DASH—unspaced emdashes or unspaced endashes.
  • I don't know, I've never worked on an article of this nature, but shouldn't there at least be a paragraph about the gaming fundamentals or any other basic context about gameplay? I know it's an expansion, but the reader's left in the dark otherwise.
  • "minor changes were introduced to complement the existing game structure, rather than radically alter it, as the original game format was highly successful" A couple of things wrong here: "highly successful" should be changed to "critically successful", as the former is ambiguous. I'd also qusetion the veracity of this; it seems like WP:OR as, because the game was critically acclaimed, you've assumed that the statement is true. Linking to reviews only verifies that the game was successful, and not that this was the reason for altering the game slightly. Finally, such a statement, if it is to be fixed, seems better suited in "Development". The source still don't confirm the statement saying that this was a result of the game's success.
  • "New features were added to the new nations". But if they're new nations, then the features of them would be neither new nor old as the nation itself is new. Please reword to clarify; if you mean new features of the game in general, then state that.
  • "The Napoleon campaign challenges the player to conquer Europe in a limited amount of time, with diplomacy, conquest, and bribing with land, both territories and colonies, to become allies being the means to do this." Reword this, because it requires several re-reads to be understood. Unless it's really relevant, you could cut out, "with territories and land" part.
  • "allows the choosing of". Poor wording here.
  • "each with a different "Patriot", effectively a stronger version of the "General" unit with different bonuses depending on which government was chosen." What's the point in defining a unit by comparison to another unit which also hasn't been defined. The reader doesn't know anything about the "General". The sentence is too long now; try splitting it up,
  • "created in the Senate a short time later". "short time later" could mean anything.
  • "Up to 8 players". Numbers under twenty (about) should be written out fully.
  • "empty spaces may be filled in with AI." I know what you're saying, but reword to be technically correct.
  • "Multiplayer" and "Scripts" should either be expanded or integrated into the main text, as the sections are too short.
  • Expand "Development" if you can—the whole thing's based on a single interview.
  • "Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots received a compilation score of 88% on both Game Rankings and Metacritic." This is needless considering the score is visible in the table.
  • "they cited the additions of more playable nations, new government mechanics, and new "Conquer the World" campaigns". What about them. Saying that they were cited means nothing.
  • "However, GameSpy called the game's artificial intelligence for "managing the individual movements of units and citizens...strategically brain dead." "Called" isn't the right word here.
  • The "Reception" section is basic, with one paragraph positive and the other negative. The table should never be larger than the text—cut down the table and expand on info. Is better, but still needs more work

A good article, but it needs some work. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed most of your comments in my recent edit, though I can't seem to find any more information on the development of R.O.N. Hello32020 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking better. Two more things: Take out the link to Gamerankings in external links; it's already referenced. I'd also consider taking Mobygames out too. I'd also like to know if there's any information relating to sales. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I took those two out of the external links, but can only find a combined figure for both Rise of Nations and Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots, source being Big Huge Games, of over one million sales. Should I add that? Hello32020 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure. The figure may be better suited to the main game's article. But like I said, I'm not sure. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left some responses. Please tell me if I've missed anything. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I have addressed your comments, again besides development, can't seem to find anything else on it. Hello32020 (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well done on the amendments. That leaves the "Reception". You need to cut down on the quotes and structure it differently. Don't split the paragraphs by positive and negative, but trying do it by such sections as gameplay, graphics, etc. Thanks for making the changes, though. By the way, if I've missed any strikes, then strike it for me, please. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Striked one of them, per your request, that was already accomplished. Not sure if you think the first section in gameplay is good enough for basic gameplay elements, but that is really as much as I can find. Fixed the reception section to be into sections of the game experience overall, the game's additions, the in-game elements, multiplayer, and its award. Hello32020 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Unlickily for you and me, you always catch me when I'm off to sleep. Curse you time zones!. The changes are much better, but a few things: please cut out the word "said" in reception; I don't know, "claimed", "stated" or "commented" are more encyclopaedic. Try to cut out some redundant "alsos", and also try to make it more cohesive than "Gamespy said... Gamespot said... IGN said...". In themselves it's okay, but these followed repetitively without anything to link them doesn't make for great prose. For gameplay, I was referring to the gameplay not based on the expansion, but the main objectives of the game—both the original and the expansion. I've never edited an expansion article, so I'm not so sure on this one. Great work so far. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Neutral01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC) - Ashnard has covered the gameplay sections fairly well and I trust his judgement on them. I'll look at Development and Reception.
    • "Big Huge Games added many things to the game during its development" - not very formal - try "Big Huge Games added multiple new features to the game during its development" or similar (see WP:FA? 1a)
    • "Executive Producer Tim Train" - I don't think his title is a proper noun
    • "and they added features to balance the gameplay" --> "and so features were added to balance gameplay"
    • "One way this was done is armed caravans and merchants were added to the Dutch nation" - you've used past tense so far; keep consistent
    • "Train also discussed the new features of the game, including campaigns and new nations." - this is meaningless if you don't say what he said about them
    • "He also said Big Huge Games" - rmv the also
    • The 2nd para of the development section is useless as it talks about reception and gameplay
    • "In November, 2004" - you don't need a comma and it should link to November 2004
    • The reception section overuses "claims" - use a thesaurus, come up with some other words. I use "noted" a fair bit; "declared", "commented", "explained", etc. are also useful
    • You don't need to wlink things more than once in Reception; GameSpy, GameSpot, and IGN are linked numerous times
    • "GameSpot said the game was a terrific experience and it not only provides exceptional content, but that it also improves an already good game" - don't change tense mid-sentnece
    • "However, GameSpy says the game's artificial intelligence" - use past tense
    • The reception prose in general isn't of a FA quality; try and copyedit a bit, etc.
    • You could mention the Metacritic/Game Rankings scores in the first reception paragraph.
  • At the moment, the article just isn't ready for the FA star. Suggest contacting the LOCE or asking at WT:VG if this FAC isn't successful. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Addressed all suggestions, I removed Train's discussion of new features portion in development because it would be repetitive to expand on it as it is already explained in the gameplay section, and moved that second sentence to reception. Hello32020 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to change to November 2004, fixed that now. Hello32020 (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've striked the oppose, yet I'm still unwilling to support. I have similar sentiments to DHMO with the reception. We've got to the stage where there doesn't seem to be much specifically to fix, but in general it could with some polish and more to satisfy the criteria, mainly engaging prose. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You'll be interested to know that User: Jappalang has made a detailed analysis of the article at User talk: Clyde Miller#Re: RoN:TP. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added many of the user's suggestions to the article, however I still can't seem to find any more information on the development of the game. Hello32020 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I've found some minimal detail on when the development was announced and a website for the game was launched, but that's it. Hello32020 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned still by the prose quality; I can't really point out specific examples (short of copy pasting entire paragraphs) but much of what I read wasn't of the quality I'd like to see in an FA. I'd be happy to copyedit when this is done, as would, I imagine, others (especially those who haven't seen the article before). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Same here. When I get some free time, I'll lend a hand with copyediting. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:19, 7 March 2008.

[edit] Atlantic campaign of May 1794

The final article in the (hopefully soon to be featured) topic on the Glorious First of June, a major naval battle of 1794. This article covers the month of campaigning which lead to the battle. The article has passed GA and been extensively copyedited by User:Carre and User:EyeSerene. All comments welcome. Jackyd101 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • By spring of 1794 the First French Republic was not only at war with all its neighbours, but was also in the grip of The Terror.
    • Dubious English; include the before spring.
Typo, done.
    • Misleading; the Law of 22 Prairial was on the 10th of June (perhaps better cited as a consequence of this campaign?)
Whilst you are quite correct in the date of the law, The Terror itself as a phenomenen had been continuing in France since September 1793 (and even earlier according to some sources). See Reign of Terror.
Reign of Terror is an appalling article, a hotbed of competing POVs. If you're going to summarize French revolutionary history, it would be much better to consult, say, R. R. Palmer directly than to rely upon that mishmash of Kautsky and R. J. Rummell. In any case, this comes across like C. S. Forester; it would be better to say nothing than this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm very confused. I have numerous sources which indicate dates earlier for these as the origin of the Terror (one text suggesting January 1793, around the time of the execution of Louis XVI). Suffice to say, France was in the grip of severe political repression and violence during 1793-1794, embodied in the Navy by massive purges of the officer corps in late 1793. Most sources I have consulted refer to these purges as being part of The Terror, and so have I. I am aware there is some controversy here but did not feel that this article was the place to go into a close debate on The Terror itself as the events were not directly consequential (the campaign does not appear to have influenced the later law directly by the way). What exactly are you objecting to? Is it the use of "The Terror" to describe this period? If so, why?--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be better to avoid the phrase; there is a reasonable distinction between the earlier phases and the summer of 1794, which routinely executed those who were neither in service to the Republic nor in arms against it; sometimes "the Terror" and "the Great Terror". Not a point which needs much explanation here; I will see if I can devise clearer wording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, looks good, thankyou.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • At 09:24 on the morning of 1 June, Howe sent his ships into action using the novel tactic of simultaneously turning each ship in his line northwest to bear down individually on Villaret's fleet.
    • Advancing in line abreast was novel in 1794? Source? If I recall Mahan correctly, it was far from new; neither was its failure.
    • If this means something else (as individually may be intended to do), please be clear.
The British fleet was not advancing in line abrest. They were each indiviually turning to towards the French so that, if the plan had gone as intended, every British ship would have broken the French line simultaneously. I have attempted to clarify this in the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for your comments. The issues you have raised have been addressed, let me know if this is satisfactory. If you have any further comments please let me know. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • dismissed the service may be outdated; we should write British English here, but of the twenty-first century, not the eighteenth. But I leave this for a native to discern. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Dismissed the service may be nautical jargon, but I wouldn't consider it outdated. Is there an issue with understanding the term, or is its meaning clear?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Not for me, but I've heard it before; would dismissed from the service be less forbidding? (and that is a question, for your consideration)
Yes, I see your point. I'll change it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose at least until the FA reviewers and the contributors to this article figure out what a "mile" is in this context. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean the difference between a mile and a nautical mile? There isn't any controversy about this in the article, this is the first time it has been raised. Basically when used in the article it means the standard mile, if it meant nautical mile then it would say "nautical mile". Can you make your concern a little clearer?--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary; in this context, if for some strange reason a land mile happens to be used, that is the one which needs to be explicitly—and most likely visibly—disambiguated. It is unlikely that this is the case in this article, however. Rather, it is much more likely that a number of those "miles" are merely misconverted. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Basically, in writing this article I stuck to the sources (principally in distances, this means William James) which use the term "mile" without qualification. I don't feel that I can make assumptions on their behalf as to which they meant. Whether this means that the figures should not be converted into km due to this uncertainty is a question I would appreciate wider input before deciding on. I have looked through James's work for some qualification of which "miles" he means, so far without success.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Including a conversion is identifying them. Misidentifying them, here. But basically, this is simply a matter of interpreting what your sources say, something we need to do all the time, for all sorts of ambiguities. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I have had a more thorough search of my edition of William James and have been unable to discover which version of "miles" he means. Do you suggest that I remove all of the conversions until this can be cleared up?--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If you do, you will get opposes from the metric faction. Gene, the source here is a quasi-official history from 1827; I see no real doubt that nautical mile is meant, and the conversions should simply be fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I will have to take your word for it, because that was what I originially thought, and then was throughly confused by the article nautical mile which seems to say that the actual length of a British nautical mile has changed several times since 1827 (or maybe I'm just misunderstanding the article).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Any variations and uncertainty in the definition of the nautical mile are insignificant at the precision of the measurements in this article—unlike the 15%+ difference between sea miles and land miles. Yes, we know it wasn't the international nautical mile 1852 m definition, but by the 1820s it was already standardized as 6080 ft for the British nautical mile .
Like Sepentrionalis/PMAnderson says, we can reasonably assume that a naval historian is using nautical miles for distances involving ships at sea. To say otherwise would be like having a source on the history of Britain which mentions "Rugby", but saying that you can only link to the Rugby disambiguation page, because the source doesn't explicitly say that it isn't Rugby, North Dakota.
Or, it is like saying that when William James says that a gun weighed x cwt., you couldn't convert that to kilograms because he doesn't explicitly tell you that he thinks "hundred" is written in digits as "112". Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)The changes are on the order of one part in a thousand, and should not affect conversions (the picky may have opinions on whether 10 miles is best expressed as 18 km, 19 km, or 18.5 km, but we'll deal with that if they do; the half-km is less than the precision of the distance anyway.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, if we are going to assume nautical miles then that is fine. Can someone help with changing the conversions, since I have no idea how to do that.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That {{tl:convert}} template is an extremely complicated one, but for this situation it is simply a matter of changing the parameter name from mi to nmi. I changed the other two conversions to nautical mile conversions without explicitly identifying the miles, you can tinker with the best way to do that. I didn't bother with "approximately ten miles" (20 km would probably be best there, even if it were statute miles rather than nautical miles) or half a mile (1 km appropriate for its precision); the only one where it makes a significant difference in what the readers will understand is the 400 nmi figure. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

More pressing, perhaps, is the question of what the sources are.

  • The whole business about the Terror causing famine is from a book published by The Times in 1907; Edwardian Tory histories are simply not reliable sources on the French (or the American) Revolution, least of all on causation. It might be better to say that war and rebellion caused the Terror and the famine: The Vendee revolted in March 1793; the Terror, even as a general policy, began in September. It is difficult to imagine any course, short of immediate capitulation, which would have saved that harvest.
This is actually a minor point in regards to the article, and given the confusion it has already caused, I am quite happy to remove the suggestion of causality. As far as I can make out (and I have consulted other sources, that one was cited in this particular instance largely because it agreed with others and I wanted to utilise a range of sources in the article). I could find another source to reference this, but given that it is a point of controversy and a minor issue, I'll try and find a way to not imply a direct causal link. (The actual wording of one source was that the Terror had caused the harvest to rot in the fields, so at least one source was implying a direct link, but in this case it doesn't seem worth a lengthy debate).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • William James wrote in 1827; doubtless he is fuller in detail than most later sources, but that is not everything. Try a modern naval history; or try The Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution and Empire, 1793–1812. If they tell the same story, well and good; they probably will in general, but not in specifics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
More modern histories were consulted, but were so sketchy on detail that I found myself repeatedly coming back to James. More detail was avaliable on the Glorious First of June itself, but the camapign was generally ignored as a topic. I will try to look at the book you have suggested, but it won't be for a few weeks at least I'm afraid.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Does the "Ed." mean that Tracy and Williams were named Edward, or that they were editors? If the latter, this is not how to format it; I believe {{cite book}} has arguments to cover the case, but it is really not that difficult to format citations by hand. (This is a minor complaint, and none of these are an oppose.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It means they were the editors. Williams does not give contributors names while Tracy's primary sources are given in the individual footnotes. I will investigate the ways to deal with this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I would deal with this by taking the references out of {{cite books}}. (I'd be willing to do this, if you agree.) It is possible to say "Tracy, p. xx, citing DOCUMENTNAME", but it's only worth doing if the reader is likely to care which primary source is being used - usually a question of reliability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do, that would be fine as long as all relevant informaton is retained.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. My main concern is uniformity of style, so I have spent time just now editing the article with that in mind. A question: what purpose is served by linking dates, like this: 2 April? I changed a couple of these, to link to sections within the article that have headings of exactly that form. Those links are now useful: but I see no point at all in the others. Anyway, generally an efficient little article that should get FA status after some polishing. I'll do more, if asked to.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Linking dates like 2 April is, as I'm sure you're well aware, in compliance with WP:MOSDATE, specifically Autoformatting and linking. Your change to the two dates, though making the links more high-value, is not compliant – specifically to Do not use piped links for date elements that cause date formatting problems. Pending an agreed and released solution to the famous autoformatting "bug", the options open through MOS are to unlink all non-relevant dates, leaving the high-value ones such as those you've changed; or to revert to having all dates autoformatted and linked to the low-value date articles. Carré (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Carré. No, I haven't kept abreast of all that. Tied up with other MOS-issues, in recent times. It seems quite absurd to me! Do the two high-value changes that I made really cause problems? If so, the two sections in question are themselves anomalously named, and should be renamed slightly to enable such useful internal links. A section ought surely to have a name that will permit linking to it.
But in fact, looking at the detailed provisions at WP:MOSNUM, I don't see a problem for those internal links. They are of the form [[#number month|number month]], and nothing with # appears among examples of problem cases. Is that right?
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 12:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem, of course, is that when you use those piped links, you don't get autoformatting. So some people are going to get most of the dates in one format, and those two dates incongruously jumping out at them in a different format. The problem isn't with the links, they work fine; it is with the notion of using linking as the mechanism to achieve autoformatting, the same problem you run into with "year in aviation" and "year in music" links and the like. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Since we cannot achieve both, the tradeoffs must be considered, and a choice as to which is most important in the particular context. That is not something that we should even expect a Manual of Style to be able to determine in all cases. Noetica's choice is a reasonable one in the circumstances. Not the choice everyone would make, but certainly a defensible one, and the choice whould be based on what is most helpful as least disruptive to the article, not on some artificial rules. But remember also, those links aren't particularly helpful because they are Easter egg links; no reader of the article is likely to expect that one of the ubiquitous Wikipedia date links is going to take them to a particular section of the article which they are reading. If you are going to do that, it might well be better to use something which does clearly indicate this to the reader, such as "see the [[#28 May|28 May]] and [[#29 May|29 May sections]] below". Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Or "as on 28 May, [[#28 May|below]] and 29 May [[#29 May|further below]]". The point is to be clear to the reader that there is a link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[←] PMA's suggestions seems a very reasonable and workable suggestion here. Gene has it spot on with the piped links – that's exactly what I was on about. Noetica's intent was what we should all be aiming for: to get high-value dates linked, and low-value ones not linked. But until either the conflation of autoformatting and linking goes away, or the autoformatting brigade accepts that date links are irrelevant for the vast majority of wikipedia users, FAs are going to have to find some compromise if they're to comply to WIAFA and MOS. And any particular FAC is not the place to have that discussion. Carré (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary of changes

Hi all, thanks for your interest. I have been unexpectedly busy in RL and thought it best to follow this page's progress without becoming heavily involved in debate until I was more free, as I now am. Below is a summary of the changes done or needed for the article from the text above.

  • Septentrionalis has disputed the use of the term The Terror for the period it is used to discuss. Although this is sourced, this is clearly quite a controversial issue historiologically and given the minor importance of the term within the article I have agreed that it should not be use. I do however have an issue with some of the changes made to the first paragraph. Although I have changed what I percieve to be the problems in the article itself, I have copied the paragraph below to demonstrate what I have taken issue with so that my intentions are clear.

In the winter of 1793–94, war and external disorder had combined with bad weather, and France faced starvation. The Vendee had rebelled in March 1793, and the northwest of France, except for the ports, was still effectively a foreign country; Lyons had rebelled for the Girondins in May, and was taken in October; the Terror had begun in September, and was not yet at its height (not until June 1794). The Navy had become disorganised through equality brought on by the Revolution. Louis XVI had decreed that only pure-blood noblemen could be officers; but the Republic had promoted experienced seamen, and the two groups had quarrelled. Two members of the Committee of Public Safety had been reorganizing the fleet, and restoring morale, since October.[1]

Firstly surely it should be internal disorder rather than external disorder (that factor is covered by the word "war"). Secondly the paragraph has no causal links - why are rebellions in the Vendee and Lyons mentioned? I am guessing that they are brought up to explain the starvation, but this is not made clear and I think it would be best just to talk about internal rebellion without discussing which ones were most at fault and mention political repression without stepping into the potential minefield of The Terror. The sentance on the "equality" of the revolution is highly loaded and I'm very uncomfortable with it as presented. Whilst it is certainly true that more experienced seamen were promoted, it does not follow that these men were better at their jobs - in fact it is certain that many weren't, an experienced merchant seaman or bosun does not a naval captain make. Many of the "pure-blood noblemen" (another loaded phrase) who were executed or dismissed were excellent officers of many years standing and their loss was (and this can be sourced) a disaster for the French navy. It is true that the groups quarrelled, but to site their quarrels as a primary cause in the deterioration of the French Navy at this time is overly simplistic and a fuller debate is not, I feel, within this page's remit. To say that the men from the commitee were "reorganizing the fleet, and restoring morale" without qualification is also very loaded - they may have been attempting or intending this, and did make some achievements towards it, but their purges and proclamations had some very negative effects on the Navy as well. To sum up, this new paragraph has numerous problems and I'm far from convinced by its accuracy or in many respects its relevancy. If the source is saying what is listed here unqualified then I am afraid that I am highly suspicious of it. I would also appreciate if the individual facts listed could be sourced to a single page number rather than all the references grouped at the end of the paragraph so I can see what is attributed to what. I do not mean to be unpleasant, I hugely appreciate the interest and effort put into this paragraph, but I have extensively remodelled it so that it conforms a better to brillant prose, NPOV and relevancy requirements.
  • The nautical mile issue. This has now been dealt with thanks to Gene Nygaard, and relevant measurements now convert nautical miles into km.
  • I have no problem with Noetica's edits, even the disputed dates issue, but I feel that this is not really the place to hold this debate. Carré is quite correct, barring some change in MoS, these links should not be piped but linked and on the basis of this I am changing them back. If a reasonable MoS based argument is made I have no prejudice against changing them again, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose External was a typo. I don't see that the condition of France needs to be mentioned at all; but if it does, it should not be based on Tory sources from 1827 and 1907. I summarized a distinguished (American) historian of the Revolution, whose view of the Jacobin regime is on balance substantially negative, but is more nuanced than the tradition of the Ogre Robespierre, which the article now represents.
I am not prepared to edit war over this; but this is unacceptable as FA; which is to say, it is an embarassment to Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


You are entitled to your oppose but I take great exception to you calling this article an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Your edits were not well written, your sources were unclear and I'm afraid that I strongly suspect that you are incorrect in your comments about the dates of The Terror (and the state of that article should have no bearing on this one. The Terror article says that the Terror started in 1793, as do my sources (biased though you may consider them to be). You are challenging this rather small aspect of the article on what appears to be a minor point of historiography. Rather than argue the point with you I dropped the link and the phrasing from the article, but I could not let your edits stand in the manner in which you had made them as frankly they did not make sense. Rather than enter into a debate on these relatively minor aspects I simplified the whole section whilst still retaining your sources (which I am sure are perfectly acceptable). I appreciate the work and interest you have put in, and I feel that once tidied up, your edits were a positive influence on the article but you seem a little fixated on this Terror business. One of the "Tory" sources I used described the huge purge of the Navy in late 1793 as being part of The Terror. The Wikipedia article seemed to confirm that the Terror was ongoing at this point, and I therefore conflated the purge (which definitely happened and has been attested by numerous sources) with the Terror in general. In this I was apparently mistaken and this has been corrected. I did not, and have no intention of ever, mention Robespierre, or make value judgements about the French government beyond "they purged their naval officer corps which had a negative effect on the French Navy", a fact attested not just by a string of sources but also by the dismal fighting record of the French Navy throughout the war. To be frank, this is a tiny part of the article and to brand the entire thing an "embarrassment to Wikipedia" because you don't like a historiographical footnote which I have made attempts to accomodate you with already is excessive in the extreme.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I notice that there is now a POV tag on the article. Since you have felt this necessary, please explain, clearly and simply either here or at the article talk exactly what it is in the article which you believe violates NPOV so I can fully understand what you are having problems with beacause it is not self evident to me from this page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the winter of 1793, war and internal disorder had combined with poor weather to leave France facing starvation.[1] The collapse of the harvest due to widespread revolt across France and heavy-handed political repression from the National Convention had caused a breakdown in the French agricultural system.
    • Palmer should not be cited for an interpretation with which he disagrees.
I do not have a copy of Palmer and you did not cite him so I could tell which page number was for which fact. Please break these page numbers up so it is clear what they are citing.
We are not in the business of catering for the incompetent. I cited four whole passages from Palmer; deal. As it happens, pp. 205 and 209 directly discussed the fleet at Brest, rather than the general background; but if you don't have access to Palmer, what difference does it make? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You cited Palmer badly because when I tried to clean up the edits you had made, I was unable to tell which of the page numbers you had given related to which of the titbits of information you had inserted without context. That is why you need to break page numbers up.--Jackyd101 (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you needed to read Palmer. If you had, you would not be contending for nonsense below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The heavy-handed political repression began in September and was institutionalized in October; that is to say, it was begun with the harvest, not before it.
Fine, remove the political repression all together, it isn't important.
Look, I am sorry but what you inserted here was your own POV (based on sources) that political repression did not cause the failure of the harvest. I needed to demonstrate at the start of the article that there was a potential famine looming in France. In more than one source I consulted the famine was, at least in part, blamed on political repression in France at the time, so I gave that as a reason. You complained about this and rather than argue the toss on such a minor issue I simply removed the phrase entirely whilst I was tidying up your edits (which did not make sense for the reasons I outlined above) I did not revert to anything, check the diff.--Jackyd101 (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Palmer is the middle of the road; this article now represents the right margin; if we had wished to include the left margin, we could have cited the even more distinguished Albert Mathiez on Robespierre and the Jacobins as the true democratic Rovolution, betrayed to perfidious Albion by the bourgeoises of Thermidor.
I didn't say Palmer wasn't the middle of the road, I merely resented your representation of my sources as "Tory" without much justification, aparently because the main one is contemporary English. I have not read Albert Mathiez but I am sure he is very eminent (I follow naval history, not political), but if he does indeed say things like "perfidious Albion" and the "true democratic Revolution" (guillotine and all I guess) I would be even more sceptical of him than anyone else mentioned (sounds an awful lot like historical revisionism seen through a political kaleidoscope).
Precisely. Mathiez's view is one extreme, although it is a widely held current of opinion held by reliable sources (the article on the Terror should acknowledge it, but that's another problem); you are parroting the other extreme; neither is desirable. It is not our business to be "skeptical" of one side or the other, but to neutrally reflect all. (Which source are you claiming is contemporary English, btw?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Kindly do not accuse me of "parroting" anything. The version I laid down in this article was in no way extreme and am still struggling to understand why you think it is because you have still not really explained exactly what wording in the article you object to. The version you gave, whether you meant to or not, implied that the failure of the harvest and the disorganisation of the Navy happened despite the best attentions of the National Convention as opposed to, at least in part, because of them. This is a major change in direction for the paragraph performed without consultation and using a source which I have not seen. Just as you are sceptical (and dismissive) of my "Tory" sources, I have every right to be sceptical of yours. (I was giving James as contemporary English, I know he was published over 30 years later, but his accounts were partly based on discussion and interviews with officers who served in the actions described).--Jackyd101 (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and that gives him the weaknesses of any primary source; including, it would seem, the weakness of most official histories: they don't gather data from the other side, and when they do, they don't give it equal weight. The assertion that the National Convention desired the disorganization of the Navy casts them as pantomime villains; they were fighting a war, after all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of the records of the French admirals, but there were a number of captains in the French fleet at the GFOJ who were ex-merchant captains, brought in to replace long-serving officers executed or arrested in the purge of late 1793. What these purges did was to behead the French Navy and erase cohesive leadership, which was further divided by political commissars like Jean Bon Saint Andre. This is one of the reasons the French Navy was disorganised in 1794, not because there were quarrels between aristocratic officers and recent promotions (there were no officers remaining who promoted their aristocratic birth, Saint-Andre saw to that).
Nonsense. Non-aristocratic officers were promotable, and promoted, as of 1789-90. Saint Andre and Prieur dismissed, and executed some of, the aristocratic ones (although not all, as "Villaret de Joyseuse" shows), because of the resulting factionalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Made into decrees, April 22 and 28th, 1791. This is not the Terror; it is not even the National Convention, but its grandfather, the Constituent Assembly.. (F.M.Thompson, The French Revolution, p. 466); the same source reports that Saint Andre sent six prisoners off for execution after the mutiny; hardly the twenty-first century meaning of "purge". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Saint-Andre and Prieur were appointed in response to the mutiny in late 1793 in which the Atlantic Fleet was taken over by its enlisted sailors and brought into Brest due to lack of pay and food. Officers were not initially dismissed or executed because of their aristocratic roots (although this inevitably played some part), but because of their percieved failures during the mutiny. In the months which followed, Saint-Andre et al replaced a large number of officers and senior seamen of all stations of birth, according to my sources for percieved lack of revolutionary ardor. These men (who included most of those of aristocratic birth) were replaced by those of sufficient revolutionary reputation and this number included many ex-merchant seamen, junior officers and even some men who'd never served at sea before at all. I also didn't say there were no aristocratic officers, I said there were none who "promoted their aristocratic birth" by 1794. --Jackyd101 (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Is Vanstabel another sign of a dated history, with limited access to French records? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The spelling of Vanstabel varied a lot, so ultimately I went with the spelling here (which was repeated elsewhere) [35] largely because this one is in French. If I am wrong I'll happily change it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fundamentally, the entire dispute here results from the clear fact that Jackyd has happened across two extremely dated sources, and has not consulted either the current literature on the Revolution (any of it), or the current literature on the campaign. I will not argue his points further; but it really is no longer consensus that the National Convention were blood-drinking ogres, who intended to destroy their own fleet and to starve their own country, including the "virtuous citizens" loyal to the Republic. Right-thinking Englishmen thought so in 1827, but that was 180 years ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

::I've had enough of this. The dispute here is not really about my sources (numerous modern scholarship about the campaign can be seen in the footnotes). What Septentrionalis dislikes is that I am not allowing him to absolve the French government of the time of all responsibility for the destruction of their naval officer corps (through prejudice and incompetence, not deliberately) several months before the campaign began. This is a minor point of the article and a minor historiagraphical point which I do not feel the article really needs to deal with in any depth.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to see this is struck. It is in error, both about what I proposed, and about the literature. I did not "absolve" the National Convention of anything, except to omit the chronologically impossible; in its place I added the sack of Lyons. That Jackyd believes this to be "revisionism" says more than I can hope to do about his own deep-rooted biases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


OK, I have removed my comment above not because I don't think it is valid, but because it is not constructive. What is needed is some kind of compromise here between the sources presented. As this is a minor aspect of the article I am sure that we can come to some sort of arrangement satisfactory to both of us. I suggest we both take time off from the discussion here to come up with compromise solutions seperately and then put them together to see if we can reach agreement. I would ask however that you use your sources in accordance with the other sources given, i.e. present each fact with its respective page number. You have introduced this source during FAC and it is up to you to present it correctly. I will get a copy of this book from my local library next tuesday and see what is actually said to try and work with you on this. I apologise for any offence I may have caused you, but I also take great exception to your tone and language. When we next speak please try to write more clearly and control your temper and I will do likewise--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a source for you to consider: Naval Blunders by Geoffrey Regan, published in 2001, has a passage on the French Navy at this period on pp.87-88 which says among other things, "Everywhere senior officers were deposed by committees of sailors and replaced by more popular men, regardless of rank or ability", "political commissars were given the task of running French ports - with what result can best be left to the imagination" and, following the 1793 mutiny, "The admiral (Morard de Galles) was helples to impose discipline and was promptly arrested on the grounds of his noble background and imprisoned by Deputy St Andre. The deputy then rounded up all the men who had obeyed the admiral's orders and sent them to Paris where they were guillotined. He then dismissed all officers of the fleet who had served before 1789." On the subject of the officers at the Glorious First of June, he writes "of the 26 captains one had been a common sailor and another a boatswain; the rest came from the merchant service and had no experience of commanding a warship in action". These statements come from a modern (albeit popular) historian and seem to confirm the earlier sources which you have criticised. I would be interested to hear some quotes from your source to see how they match up to these and others I can provide.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course the Tory view still exists; so does the socialist view of Mathiez. But neither is consensus any longer. The disruptive practice of demanding extensive quotations is tiresome; Palmer is still in print and widely available, and I have provided citations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:19, 7 March 2008.

[edit] Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney

Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been a GA since November and recently went through the PR process (but did not get much attention). I believe it now satisfies FA criteria. Loopla (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfocused (and therefore struck) concerns; see new comment below ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article makes very extensive use of quotes, many of which could be replaced by original writing. Kakofonous (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have removed one that wasn't necessary. Loopla (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Great work. I disagree with the questions raised about the crest above. The Non-free crest is used to accurately represent the school, and to confirm to readers that they have reached the correct page. The PD image does not do either of these things. Congratulations to Loopla on a fine piece of work. Twenty Years 08:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I would like to suggest that in the "Campus section" that the line about four tennis courts be scrubbed, its non-notable, and adds nothing to the article. Twenty Years 06:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Loopla (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Per this PLC page, the crest (Image:Presbyterian_Ladies_College_Sydney_crest.png‎) was adopted August 23, 1888. Age, and previous comments from Loopla, suggests this image is no longer copyrighted (i.e. PD). If this is the case, update the license tag accordingly. Alternatively, if image is still copyrighted, use of Image:PLCCigaretteCard.jpg will need to be reexamined, as it would likely constitute a derivative work. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I am not sure how it should be tagged if it is not copyrighted. I am guessing Template:PD-Australia. Would this be correct? Loopla (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Having made one minor change [36], I believe the article meets the FA criteria. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Comments by karanacs that have been addressed Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The prose needs a great deal of work, there are numerous MOS violations, and I think the article could be organized a bit better.
    • Go through the article and eliminate pieces of redundancy wherever possible. Here is just an example: Victoria had a ladies college, "so it was felt that N.S.W. Pres. should also have one" followed immediately by "other Protestant denominations had LCs, therefore the Pres. should have one too." This could easily be shortened and combined into one sentence.
    • Is the school prayer under copyright? I know that school songs are generally not reprinted in full because of copyright issues, and I suspect that this may be an issue for the school prayer as well. (Now, I see that the school hymn is here as well -- same concerns)
      • Comment I have removed the prayer as I am unsure of its copyright status. The song however is in the public domain according to British Law as the British creator died in 1897, and the song was written in 1893. The song is also used by a few other schools. Loopla (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
        • If you keep the song, then you need to reformat that section. There is a big gap (several paragraphs of white space) in the Uniform section as a result of the song and an image being placed back-to-back. Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Comment Oh, it didn't realise! It doesn't look like that on my computer. I've made the song box smaller and moved the pic, can you still see white space? Loopla (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, I still see some white space (but not as much as before). I'm a little unsure how to reformat. The rest of the article has a lot of good images and there really doesn't appear to be room to move the hymn. Since it is the school hymn of other schools, too, do you really want to keep it? If you do, I'll have a go at rearranging, since I'm the one seeing the problem. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've also noted numerous issues with apostrophes and lack thereof. Please go through the article and make sure that the plural of "Presbyterian" is "Presbyterians" and NOT "Presbyterian's". I've also seen some instances where the possessive is meant and the plural is used instead (Countesses instead of Countess's). Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The prose still needs a good copyedit too -- lots of repetition, lots of clunky wording. Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • There shouldn't be a one sentence paragraph anywhere, especially in the lead.
  • A boarding school from the Wiki article is "where some or all pupils not only study, but also live during term time..." Since this includes both those who stay and don't, I don't think you need day school in the lead as well.
  • "advertised far and wide" is not encyclopedic writing
    • Done I have removed this. Loopla (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Periods should be inside quotations marks. For example: "end of sentence." There are a few of these in the history section to correct.
    • Done Pretty sure I got them all. Loopla (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "By August 1888 the College had outgrown the Ashfield residence, which had always been considered a temporary home, and the newly established P.L.C Council began discussing alternative sites in the nearby suburb of Croydon." Who always considered it a temporary home?
    • Done Added info. Loopla (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Only full dates with day, month, and year should be linked.
  • "beautiful gardens" - beautiful should not be used, remember WP:NPOV, unless this is a quote describing the gardens.
    • Done I have removed this. Loopla (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The history section is too long. Try and condense some of the smaller paragraphs into the larger ones. Also, edit. Remove information that doesn't add anything to the history of the school.
  • I don't think the table of principals is needed. Those could all be incorporated into a sentence saying something like, past principals include...
    • Done Principals have been removed. Not sure where else they could be mentioned. Loopla (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Under the campus section, there is no need for a list of buildings on campus. All lists should be incorporated into the text. This would help you expand the section, which is also badly needed. Could some campus information be moved from the history?
  • "P.L.C Sydney is arguably one of Australia's best girls sporting schools." This either needs to be reworded, or citations from outside sources need to be used to support it. Also, again remove or combine the one sentence paragraphs.
  • "In addition to that offered by JSHAA and IGSSA," can be better worded.
    • Done I have removed this. Loopla (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the article also needs a good copyedit, consider making a request to the LoCE. Things such as "In September 2007" should have a comma after the 2007. I saw this lack of commas a number of times.
  • The individual subheadings under Co-curriculum should be combined together, such as student life and then not broken into subheadings. They are not major topics deserving their own subheadings. I would combine maybe Ensembles, Debating and public speaking, and Aid projects. I would remove the entire Exchange programme section as it doesn't say anything about the school. I would also remove the fees section, this is not an informational brochure on the school, but an encyclopedia article. Some of this could be incorporated above.
    • Comment Exchange programme has been removed. Loopla (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the motto and crest needs its own section. Maybe try and incorporate a few sentences about it into the history section. Same with the school badge.
  • I would remove the uniform section. This is not very encyclopedic. If you want to mention it in the history you could, but not in this detail.
  • The house section should be text. Also, the level of detail found here is not necessary. We don't need to know about what the people the house is named after did. this article is about the school. The mottos and colors can go to.
  • I am not sure what the Ex-Students' Union is? Building, club, alumni organization? If it is a building, it should go in the campus section, club or alumni group should go under student life.
    • Comment I have added that it is an alumni association. I have noticed that Baltimore City College (an FA) has a separate section on its alumni association, quite similar to the one here. Im not sure therefore if it should go under student life, especially as its not an association for students, and plays only a very minor role in the daily life of current students. Just my thoughts. Loopla (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The associated schools section again is not really relevant to describing this school. Focus on this school.
    • Done Has been removed. Loopla (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, sentences should never begin with 1966 saw...

If you haven't done so already, I would encourage you to look at the current education related featured articles located here. They will give you ideas on how to format this article and the headings and subheadings that are commonly used. KnightLago (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose—needs the attention of a good copy-editor. It's not only technical glitches throughout, but odd ways of saying things, that make this unacceptable as a FA. The opening is pretty bad. Here are random examples.
  • Opening sentence is a bumpy read, with EIGHT commas in about 25 words, hello. "The Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney (P.L.C. Sydney), is an independent, Presbyterian, boarding school for girls, located in Croydon, an inner-western suburb of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia." Do we really need "New South Wales" after "Sydney"? Do they really use the dots in "PLC"? Why not make it easier for foreigners by writing "the state of New South Wales" where this occurs at the end of the first para? And can you reduce the number of occurrences of NSW? It's tedious.
  • "Founded in 1888 by a committee of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church"—If you're going to mention a committee, tell us which one. And since the decision would almost certainly have had to be endorsed by the GA, why not leave out mention of this anon committe altogether? (Who cares?)
  • "Currently"—necessary along with present tense?
  • "caters for approximately 1,350 girls from Branxton Reception (4 years old)"—the 4 years old is clunky; you have to read on to make sense of it in reverse.
  • "Round Square"—this is jargon that the poor reader will have to link-visit to make sense of. The third para, in any case, is pretty boring: isn't there anything more important to an overview than this bureaucratic stuff?
  • The Sun-Herald's ranking seven years ago is digging up the bottom of the barrel. Embarrassing. The SH is w/end entertainment, and hardly authoritative.
  • "the idea of a Presbyterian College in Sydney arose in 1883"—This is awkward ("arose").
  • "a 14-roomed gentleman's residence"—New verb, to room? Tony (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:08, 6 March 2008.

[edit] Getafe

Self-nominator: (I wrote the article in the Wikipedia in Spanish and the traduction here is made by other users.) I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's a complete, long, well ordenated, and excellent article. It meets the FA Criteria. It's traduced from the Wikipedia in Spanish. Miguel303xm (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, sorry. References are lacking. MOS breaches – linking standalone years, punctuation in captions, inconsistent conversions from metric to imperial, non-breaking space usage and dash usage are the things that jumped out at me. While the translator's English is undoubtedly a lot better than my Spanish, the prose isn't really up to scratch either, on a cursory glance through.
That said, it looks like the information is all there (again, based on a cursory glance), so it's just tidy-up time. Carré (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the criteria for a Featured article in Spanish is immensely different than a Featured article in English. This article does not meet the English Wikipedia's FA criteria, unfortunately; the prose is clunky and repetitive ("the city" is used far too many times in the first paragraph, for example) and references, of which there are too few, are not formatted correctly. As Carré points out above there are also numerous issues with style, as well. I would suggest finding a thorough copy-editor or two and then trying for Good Article status first before jumping straight to FAC. María (habla conmigo) 17:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Very bad prose, un-referenced, the sections could be etimology - geography - history - demography - economy - culture (sights, education) - transports - famous people - twin cities - references - bibliography - commons - wiki-links - external links. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You say "It's un-referenced". So, what is this?: Getafe#References. Miguel303xm (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The above user was incorrect. There are very few inline citations, however, and none of them are formatted properly per WP:CITE. This is one of the reasons why the article does not fulfill the FA criteria at this time. María (habla conmigo) 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:08, 6 March 2008.

[edit] Murder of Victoria Climbié

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is detailed, informative and well referenced. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't know if this is possible, but can you look into adding images to the article? Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a well known and well used image. I have asked Mecu for advise. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 19:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of GA image requirements moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: this simply isn't ready yet. There are various formatting issues—(2 November 1991 — February 20, 2000), external link in lead, improper use of dashes—and the prose just isn't up to standard. Take for example the entire first sentence, which is clunky and awkward; the article needs to be copy-edited. I also note that it has had less than fifty edits in the last eleven months, and it doesn't look like this article was prepared for this FAC against Featured Article criteria; it's basically straight out of its GA nomination, which sets off warning bells for me. Most of the article's information was added by User:Christopher Connor with a single edit; very impressive, but they don't seem to be very active anymore. Who will address concerns? María (habla conmigo) 13:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A few things I've initially picked up just in the lead. If this is still going in a few days, I'll try and do a full read through.
    • "the creation of a database, ContactPoint, that will hold information on all children in England and Wales" - has it been created or not? You're implying both things...
    • Refs 1 and 2 are in serious need of formatting
    • "Here they met Manning and moved in with him" - who's Manning?
    • If you're going to source stuff in the lead, which it seems you are, than you need to source the 2nd paragraph, especially the quote
    • The last sentence of the lead propably fits in with the previous paragraph (and, ironically, says who Manning is for the first time...).
  • All this from the lead; probably needs a fair bit more work. Suggest a thorough peer review before you go for FAC again, should this not succeed. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I clearly didn't understand the nature of the FAC process. I'm sorry to have brought this to your attention. I thought this was a collaborative process - I didn't realise the person nominating was then expected to do all the work. How do I withdraw this? SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 00:36, 5 March 2008.

[edit] John McCain

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is very well developed, and i believe it meets WP:FA criteria. 8thstar 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: the nominator has never edited the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: As the principal author of the article, I told Sandy when I saw it nominated that I had nothing to do with it being put up and that I didn't think the article is ready for FAC (there are content issues in spots, it needs a prose tightening run, and if nothing else, it needs the fun format work for non-breaking spaces, consistent footnote style, and all that), but that I was interested in seeing other editors' reactions on the "big" issues, such as stability, organization, content in general, etc. And other than the stability question, which I realize there will be sharp disagreement on, I've been encouraged on that count. However, if keeping the FAC open is a burden to the FAC folks, she has my blessing to close it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
New Note: The article is in the process of undergoing a significant reduction in size, with material being split out to new subarticles. This is due to complaints on its talk page (and a couple here) about load time issues and WP:SIZE. I would think that this FAC was about to be closed out as "not promoted" anyway, but I believe any FA consideration of the new main article, once finished, should be part of a new FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Article stats:

Wasted Time R 443
Ferrylodge 84
Jasper23 83
Satori Son 64
Rjensen 51

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Good for you! good job! Now how does the amount of edits "Wasted Time" made to the article... make it not FA worthy? 8thstar 03:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • SandyGeorgia is just making note that you are not one of the main editors of the article, and as a result, you might not be as knowledgeable of the problems that still exist with the article, as highlighted by Wasted Time R. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given the current allegations raised against him, I can't imagine it being a stable article for some time. Arzel (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Those allegations are over 8 years old, they were bandied about in 2000, liberal media is just regurgitating old news and calling it a scandal. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an election year, and he could well go on to serve two years as US President. In the circumstances we'd be mad to think this article was going to be stable enough to remain featured article quality in the foreseeable future. --TS 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

2 years as US President?? Nishkid64 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I suspect Tony meant two *terms*. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, I just wanted to make sure that Tony wasn't a clueless git. *grin* Nishkid64 (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be helpful to know if TS intended an oppose, support or comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • weak support. The article is very interesting and informative. Very well cited but I also am unsure if it can stay stable enough to remain featured article quality in the future.--CPacker (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It has been edited about 75 times in the past 24 hours because of the New York Times story. ---CWY2190TC 22:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the article is well written and definitely well sourced, the article currently fails the stability measure for being a FA. Even if you ignore the kerfuffle from the NY Times article, the article has averaged over 20 edits a day this month and that's two months after the major rework/rewrite by User:Wasted Time R. The article also has 82k of readable text, which is quite a bit outside size guidelines. The should really have less than 50k of readable text before it should be considered for FA. There have been several requests (including one by myself yesterday) to start discussion on the creation of child articles in accordance with summary style guideline but so far nothing has come of it. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose! Good fu__ing grief. This is "FA criteria opposite".Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Care to explain why you think the article does not meet the FA criteria? Just stating that it doesn't is not helpful to the editors who are handling this FAC. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not stable (at this time) which is part of criteria #1. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - Interesting article, but it is just unstable and will most likely continue to remain so for quite some time. It is well written and cited, however, and I applaud the editors for all their efforts thus-far. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support for the purpose of moral support. I have tremendous respect for this effort. It is extremely comprehensive and I believe modern biographies should be held to a higher standard for comprehensiveness with the ease of finding sources on the internet. The article is so long I may have only read half of it so far. I am enjoying learning about this man. However, I am disappointed in the objections thus far as they are generally unconstructive and unappreciative of this effort. I did not read the article with a grammatical interest, but rather an encyclopedic resource interest. I jumped in at a few places to see if it told me as much as I think I should want to know and it did. We certainly don't want New York Times Bestseller length biographies on wikipedia. However, someone threw out an 84k number. That sounds huge and it is. This is the longest biography I have really tried to dig in to on WP as a reviewer of any sort. The problem with the objections is they don't really give good guidance on shrinking the article. They don't point to anything excessive in detail or unencyclopedic in content. There is no stylistic guidance either. If an article is filled with a lot of interesting stuff and is under 100k, I think we should review it for editorial content instead of just saying take a hatchet to it until it is 50k. For this reason, I support until there is a compelling reason not to. I do not think this article fails WIAFA 1(e) which reads "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, except for edits made in response to the featured article process. Many articles of prominent people are tweaked daily by numerous people taking an interest in improving an important page. 20, 75, or 200 edits a day does not preclude an article from FA unless there is edit warring. An active article is still eligible for promotion as WP:GA or WP:FA (Featured article Barack Obama and Good article Hillary Clinton come to mind). My only problem with the breadth and depth of this article is it will make me feel bad no matter what I do over the next few weeks because I am in Buffalo on personal business and will be attempting to improve Jack Kemp toward WP:GA and maybe Seymour Knox II while I am in town. I don't think I will be able to make Kemp look as thorough even with hours and hours in the Buffalo Library while I am in town.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 08:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This article is ready by far. It is well-developed, and exceeds expectations for FA. Meldshal42Comments and SuggestionsMy Contributions 13:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, nice article, but fails the stability criterion. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. 1(d). On the one hand, Bush switched his label for himself from "compassionate conservative" to "reformer with results", as part of trying to co-opt McCain's popular message of reform. is the language of a blog, not an encyclopedia. This is by no means alone; it would be a useful experiment to trim out all adjectives and adverbs, unless they contained absolutely no tinge of judgment. Please read WP:Peacock. The article could be much worse than it is; unfortunately, it probably will worsen as the campaign continues, so we should lean over backward now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Where's the judgment? In politics as elsewhere, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; this is not a knock on Bush. This passage — which is directly supported by old-fashioned Arizona Republic and New York Times article cites, nary a blog involved — simply describes a direction the campaign took. Is "popular" the term you are identifying as peacock? That's just a referent back to the New Hampshire results. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • "Switch" is a small knock; and yes, popular is peacockery in effect; if it is intended as an analysis of the New Hampshire primary, that is neither clear, nor (as far as I can see) sourced; newspaper punditry would be a weak source for this sort of thing anyway, and they seem to report the switch, without mentioning NH. Famously is also peacockery; it is redundant with the quote which follows. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
        • "Switch" is not a knock, it indicates flexibility to respond to trends, akin to a football coach changing the team's strategy at half-time to adapt to game developments. "Popular" is probably unnecessary, and you're right that "famously" is a show-don't-tell violation; I've removed both of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Good; please reread the whole thing from this point of view, and I will see what has changed when you write my talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellently written article. Stability concerns are irrelevant; Barack Obama, the Democratic frontrunner, is also an FA, so at some point the community decided that current presidential frontrunners can meet the stability criterion. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Barack Obama was brought to FA status in August 2004, well before he had started his 2008 US presidential bid. Stability was one of the issues brought up in two separate FARs last year, but it appears that the users who started the FAR withdrew after their other major concerns were addressed. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The second Obama FAR was brought by a prolific sockpuppeteer, now blocked—something to watch for always. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Hm...that would explain why all of Feddhicks's comments were stricken. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Mainly, the article is very well referenced. Basketball110 what famous people say 00:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not stable in an election year and with recent controversies. KnightLago (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have not read the article and do not plan to oppose or support. However, I wanted to comment that my understanding is that Raul has in the past made it clear that ongoing events related to the subject of an article do not make it "unstable" in the sense intended to invalidate an article for FA. I believe that that criterion is intended to eliminate articles which are undergoing edit wars, and which are about topics too recent for the article to be plausibly stable (e.g. an article about a mass killing less than a week or two in the past). Hence I think some of the opposes above may be mistaking the intention of the stability criterion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Correct. This FAC is open, the time that it could have been withdrawn (by the principle editor before there were significant declarations of support or oppose) has past, so reviewers should focus on WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Although perhaps not completely correct. This is what Raul said, so reviewers should focus on stability from that angle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is the comment I had in mind. Raul doesn't directly address the issue of political candidacies, but he does comment that "active" articles are not necessarily to be eliminated from consideration. I'd interpret this as not eliminating articles about active political figures such as McCain. Mike Christie (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for providing that link, Mike. Again, there is talk page precedent for a significantly principle editor to withdraw a FAC that has been nominated by someone who has never edited it, if that is done early on and before there are significant declarations. Since Wasted Time R didn't opt to withdraw earlier, and this FAC is well underway, reviewers should focus on WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I just want to note that Raul is not God. He's the FA director for some weird reason that nobody has ever really explained and he'll stay there because nobody dares to put this into question. But his opinion about what "stability" means is as important as everyone else's. If people are concerned by this issue, well, they're concerned! and it's ok for them to oppose on these grounds. If Raul isn't concerned, then good for him but he can't ignore the community's sentiment. Pichpich (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pichpich is 100% correct. It gets too esoteric when editors start talking about other editors' "intentions". The recent and likely continuing commotion (and edit removals) about the Vickie Iseman connection is an example of instability in my opinion; if someone else wants to call it stable development, that's their right, but I won't be agreeing. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for all its qualities, the fact is that it's not realistic to hope that the article will be stable. I can't even understand why the nomination was not withdrawn or closed early. Matters will be even worse if he manages to win in November. I can see hope for FA if he loses though (keep your fingers crossed everyone). Pichpich (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose—1a, 1d, and 1e. WRT 1a, I spot the following problems in the lead, which suggests the entire text needs a copy-edit:
    • The first paragraph is only one sentence.
    • "Both McCain's grandfather and his father were Admirals in the United States Navy." "...and his father" suggests that the person is McCain's great-grandfather.
    • Several missing commas, such as "In late 2007(,)" and "In 1982{,}".
    • In general, some of the sentences are structured awkwardly, such as "In late 2007 he staged a comeback, won several key primaries during January 2008, and by the end of that month was the Republican front-runner once again – a status solidified by his Super Tuesday gains in early February and the subsequent withdrawal of his closest competitor, Mitt Romney." and "In the 2008 presidential election cycle, McCain was the Republican front-runner as the cycle began, but suffered a near-collapse of his campaign in mid-2007 due to financial issues, and due to his support for comprehensive immigration reform."
    • WRT 1d, there are a few sympathetic statements, such as "He then endured five and a half years as a prisoner of war," and "...delivering an emotional, impassioned speech about his time as a POW...". This doesn't seem to be a major issue.
    • However, the main issue at hand is criterion 1e — stability. McCain is a presidential candidate, which means two things: first, the neutrality and comprehensiveness of the article are sure to be the subject of edit wars as new and/or controversial information is released; second, the article will naturally evolve as the election continues. The nomination should wait until at least the end of the election. — Deckiller 05:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the comments. I've fixed your second, third, and fourth points in the lead. Regarding the first point, this lead uses the same style as FA Barack Obama: first paragraph is a one-sentence basic identification of the person, while second through fourth paragraphs present chronological summary of person's life. Regarding the fifth point, I'll fight for "endure" as accurate, but I'll look to see if the "emotional, impassioned" should be toned down or second-cited. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for addressing those points. It's a nice article, and it's unfortunate that stability has to be a major concern. — Deckiller 15:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present - This article has improved a lot but it's a work in progress - it is not yet stable, and the nit-picky work needs to be done, as Wasted Time R points out above. I also wonder if it should go through GA before FAC: whether or not that is required, I've seen that the GAC process usually reveals areas that need work and make the eventual FAC more productive. A word on stability: I don't agree that just because this is an article about someone running for President it is necessarily unstable or that candidate articles should be precluded from getting FA status. This is an article about this individual's entire life and career - the presidential race is a small part of it; the overall article is still in need of editing and fixing up, but in principle does not have to wait for the election to achieve FA. Tvoz |talk —Preceding comment was added at 05:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The stability criteria is being discussed at WT:WIAGA; it's possible that the stability criterion will be lowered for GAs, which means this article might pass a GA nomination. — Deckiller 05:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That had been a “dead discussion”; the outcome was an additional quick fail criterion: “[A nomination may be quick failed if] The article specifically addresses a currently unfolding event with a definite endpoint”. So, for example, John McCain is "viable", but John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 is not. Implicitly, therefore, participation in an election does not constitute instability in and of itself (as far a GA is concerned). Personally, however, going for GA or FA at the present time seems quite ill-advised. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose until 2009 at the earliest. This is precisely why we have the stability criterion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Recent news coverage over the New York Times report and being a candidate for President of the United States. Article fails to meet stability criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • 99% of the article is stable. John McCain's life story, his work in the Senate and his political career won't change dramatically. The stability clause has two aspects: edit wars, which this article is not currently involved with, and significant day-to-day changes. While McCain's article will change, it will not do so from day-to-day, and it will not be significant in size or scope. I reiterate that Barack Obama, a FA whose subject has far more press coverage and is in a much greater political battle at the moment, shows that public figures can have stable FAs. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
      • EXACTLY! 8thstar 21:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Changing to Neutral - I've thought about it more, and am still somewhat concerned about stability and other issues brought up by others, but the issues you brought up have made me reconsider. Hello32020 (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Support This article should be able to make it into FA status in the near future. I seem to have become #2 in number of edits to this article, but Wasted Time R has done vastly more than me. I've merely proofread the "Early life and military career," and I hope to get to the rest of the article before long. I'm particularly curious what people think about the list of "controversial quotes" in the section on "Cultural & Political Image." It seems to be a collection of the dumbest things McCain's ever said, and this stuff might be more suitable in Wikiquote than here. At least one person (not me) has objected at the McCain talk page. Wasted Time R's response to that person included the following:
“ The controversial remarks, which for most political figures are just accidental blunders that don't deserve attention, are for McCain part of the fabric of his nature, as the AP quote about his mouth being a WMD and McCain's own quote of admission tell us. ”
This is an intelligent response to the criticism, but I'm not sure that I'm convinced yet. I was certainly entertained by reading McCain's dumbest remarks. However, couldn't we just as easily say that he's shot off his mouth a lot, without quoting the ten greatest hits? I'm not sure. What do you folks think?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The examples are more verifiable, and more neutral, than the generalization. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
And shall we remove Obama's article from featured status because it fails to list examples of his platitudes? See this Chicago Tribune article titled "Analyzing Obama's stump speeches; Yes, they are filled with platitudes, but they discuss policy as much as his opponents' speeches do". And this is kind of funny too (not that I'm being partisan, of course).  :-) The columnist Charles Krauthammer gave further example of the platitudes, here. Ferrylodge (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Obama should not use the word platitude at all, unless it can get better authority than the Trib; any more than the Tribune's view should be incorporated (without a distancing prose attribution) in George V of England, or Brann the Iconoclast's view in William Waldorf Astor. We are not in the business of making judgments unless they are consenus, and even then it would be better to report the data. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't suggested that the Obama article use the word "platitude" but rather that it give examples. You said that "examples are more verifiable, and more neutral, than the generalization."Ferrylodge (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • We are an encyclopedia, not a blog. We should probably not cite the conclusions of op-ed columnists at all; if, rarely, we do, we should explicitly indentify that this is Krauthammer's opinion, and who he is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, I haven't suggested that the Obama article mention Krauthammer at all. I've suggested that the Obama article should list a bunch of the Obama quotations like the ones that Krauthammer has listed. As a matter of fairness, why should Wikipedia list McCain's biggest gaffes, without listing Obama's biggest platitudes? See the analogy?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Only as an example of comparing apples with oranges. This article does not call them gaffes; it reports that McCain said gook, as he did. (I have not checked whether this is adequately sourced; but I believe it to be readily sourceable.) The conclusion that this is racist rhetoric seems fairly obvious; but it should be attributed or removed if it is not consensus.
Platitude, however, is entirely a matter of judgment (and one to which McCain's speeches are not immune; few politicians' are). To simply quote Obama on hope would itself be neutral, and pointless; his stump speech belongs on Wikisource, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
McCain's remarks are well known for a certain coarseness at times. And Obama's are well known, as the Chicago Tribune put it, for “airy rhetoric”. I see no reason to recite a catolog of McCain's coarseness without also cataloging Obama's airy rhetoric. It's both or neither as far as I'm concerned, and I lean toward neither.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As for your concerns with another article, they are noted and logged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm really not a big fan of this whole line of analysis. We are not creating a voter information website like the League of Women Voters does; we are writing biographies to be read a year from now and ten and fifty years from now. I don't think that these two articles have to behave in the same fashion. Do you expect the Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson articles to look the same? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I have not made up my mind, and was interested in hearing what others might have to say. I thought the analogy to the Obama article might be helpful, particularly since that article is FA. But apparently that analogy is deemed disruptive. I would sincerely prefer if others would please try to simply disagree, rather than make unwarranted accusations of disruption. Anyway, let's consider the list of "controversial" McCain quotes on its own merits. Check out this template:

{{Copy section to Wikiquote}}

Why should this template not be applicable to the list of quotes in the McCain article? I have concerns that the list of quotes is currently discussed in a less-than-encyclopedic manner, and I'm unaware of other biographical articles that include lists of quotes. Why is it preferable to not integrate quotes chronologically into the article text? And why is it not undue weight to emphasize controversial quotes by listing so many of these?

Also, I am inclined to think that several items on this list of quotes are given undue attention. For example, there's this paragraph about the word "gook:

“ McCain openly used the term "gook", in reference to his Vietnamese torturers during the Vietnam War, even since his return as a POW.[52] During the 2000 presidential campaign, he repeatedly refused to apologize for his continued use of the term, stating that he reserved its reference only to his captors.[261] Late in the primary season, with growing criticism from the Asian American community in the politically important state of California, McCain reversed his position, and vowed to no longer use the term in public.[262] Most Vietnamese Americans, who are mostly refugees from the Communist government, did not find his terminology offensive, and overwhelmingly supported him.[263][264][265] ”

That's six footnotes, and 105 words! How about, "Until the year 2000, McCain used the term 'gook' in reference to the individuals who had tortured him in Vietnam, and most Vietnamese Americans did not find that use offensive." Same goes for the other listed quotes.

And here’s 120 words about McCain joking on the Daily Show that he brought back an IED for Stewart:

“ During a taping of The Daily Show on April 24, 2007, host Jon Stewart asked McCain, "What do you want to start with, the bomb Iran song or the walk through the market in Baghdad?" McCain responded by saying, "I think maybe shopping in Baghdad ... I had something picked out for you, too – a little IED to put on your desk." On April 25, 2007, representative John Murtha demanded an apology from McCain on the floor of the House, where Murtha said that to make jokes about bringing IEDs back for comedians was unconscionable when so many soldiers are dying from IEDs in Iraq.[268] McCain responded by telling Murtha and other critics to "Lighten up and get a life."[269] ”

How about, “McCain coarsely joked on the Daily Show in 2007 that he brought back an IED for host John Stewart.” Why do we need to cite an anti-war Democrat making partisan hay out of that incident? The exchange with Murtha was typical partisan sniping.

I also have difficulty understanding the concept attributed to John Karaagac in the first few sentences of the “Cultural and political image” section. If the notion is that McCain has institutional loyalty to the military which may interfere with his duties as a civilian leader, then that could be phrased much more clearly (and backed up with facts). Also, the following setence in that same section is much too long, and convoluted, and I don't understand what much of it means:

“ Reason and Los Angeles Times writer Matt Welch, author of McCain: The Myth of a Maverick, sees political pundits as projecting their own ideological fantasies upon McCain,[250] and McCain's "maverick" persona more importantly shields McCain's impulses assembling towards the goal of "restor[ing] your faith in the U.S. government by any means necessary," which would often involve statist solutions, with Theodore Roosevelt as a model and in the end the realization "that Americans 'were meant to transform history' and that sublimating the individual in the service of that 'common national cause' is the wellspring of honor and purpose." ”

I'll be glad to try to re-write that “Cultural and political image” section of the article if there's some consensus about how it ought to be improved.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll give it a try, and you all can switch it back if you would like.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done. If people decide to keep a list of quotes, I think it's now more concise, less bloated. Plus, the Karaagac and Welch material is now cleaned up.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I will give Welch another go at some point. He is the most serious analyst with a contrarian viewpoint on McCain, and his perspective likely needs more representation in this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The topic is inherently unstable at this time since the subject is the presumptive Republican nominee for the president of the United States. If he is elected, the article will become even more unstable. If he is not elected, we can revisit the issue. Awadewit | talk 01:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you aware that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both featured articles?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. Hillary Clinton is not a featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. It was nominated but not promoted. And thanks for formatting the template, I didn't know how to do that.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support When looking over these comments I expected the worst, but the article in question appears more than ready to become FA, aside from the stability issue (which would likely become more evident in the coming months). If the nomination does fail (which is a strong possibility at this point), then perhaps the article should wait until the 2008 election is resolved, or even until sometime in early 2009 when current events can be viewed in retrospect, before another attempt.  Comandante Talk 02:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Object per the most recent events. Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 04:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Article is entirely too long – see WP:SS; “early life and military career” and “political career” sections are long enough to be articles themselves – the “political career” section an especially good candidate (no pun intended) for a split. I’m also concerned about NPOV. Sentences such as “He did not take well to those of higher rank arbitrarily wielding power over him…”, although sourced and no doubt true, are made, in this case, in the context of discussing his “rebellious” nature and run-ins with authority (typically negative comments), but end up being backhanded compliments. This may certainly not be the intent, but an article satisfying “brilliant prose” should not leave a reader doubting the authors’ motives. Additionally, displaying the ribbon icons for his military decorations is over the top. By all means, discuss them (prose > list, too), but this isn’t a trophy case, folks. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The author's motivation is establishing the biographical subject's lifelong character. The guy that got the demerits in school is the same guy that gave the finger during the North Vietnamese propaganda show, that makes rude or politically incorrect remarks, that is a maverick on issues, that has ticked off talk radio and movement conservatism. If you read any of the McCain biographies (the two Timberg books, the Alexander book, the Arizona Republic multi-part series, McCain's own books), you'll see the same character theme established. These aren't "negative comments" or "compliments", they are just McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral It is not easy to make an FAC - let alone on a presidential candidate.

  • Sections under political carrer are first: U.S. Congressman and more children, U.S. Senate career begins, Keating Five, A "maverick" senator, And then a series of years - I'd like to see consistency.

--Kiyarrllston 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. In the last few days, the article has been undergoing a large-scale reduction in size, per WP:SIZE, WP:SUMMARY, and load time complaints, with much material being sent out to a series of subarticles. This process is not yet done, and may take awhile to settle out. The article that all the above reviewers commented upon no longer exists. In addition, the formatting work for an FA-quality article was never done. Doing a reduction of this scale is non-trivial and it is quite possible that the essence of the subject has been lost. I would want a period of smoothing and watching for opinions as to what was left in and what was left out, before another FA were to be attempted. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted 02:29, 3 March 2008.

[edit] Brain

previous FAC

Nominator: All the problems cited in the previous FAC have been addressed and corrected. It now fulfills the FA criteria. -- Leptictidium (mammal talk!) 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose Comments Reads real good so far, will go read it more in depth after to see if I can get anything else that could be worked on. So far two things I saw.
This image [[37]] is blurred and out of focus. And I do think it would be better if it would be changed to an image of an actual dish. As of now, it makes more sense on Comparative Anatomy then Nourishment.
On the lead it reads the brain is the control center of the central nervous system, responsible for behavior.. I'm no physician but I'm sure it controls more than behavior, logical thought for example. Samuel Sol (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It needs a lot more of inline citations than it has now. I think only section has them. Samuel Sol (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. More references. In complex, there are very-short sections. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I really hoped this would be an FA, but it still needs a significant work to out into to become one. Here are a the first issues that come into my mind:
  1. MANY MORE references -right now it has only 18, and anything bellow ~50 is way too little for an article of this size and which covers so much current research literature; I would suggest to aim for 100+ refs.
  2. the format of the article seems fairly random. sections are not put into a logical order.
  3. insufficient discussion on invertebrate brain. maybe try adding at least an image for this segment
  4. intro sould probably recieve a bit of expansion, and perhaps better written
  5. more skematic images would definately help
  6. maybe a table with brain sizes/masses among different species or groups

Try looking at Cerebellum maybe it would help. Nergaal (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose As above, a very poorly referenced article, not even to GA standard.--GrahamColmTalk 10:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:58, 2 March 2008.

[edit] One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

Self-nominator : I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel the novella is an important book. It looks good and feels like it should be featured. LOTRrules (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose This article is not comprehensive - it does not explain the themes of the book or the style of the writing. The majority of the article is plot summary and a list of characters. Also, the article is not based on solid scholarship. Someone has already provided a helpful list of books from which to begin this research on the talk page of the article. Awadewit | talk 07:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Done I've written the theme.
  • Not Done the citations though I'm going to get the citations later on. Watch this space LOTRrules (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with GrahamColm that this article has been nominated too early. Substantial additions such as the ones suggested above and substantial research should not be undertaken during the FAC process. Such revisions will take weeks, if not months. Awadewit | talk 20:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Awadewit and clearly there is much work needed for this article to reach FA status. I see the list of sources I suggested [38] has been simply pasted into the article. This was not my intent. The list was meant to guide editors to useful sources. This one:Dostoevsky's The House of the Dead has nothing to with Solzhenitsyn; I suggested it because it's a literary precursor to the novella. Although, Alexis Klimof, One Day in the life of Ivan Denisovich; A critical Companion. ISBN 0-8101-1214-0 did make it to the references, little use seems to have been made of this, (IMO), valuable source. The article has been nominated for FAC too early. Please take these comments, and others that may follow, as constructive and encouraging. When you think it's ready, I suggest a peer review and nomination as a Good Article. Please don't give up on the article.--GrahamColmTalk 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay I'll do it in 3 days. And I'll remove the referances that you pointed out. LOTRrules (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Two fair use book covers are being used. WP:NFCC#3A states “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole” and NFCC#8 states “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic”. Stated purposes are “Illustrate infobox in article “ and “Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of this article topic.” Why couldn’t just one image accomplish these purposes? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
One is the orginal and the others is by Willits - since it was written by Solzhenitsyn the book cover is in the infobox, however the Willits translation was the only translation accepted and authorised by Sol. In total there were approximately three maybe four translations and the Willits one (the second cover) was considered the best of the lot. LOTRrules (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Your response does not address the concerns. How does a second book cover, regardless of the author of the (non visible) text therein, significantly contribute to our understanding of the topic? The existence of any number of versions does not justify additional FU. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Numerous issues, mostly concerning 1A. Thorough copy-editing and expansion appear to be needed.
    • Inconsistent English variant usage amongst same words (e.g. “labour camp” and “labor camp”) and throughout the article (e.g. British spelling “centres”, “de-stalinisation”, etc. and American spelling “authorize”, “humanize”, etc.)
    • Number agreement issues, e.g. plural camps called “the Gulag”, “they” referring to a single newspaper, etc.
    • Periods not used correctly (e.g. “1953.[5] for writing…”), at all (e.g. “liked[8] ‘Somebody…’”), or redundantly (e.g. “magazine.[5].”)
    • Grammar problems, e.g. “Solzhenitsyn described him as being cruel and full of malice, he was known” should use a semi-colon
    • Jargon, e.g. dispensary
    • Summary style problems, e.g. unduly long discussion of “Old Man Whiskers”
    • Awkward prose, e.g. “After being released from the exile that followed his imprisonment” (why was he exiled, by the way?)
    • Questionable prose: “but whether this is merely Shukhov's hope is left for the reader to decide.” Seems to be OR, or, at best, prose not befitting an encyclopedia
    • OR: “a minor punishment compared to others mentioned in the book”
    • Comprehensiveness: insufficient discussion of themes (e.g. Russian literary realism), no discussion of style, seemingly insufficient discussion of political impact on author, Russia and internationally, etc.
    • Theme section has no citations
    • Heavy reliance on primary sources; minimal third party sources required per WP:V/WP:RS
    • Unambiguous fair use violations ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose So sorry, but for reasons I gave here: [39], and please accept all these comments as a review. The article is good, but not good enough yet; but it's got lots of potential. The secondary sources are so important, even AS did not realise the impact this book would have on Russian and world history. Khrushchev's approval of the publication of the book backfired on him and he lost his position, (albeit for other related reasons), and the novella was withdrawn from Soviet libraries. The article is missing AS's motive; why did he write the book? Why did he offer it to Tvardovsky's Novy Mir? Did AS realise the danger he was putting himself in? The article answers none of these very important questions. Also, (Tony hates this word), also, AS uses the very strong language, (in the UK we call it swearing), this came as a shock to Tvardovsky, and the Novy Mir readership. All this and much more is missing from the article, and these are some of the many reasons why it is not ready for FA. Graham.--GrahamColmTalk 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:13, 1 March 2008.

[edit] Pascal (programming language)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because:

It includes a lot of Wikipedia's Style Guidelines. It has necessary internal links and very useful complete list of external links. It has sufficient list of references. The article contains excellent info about basic principles of Pascal language and about history of Pascal progress. Any image is not necessary for this article. Tim32 (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • No inline citations!
  • Lead needs to be expanded to form a concise summary of the article. See WP:LEAD
  • A number of the paragraphs are short, making the prose choppy.
  • There is a lot of unreferenced criticism, but was Pascal well-received anywhere?
  • The external links section needs to conform to WP:EL
  • Think about reducing the "see also" section.
  • Further reading section needs to be alphabeticised by author's surname.
  • "List of related standards" section only has one item.
  • "Compilers and interpreters" section has a lot of embedded external links. Think about making the external links footnotes, using the citation templates available.
  • There are a number of other issues, and this is too early for FAC. The nominator has only edited this article once, so I recommend a peer review and copyedit. I don't think this can all be accomplished at FAC, so I also recommend that the nominator removes the candidate until this has been done. This is merely a suggestion.

PeterSymonds | talk 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This is definitely not going to pass without some hard work; I agree with the items listed above. Gary King (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some listed items, but I do not think that this article needs citations, that "see also" section has to be reduced and that lead needs to be expanded. Anyhow this discussion will be very useful for the article, so lets wait for other ideas...--Tim32 (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Oppose
    • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article
    • History section needs to also list the full name of the designer - people don't necessarily read the infobox or lead (I never read infoboxes)
    • You do need citations for some comments. Here are examples (I didn't finish the article)
      • "and all types of Pascal programs can be used for both education and software development."
      • "Variants of Pascal are still widely used today" (and when is today? will that still be accurate in a few years?)
      • "Pascal was the primary high-level language used for development in the Apple Lisa, and "
      • "Wirth's intention was to create an efficient language (regarding both compilation speed and generated code) based on so-called structured programming"
      • "a concept which had recently become popular."
      • "Other languages that influenced Pascal's development were COBOL, ALGOL 68, Simula 67, and Wirth's own Algol-W ."
      • "Niklaus Wirth reports that a first attempt to implement it in Fortran in 1969 was unsuccessful due to Fortran's inadequacy to express complex data structures"
      • "The GNU Pascal compiler is one notable exception, being written in C."
      • "The first successful port of the CDC Pascal compiler to another mainframe was completed by Welsh and Quinn at the Queen's University of Belfast in 1972. The target was the ICL 1900 computer"
    • Don't use italics in the brief description section. It might be worthwhile to wikilink to some of those words for people unfamiliar with programming (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting))
    • Don't use bolding for emphasis either (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting))
    • Do not link to external URLS in the body of the article (compilers section)
    • I don't think the article needs to try to contain a complete list of compilers. Maybe list one or two, and split the rest off into List of Pascal compilers
    • There are a lot of very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined if possible
    • Trim the See Also list if possible. Generally if the term is wikilinked in the article it should not be in the See Also
    • The External links section needs to be trimmed.

Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: minor criterion three issue. Featured articles need at least one image – implicit per WP:FACR “It has images …” and explicit per WP:GVF “Featured articles must have images …” (emphasis in original). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for calling WP:GVF to my attention; I've deleted that phrase. WP:FACR is the appropriate page, it says "It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status", and a GA page doesn't enter into the equation at WP:FAC. Also, that was recently added, so probably escaped attention til now.[40] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough; somehow I had a hunch the WP:GVF wouldn't fly. In any case, we have free images of Niklaus Wirth and, better yet Blaise Pascal. That being the case (especially for the namesake), I think the "It has images ... where they are appropriate to the subject" concern stands. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:13, 1 March 2008.

[edit] Hilary Duff

Self-Nominator-I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is already a GA and i guess it deserves to be a FA. I submitted the article for peer review and there were no major issues raised there. Almost all issues raised during GA nominations and peer review have been addressed. The article has more than 100 references and is detailed and up-to-date according to me. So i guess the next step is FA....thanx Gprince007 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - Well done comprehensive article, with a great amount of references, and otherwise detailed. Hello32020 (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Addendum: Article should be copy edited though, including the problems listed the below. Hello32020 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose - The prose needs significant improvement.

  • "The album sold over 1.5 million copies in the U.S. in eight months,[47] but its only U.S. single, "Fly", failed to chart on the Hot 100,[48] despite being accompanied by a popular video." - I thought that sentence would never end!
  • "As a fashion designer, she had designed clothes for Barbie dolls in the past[64] but with the release of her doll, she joined Reese Witherspoon, Beyonce Knowles and Lucille Ball who have their own dolls.[64]" - what?
  • "It was reported that Carter left Duff for Lindsay Lohan, but soon broke up with Lohan and resumed dating Duff. Carter later stated that he also cheated on Duff with her best friend, and that Duff "got her heart broken" and he was "sorry" for his actions.[70] "
  • "Several reviews were particularly harsh towards Duff's vocals, with critics pointing out what appeared to be her digitally enhanced voice[30][31][32][33] and indifferent towards her acting performance." - that sentence is hard enough to read without the "[30][31][32][33]" bang in the middle.
  • "Duff and celebrities such as Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson have often been criticized for displaying their dogs as fashion accessories rather than pets.[67]" lol, surely there is a better way of putting that. Why is it in the Entrepreneurship section? And thats just one reviewer you are quoting, making it POV.
  • "She earned $15 million in 2005[1] and $12 million in 2006 and 2007." why is this in the lead?
  • "She said she has been feeling pressure to be thin, stating that she is perceived in the media to be either too fat or too thin. Duff called this "judgmental" and "mean"." Tense issues; the second sentence is more suitable for a magazine article than a formal encyclopedia.
  • "Duff's "ghetto" comments sparked a mixture of mild offense and bemusement from residents of the Waldorf area, as the suburban, mostly middle-class town did not fall into the traditional impoverished inner city concept of a ghetto.[91]" Again, extremely trivial nonsense more suitable for a tabloid than Wikipedia.

And so many more, the article needs a significant rewrite. indopug (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

reworded most of the sentences and addressed most of the queries raised. Gprince007 (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons cited above. The League of Copyeditors might be able to help. 24.126.197.197 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now - Numerous prose issues raised above. LOCE recommended, but any copyedit should pick up the majority of the blatant stuff. Early life and career section is pretty short for someone so famous, plus the "and career" is ambiguous (which career...?). Content in Further reading section is meaningless as currently formatted. Some images of her time in acting would be good. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:13, 1 March 2008.

[edit] The Last Temptation of Krust

Self nomination. This is a stable WP:GA-rated article that has had a Peer Review. The article is part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 9). I believe it meets the criteria, and will do my best to address comments as they crop up in this FAC discussion. Thanks for taking a look, Cirt (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments. I'd like if the writing was looked over again, as so it is more professionally written.
    • Bart and Jay Leno get Krusty cleaned up - Get is such a weak word that it should be avoided. Additionally, it's not clear what cleaning up means, as it could mean either literally bathing him, cleaning up his act, etc.
    • He later sells out - sell out is vernacular; perhaps an alternative could be used, rather than using the exact phrase three times
    • Although less marketable and financially successful - quick question. Does this mean he is less marketable, but at the same time financially successful, or does it mean he is neither marketable nor financially successful?
  • Also, regarding the plot, is this sentence terribly important to the plot? When Homer asks Marge for all of their money, she gives some cash to Lisa and asks her to bury it in the backyard. I hate to ask, but is there a source for the plot itself? Is the fact that he is now credible and trendy very explicit in the episode? After all, Krusty goes back to his old ways pretty easily at the end of the episode.
  • Regarding the referencing, how come the commentaries are from the episode "Lisa the Skeptic"?

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

Okay, will work on addressing these above points, must have just goofed with the citation for the commentaries, sorry about that. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. Changed to "Bart and Jay Leno bathe Krusty in the Simpsons' house" Cirt (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. "sells out" is such a succinct way of putting it - but I changed that sentence to "He later agrees to a deal with marketing executives in return for a new "Canyonero" sport utility vehicle, and hawks products during his next comedy appearance. " Cirt (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. "Although less marketable and financially successful, " -- Removed awkward phrasing, not needed. Cirt (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. When Homer asks Marge for all of their money, she gives some cash to Lisa and asks her to bury it in the backyard. -- This sentence in the plot is necessary to later understand something analyzed/discussed later in the article, in the Reception section. Cirt (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Fixed citation for the commentaries. Cirt (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. The source for the plot is the plot itself, this is commonly done in a good deal of WP:FA articles on The Simpsons, and actually also on films, and I've checked in the past with this at WP:FILM. Cirt (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. he is now credible and trendy -- Removed this phrasing, per comment from above. Cirt (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The reception section has a lot of unnecessary info; those other six episodes don't need to be listed and that "Among the 22-minute gems..." quote can't be shortened (maybe taken out of quotes too) because it details a lot of his opinions about other episodes. indopug (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

Okay, I will take a look at that and note changes here. Cirt (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. Removed mention of the other episodes. Cirt (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Shortened quote. Cirt (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Comments --Laser brain (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Prose looks great! (What, expecting to only see complaints here?)
    • The fair use rationale template for Image:The Simpsons 5F10.png is not correctly completed. The portion used is not "all"; that would mean you used the whole episode. The "source" is not a source - you need to specify if you got it from a web site, or if it's self-made.
    • I don't get the significance of pointing out that one TV station mis-labeled the episode. I would only mention that if several stations had done it, and you have a secondary source that points that out. Otherwise it's OR.
    • "Bender" is probably too colloquial or informal for our audience. Same with "hawks".
    • Is there a consensus that having an unsourced plot summary is acceptable for TV show articles? I see this a lot, but it needs to have secondary sources. Otherwise, the reader is left with your interpretation of the plot, which is OR.
    • "Mike Scully noted that the National Hockey League sent a letter which he described as a "kind of a cease and desist", but they decided not to cut the scene from the episode." Rewrite. Refers to "they" but the only "they" in the sentence is the NHL. I'm sure the NHL didn't decide not to cut the scene.
    • "The episode was still being animated three weeks before its airdate, and the production process moved frantically as the episode neared completion." Is there any indication that this doesn't happen for every episode? Not sure why it's being called out. --Laser brain (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Response

Thanks for these comments, I'll get on these and note changes here below. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. Prose looks great! -- Thanks, nice to hear some positive comments once in a while at a FAC discussion! Cirt (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Fixed the fair use rationale for that image, per the above comments. Cirt (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. It's important to note that some sources referred to this episode mistakenly as "The Last Temptation of Krusty", instead of its actual title, "The Last Temptation of Krust". I will try to find some more sources for this, but if I can't, I'll remove it, as you suggested. Cirt (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    Update: -- Added more sources for this. Cirt (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Changed one instance of "bender", the other is a direct quote from the episode. Changed wording from "hawk" to "markets". Cirt (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Is there a consensus that having an unsourced plot summary is acceptable for TV show articles? I see this a lot, but it needs to have secondary sources. Otherwise, the reader is left with your interpretation of the plot, which is OR. -- Yes, there is in fact a consensus for this. It is done in many stable accepted consensus WP:FA articles, including articles on television episodes, as well as films. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Clarified this, changed "they" to "production staff" - per the source. Cirt (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. This was something that was specifically highlighted and commented on in the DVD commentary, and there is no indication that this happens for every episode, no. Cirt (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I have stricken most of my comments. I'll watch for the follow-up on the mislabeling item. --Laser brain (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, and I'll keep you posted on that last one. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the hard work on this - changed to support above. --Laser brain (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.